Vote of no confidence.

[Projectzomboidfan]

Hello. While i am aware that a proposition like this is somewhat redundant, I feel it is a great addition to MRP. It does not have to be followed, like SOP is. It is just a roleplay tool to help you play the role with your spacemans easier.
Essentially what i did is just steal the "vote of no confidence" idea from paradise station, the wording will require some tweaking as roles like the blueshield and nanotrasen representative are not present on TG.

"A Vote of No Confidence is a method for crew to arrange for demotions of unfit command members. It must have a justified reason, detailed below, against the Head of Staff or Captain in question.
Votes have to be verified by a 3rd party who will tally the votes and verify the validity of the reason for it. The 3rd party must be the on-station Captain (unless they are the target of the vote), NT Representative, Magistrate or Centcomm if none of the previous are capable of acting as such.
If the 3rd party dismisses the vote reason, the target of the vote must have their authority respected and not be further harassed about it, doing so may result in a demotion for creating an abusive work environment against them. If the department is understaffed or a tie occurs, the 3rd party may participate the vote.
Votes by departamental crew against their Head of Staff must pass with a 2/3 majority in favor of the vote for it to take effect.
Votes by Heads of Staff against their Captain must pass a simple majority in favor of the vote for it to take effect.
Justified reasons for a vote include but are not limited to; 'Causes for Demotion and Dismissal' breaches, Absenteeism, critical lack of communication, abuse of authority and incompetence, among others.
Unjustified reasons for a vote include but are not limited to; Personal gripes, reasonable and legal disciplining or firing of their staff and denial of permission, among others.
If someone is to be demoted by a vote, Centcomm is to be informed afterwards via fax the details, vote count, reasons alongside other relevant information of the demotion."

While yes, i feel MRP can handle just fine without this change, i want it added for formality and more "roleplay" if you catch my drift

[massa]

This is actually already a game mode called revolutionaries, and I'm not even being snarky.

Nanotrasen has a nuke on board and death squads to kill you. You don't get to vote against command, or get a say at all, that becomes a fight or mutiny. Nanoraisin follows a naval command structure of sorts. "Command" doesn't imply much choice.

[TheLoLSwat]

command staff being demoted is one of the most complex crew-facing social interactions we have (that can occur atleast semi-regularly). I dont agree with putting more even more policytape over it. There are already many avenues to take if you think your head is incompetent and you want to oust them

[TheRex9001]

I like nanotrasen as an iron grip organization, but this is still kinda cool, I don't think this should be in policy but having something like this somewhere might be neat, not sure where though.

[dirk_mcblade]

IC issue, if the players can organize this during a round that's their prerogative, a server policy would be a waste of time.

[Metek]

This is actually already a game mode called revolutionaries, and I'm not even being snarky.

Nanotrasen has a nuke on board and death squads to kill you. You don't get to vote against command, or get a say at all, that becomes a fight or mutiny. Nanoraisin follows a naval command structure of sorts. "Command" doesn't imply much choice.

Seconding this.

Space station 13 is smack dab in the middle of frontier space while constantly under attack by various supernatural or paramilitary forces. It's not really the kind of place where a bunch of meta friends get together and decide they think their Captain is a real jerk and they want their bestie to be Captain instead.

The discord clique civil disobedience problem is bad enough without offering an avenue to legitimize it through in character methods.

[Bepis]

I don't think it needs to be wrapped in policy, captains/heads need to have the gumption to do shit about whatever shitassery people are pulling.

[Vekter]

We already generally allow the crew to overthrow the command structure if they're acting like shitheads. You just need to be certain whatever they're doing is bad enough to warrant it.

If you're not certain if this is something you should be doing or not, adminhelp before doing it.

[dendydoom]

We already generally allow the crew to overthrow the command structure if they're acting like shitheads. You just need to be certain whatever they're doing is bad enough to warrant it.

If you're not certain if this is something you should be doing or not, adminhelp before doing it.

yeah, basically this.

the basis of our rules is IC reasoning. if you put effort into something like a mutiny because you're motivated by something that happened ICly, then it's already allowed.

i am generally against codifying this sort of purely roleplay situation within rules because it means that there's a specific "right" and "wrong" way to do it, and people tend to get lost in lawyering which is which.

we generally have better results from respecting the effort and recognizing the IC motivation that players put behind their actions. a round that has a purely IC driven mutiny because of something command did that round is much more interesting to me than "i have a rev antag datum" and by extension "i have ticked off all the boxes on the 'when you are allowed to mutiny' rule on the rules page" because they become contrived rather than emergent situations.

[Metek]

I'd love to agree with you Dendy but being able to get a "emergent roleplay situation" punch on your "don't get a ban for doing this" ticket can be entirely down to the admin overseeing the situation, or the participants being overseen, rather than on the basis of how engaging the story was or how justified your in-character motivations were.

I'm gonna have to cast a vote of no confidence in that philosophy panning out well in this particular environment. For most of us, anyway.

[iain0]

We're not going to make any policy changes regarding this.

Rest of this post is just my personal takes.




As mentioned, actual problematic command can be dealt with, and I appreciate that can feel like a crap shoot as a player, but if you're genuinely good faith engaging with the sentiment you should be okay. The problem with these rules typically comes down to players who seek a specific outcome then will construct a framework to engineer that outcome ; this happens all over the place, i've seen people make bombs then literally watched them try get themselves into a safe bombing position a few times before they finally blew up anyway ; as the old proverb goes something like "to a person with a hammer, every problem is a nail". This person had a bomb, and wanted to bomb, and spent their time trying to engineer that outcome until the decreasing shuttle timer made them take one risk too many. It didn't go well for them, particularly since I'd watched their prior attempts to get people to move away from antags so they could explode someone.

Regarding the idea of having a voting power structure, this doesn't really play into the backstory which is effectively a corporation that has some militaristic hints to it, both of these almost always follow a top down hierarchy, and a notable ammount of players already act as if the station were a democracy for some reason. However making any kind of policy around this doesn't really seem appropriate or necessary, e.g. shuttle calls are expected to take into account the round state and players, outsourcing that to popular opinion is just lazily covering your own ass, but really command should be able to make rational decisions on this regardless (because that's their IC job). Handling members of command and even the captain already have their own place within this structure.

Will say, if you're the Captain, you can probably create this "democratic reinvention of capitalism" or whatever as your station gimmick, captains have a lot of power to basically just shake things up and do things differently ; you'll have to IC this as in use your authority as a captain to back these actions, but it could be interesting (though probably wont be most of the time). Also don't overdo it if you do this, all gimmicks are best as an occasional flavour rather than a consistent meta. That said this isn't too different to how this should work anyway ; if you don't like your boss you either complain to HR (HOP) or their boss (Captain). Cap can then use input from department members as a whole in their decision anyway.