/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

I started a discussion in secret adminbus subforum centered around our lax standards for behavior and job conduct for our Heads of Personnel.

It boils down to this: A HoP exercises a lot of authority over the station and can very easily throw a wrench into other departments, or give Security hordes of new trespassers to chase after. We don't currently hold them accountable for anything anyone does with the access they've been granted, nor do we require them to confer with other heads of staff before giving people access to their areas. Since I've been back I've witnessed a lot of HoP behavior I think detracts from the game, and I've seen more than enough cries in OOC of "Why isn't this guy Jobbanned?" to think something should change.

I'd like to conduct a survey of the playerbase to make sure it's a sentiment mirrored in the playerbase as well before we get too far along in talking about how we can deal with it.

A simple yes/no vote is fine. Please don't post "Oh yeah SO AND SO is a terrible asshole ban he". I don't want this to devolve into a bunch of ad hom attacks and defenses. Thank you.

Well actually people either said that they want heads of relevant departments decide whether or not they want more people or I misunderstood something. But I'm pretty sure people said they don't want HoP to decide.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:

Scott wrote:The HoS is in charge of enforcing Space Law.

Well there you go, a living example of head having authority beyond his department.

His authority is extended when Space Law is broken. HoP's authority is extended when he becomes acting Captain. If he is not acting Captain, he's the guy who has access to an ID console, that doesn't mean he can steal access or give illegal access.

kosmos wrote: The biggest problem is, like you said, that HoP's departments need no management.
If the cargo + civil -departments had even anything remotely to do with HoP, this would make HoP's job feel like you're actually needed, instead of after the roundstart-rush most HoPs going "guess I'll just go be batman now or whatever...". I've idea how cargo and civil departments should be overhauled, though. Remove QM and replace with HoP?

People keep saying this but how often do the see hydroponics grow nothing but dank, shrooms, and bananas; compared to them growing actual food?
How often do you see cargo hoarding points for themselves and building autism forts; instead of ordering things for the crew, either reactively or proactively?
How often do you see assistants breaking in everywhere and generally being dicks; compared to doing something useful?
When was the last time you saw the clown or mime be actually funny and entertaining, instead of being an unfunny prick?
When was the last time you saw the bartender and chef put on a banquette or throw a party?

Fact is the department of misfits and discontents that makes up the HoP's underlings needs the most management of any department.

Truth.

Scott wrote:>heads aren't always right

That's not for you, as HoP, to decide. If it's not your department, you have no authority.

Bingo. You're not the captain. You don't get to micromanage departments that aren't yours. Your example with the HoS is a red herring. You show me a HoS walking into sci and telling a telesci tech or roboticist what to do outside of arrest and search procedures and I'll show you a HoS that is going beyond his authority. You keep going back to this as though access = authority but its really not. Ability to access a department does not translate to an ability to administrate that department. I mean, you can complain all you want about how "supply and service are a joke" but that's not a ticket to go find another department to manage. Either do something with what IS your jurisdiction, or play a job that lets you manage those other departments while actually having responsibility for them. That's really what you're not getting. Heads of staff are in charge of their department because they're responsible for what happens there. The HoP is not in authority to administrate Science because he has no responsibility for anything that occurs there.

cedarbridge wrote:Your example with the HoS is a red herring. You show me a HoS walking into sci and telling a telesci tech or roboticist what to do outside of arrest and search procedures and I'll show you a HoS that is going beyond his authority.

HoS is enforcing the law and HoP is managing access, neither have the authority over people. Tell me what's wrong with this approach.

cedarbridge wrote:You keep going back to this as though access = authority but its really not. Ability to access a department does not translate to an ability to administrate that department. I mean, you can complain all you want about how "supply and service are a joke" but that's not a ticket to go find another department to manage. Either do something with what IS your jurisdiction, or play a job that lets you manage those other departments while actually having responsibility for them. That's really what you're not getting. Heads of staff are in charge of their department because they're responsible for what happens there. The HoP is not in authority to administrate Science because he has no responsibility for anything that occurs there.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Managing assignments != having authority.

At least don't make me repeat myself.

With your approach there might as well be no HoP. We should instead make ID consoles with JUST department access, operated by heads, in their offices or near front doors. And give captain the current one. I don't think it should be this way.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:With your approach there might as well be no HoP. We should instead make ID consoles with JUST department access, operated by heads, in their offices or near front doors. And give captain the current one. I don't think it should be this way.

There have already been lists made of all the things the HoP can do that don't involve medling in the departments of other Heads without invitation or good reason. Shockingly, these activities don't require the HoP to go over anyone's head or use any access or authority he/she didn't already start with at shift start. In fact, a large number of those totally legitimate activities don't even require the use of the ID console. I mean, I get that you seem to have this concept that HoPs are only "useful" if they're sitting at their desk assigning people jobs to departments (something you still seem to think doesn't require even token attention to the person in charge of that department.)

Believe it or not, you are exercising authority (undue) over departments when you authorize job changes to those departments. You're actively taking a hand in saying who will and will not work in that department. You're then somehow absolved of any of the consequences of that choice because they're now (Head of Department)'s problem now. That's shitty and you should feel bad for thinking its anything but.

Let me ask you this.

What's legitimately bad about HoP, objectively the most informed person on the station, making a decision about someone's employment?

If you're gonna talk about how he might do something bad and that is enough to remove that part of his job, then we should have whole station of independent all access assistants, since that argument can be applied in virtually any situation where someone depends on another person.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Let me ask you this.

What's legitimately bad about HoP, objectively the most informed person on the station, making a decision about someone's employment?

If you're gonna talk about how he might do something bad and that is enough to remove that part of his job, then we should have whole station of independent all access assistants, since that argument can be applied in virtually any situation where someone depends on another person.

Shouldn't the person managing the employee be the one to make that decision? Considering that they're the one who's going to be managing and working with them, not the HoP.

If I can use an analogy based on interviews in RL, HoP is like the HR interviewer while the other heads are the specific industry/technical interviewers. So I suppose they're both important but its wrong for the HoP to make the decision by himself.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Objectively the most informed person on the station, making a decision about someone's employment?

Please tell me the tales of the Head of Personnel who walked into every department to check the status of each employee and whether they were fucking off or doing their job, compared to the normal heads of staff who have significantly less to keep track of and are able to make more informed decisions about their workers. It's a two-part problem, if the heads don't want more turds floating in their department they should tell the HoP, and he should fucking listen.

Which is why HoP can ask the head and still be the person with most information, ultimately making the decision.

I mean, why would I be against HoP asking head's advise? I'm against this whole "head doesn't answer means you cannot give the relevant job to a person" thing. And frankly I'm all for asking head to come down and talk with applying guys, it's just they never do.

Saegrimr wrote:

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Objectively the most informed person on the station, making a decision about someone's employment?

Please tell me the tales of the Head of Personnel who walked into every department to check the status of each employee and whether they were fucking off or doing their job, compared to the normal heads of staff who have significantly less to keep track of and are able to make more informed decisions about their workers. It's a two-part problem, if the heads don't want more turds floating in their department they should tell the HoP, and he should fucking listen.

why should a head of staff which has 10 times the shit to do then HoP be responsible for employment?

Antonkr wrote:why should a head of staff which has 10 times the shit to do then HoP be responsible for employment?

Because if the head of staff is NOT making sure his employees aren't fucking off and starting a "book club" in xenobio, or the likes, he probably should rethink being a head.
Takes like 5 seconds to say ":c Hey HoP, we're full up here on Science, don't send any more."

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:What's legitimately bad about HoP, objectively the most informed person on the station, making a decision about someone's employment?

You're still sticking to that "Objectively the most informed" bit as though it were true. I'll still maintain the head of the department will always be more informed about the needs of their department than a guy sitting at a console watching job slot numbers count up or down.

You ask this question while choosing not to respond to the fact that the HoP has essentially zero responsibility for their assignments after the new guy leaves his line with his shiny new ID. You want the HoP to have authority in departments (via determining who can work in those departments without requirement to even speak to the affected department's head of staff) without the responsibility for any fallout. Its not that something "can be done" its that you're literally asking for the ability to do so and phrasing it as something being taken away.

So you essentially want HoP removed and let heads assign their own? Okay.

cedarbridge wrote:I'll still maintain the head of the department will always be more informed about the needs of their department than a guy sitting at a console watching job slot numbers count up or down.

You could at least explain yourself when you make statements.

Antonkr wrote:

Saegrimr wrote:

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Objectively the most informed person on the station, making a decision about someone's employment?

Please tell me the tales of the Head of Personnel who walked into every department to check the status of each employee and whether they were fucking off or doing their job, compared to the normal heads of staff who have significantly less to keep track of and are able to make more informed decisions about their workers. It's a two-part problem, if the heads don't want more turds floating in their department they should tell the HoP, and he should fucking listen.

why should a head of staff which has 10 times the shit to do then HoP be responsible for employment?

Because if he already has 10 times the shit to do and the HoP irresponsibly adds a bunch of new people to his apartment he now has between 11-20 times as much shit to do as he has to keep an eye on these guys, get them geared, assign them tasks, make sure they don't just start breaking shit and killing eachother, etc. etc. etc.

The HoP can very easily make what is already a significant workload that much worse.

By your own words, if the HoP already has such an easier time of things than those heads, why is it so much to ask him to do one iota more work and ask those people if they need more people before giving them more people to manage?

WELL ANYWAY we should be able to conclude this matter soon. The last headmin vote is nearly concluded and there's a fairly healthy discourse in this thread.

An0n3 wrote:Because if he already has 10 times the shit to do and the HoP irresponsibly adds a bunch of new people to his apartment he now has between 11-20 times as much shit to do as he has to keep an eye on these guys, get them geared, assign them tasks, make sure they don't just start breaking shit and killing eachother, etc. etc. etc.

Solution: do not let anyone into your department, tell HoP to close slots and do R&D by yourself. Clearly the way to go.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:So you essentially want HoP removed and let heads assign their own? Okay.

cedarbridge wrote:I'll still maintain the head of the department will always be more informed about the needs of their department than a guy sitting at a console watching job slot numbers count up or down.

You could at least explain yourself when you make statements.

Is your entire position a terracotta army of strawmen?

-Nobody advocated excluding everyone from a department
-Nobody (but you) advocated removing the HoP
You should stop. You've convincing nobody with hyperbole and strawman arguments.

If you seriously think all there is to managing a department is knowing how many people are numerically assigned to that department then I really don't know what to tell you. I don't really know how to make you see that the person ACTIVELY MANAGING THE DEPARTMENT is somehow more informed about the condition and working conditions of that department than a guy seeing it in a single digit form who apparently spoke to some guy standing in line that wants to enter that department. You're the HR guy, not the floor manager. You can determine if somebody is suitable, but not if somebody is actually needed or wanted. I don't see what's so hard to get about that.

Look, you want to take away HoP's major responsibility. What's left is all access, egun and few cargo boys you can theoretically order around. The reason mostly being as I understand that heads will have to deal with people that he sends to them. Well, heads don't own their departments either. There are people in the department who can suffer the consequences of wrong person being there and it doesn't really matter to them who makes the decision, HoP or their head. My point is, there are always people who depend on others, shit can happen, and that is not good enough reason to remove most of what HoP is supposed to do.

As for who's more informed, like I said, nothing prevents HoP from consulting others, including department heads, but he's the one who ultimately can gather all the information together, which makes him the most informed and who can decide based on applicant's preferences, available jobs, relevant head's opinion on the matter, etc. Heads only get one side of it all.

I don't get why people expect the HoP to handle cargo, considering there's already a pseudo-head that handles cargo and mining.

I don't get why people expect the HoS to handle Security, considering there's already a sub head to manage the brig and dispatching officers.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:As for who's more informed, like I said, nothing prevents HoP from consulting others, including department heads, but he's the one who ultimately can gather all the information together, which makes him the most informed and who can decide based on applicant's preferences, available jobs, relevant head's opinion on the matter, etc. Heads only get one side of it all.

So, considering the head's "opinion." RD says they don't need more scientists, but you see an open job slot and have some nobody asking to be a scientist. Fuck that RD he's getting another scientist anyway right? That's called going over his head and usurping his authority inside his department. And then when you're done you hold no responsibility for it.

Well now who's making assumptions?

First of all, seeing 4/5 or 5/5 slots I probably wouldn't consider offering job at all. Seeing 1/5 is quite enough to justify a transfer on my own. Sure, I could ask the head, but what possible reason outside of outright selfish ones they could have? Of course, if they provide a valid reason for their objection, that's one thing. Another thing is when you clearly see that there aren't any people in the department and the head refuses you because they feel like it. I would probably think twice about that kind of objection.

It's quite simple, really.

Seriously, how bad does HoP assigning people can get? I haven't had a problem with that as head player. Worst I got was having HoP assign another HoS from some assistant when I was HoS from very start. That's sheer incompetence though. I just downgraded a guy to an officer and left him with my cool suit. Later became captain and made that guy HoS.

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Well now who's making assumptions?

First of all, seeing 4/5 or 5/5 slots I probably wouldn't consider offering job at all. Seeing 1/5 is quite enough to justify a transfer on my own. Sure, I could ask the head, but what possible reason outside of outright selfish ones they could have? Of course, if they provide a valid reason for their objection, that's one thing. Another thing is when you clearly see that there aren't any people in the department and the head refuses you because they feel like it. I would probably think twice about that kind of objection.

It's quite simple, really.

Seriously, how bad does HoP assigning people can get? I haven't had a problem with that as head player. Worst I got was having HoP assign another HoS from some assistant when I was HoS from very start. That's sheer incompetence though. I just downgraded a guy to an officer and left him with my cool suit. Later became captain and made that guy HoS.

So give your thought process here, why is it then essential that you have the final say on these promotions other than power level dickwaving? It doesn't add anything to the "job" because you're still just pushing a button on an ID console except you then have the ~good feeling~ that you didn't have to ask the head but did anyway to not be a jerkass. I mean, you keep bringing up "selfish" heads of staff or whatever else you can stadle on a hypothetical ogre of a head of staff, but again, its not your job to police the heads.

You know what pisses me off as a head, when one of my subordinates asks for a different job and the HoP doesn't ask me if he has permission to change his job. Or even tell me that I'm down one subordinate if he doesn't even ask me.

Malkevin wrote:I don't get why people expect the HoS to handle Security, considering there's already a sub head to manage the brig and dispatching officers.

except that while the warden only manages one aspect of his department, the QM can manage all of it
the difference between the HoP and the QM, pertaining to cargo, is that one has all access

Really? The qm can manage the barman, chef, and botanists? He can also manage the clown mime and assistants?

Warden can do everything the hos can do as far as managing security is concerned.

Malkevin wrote:Really? The qm can manage the barman, chef, and botanists? He can also manage the clown mime and assistants?

Warden can do everything the hos can do as far as managing security is concerned.

miggles wrote:

Malkevin wrote:I don't get why people expect the HoS to handle Security, considering there's already a sub head to manage the brig and dispatching officers.

except that while the warden only manages one aspect of his department, the QM can manage all of it
the difference between the HoP and the QM, pertaining to cargo, is that one has all access

learn to goddamn read

Final decision is pending. Thank you everyone for participating. It seems like a very large majority of players and admins are in support of this decision, so we've just got to figure out the exact wording and we'll update the relevant sections of the game manuals and policy to reflect it.

Violaceus wrote:

CocaneStyle wrote:You know what pisses me off as a head, when one of my subordinates asks for a different job and the HoP doesn't ask me if he has permission to change his job. Or even tell me that I'm down one subordinate if he doesn't even ask me.

People aren't slaves to you, you know.

The real problem is that these people never return items taken from original department.

Is a last minute concern I hadn't really thought about before. It doesn't seem fair to make people returning their departments property to the department it belongs the HoP's responsibility. If anything, it seems like a sort of pseudo-theft that it would be up to the people in that department to report to sec. If a jerk wants to take a bunch of materials, gloves, and tools from engineering and then run and get changed to a clown it's ultimately down to what he ends up doing with that stuff and if sec notices and confiscates it from him.

It'd be nice for the HoP to let both people know, but that quickly be a communications clusterfuck. Let's just go with having the HoP ask the head of the department they're getting access too first.

Rise from your Gay

So we've established... again, that the HoP can not assign people to other departments without that department's head's permission.

But what about demotions?
Can the HoP demote anyone they feel like, for example because the person decided to act like a dick and hurt the HoP's feelings
From any department, even withOUT that department's head's permission?

What about other heads, if someone (who is not part of their department) is harassing their department can they beat them down and take their id, then use the bridge ID console to demote the git to sub-assistant?

And what of security?
If someone is abusing their access can security do a pseudo-demotion via confiscating their ID?
Should security have to take that ID to the HoP to have the access stripped or are we content with sec just throwing the perp out and making them do the leg work of getting a new ID themselves? (Personally I think the prisoner consoles should have an option to just strip the ID of any accesses and change the job title to *DEMOTED*.)

This code of conduct does need to be well-defined. A non-traitor HoP can open a trillion clown or mime slots, and yet give out access appropriately and be responsible. This ought to be perfectly fine.

I know people will 'toe the line', but that ought to be OK in the first place. In the second place, there have been some excellent rounds with all-access (minus ID console if the HoP is competent) clowns/mimes saving the station, and the inverse as well. I'd hate to see that sort of theatre-bias HoPs tend to have dissolve entirely as a result of this.

Furthermore, those that create the code of conduct, ought to be those that actually play the role occasionally.

Finally, the new code of conduct must be well broadcasted.

This was resolved, the wiki has been updated to reflect the new standards.

A non-traitor HoP can open a trillion clown or mime slots, and yet give out access appropriately and be responsible. This ought to be perfectly fine.

Is self-contradictory. It's irresponsible to open a million clown or mime slots. We've seen people do this and the pattern of behavior it encourages. They quickly form a gang and start harassing the entire station in groups. It happens every.single.time. a HoP does this gimmick. It doesn't change, and thus the new rules to prevent that wont change either.

The incident Malkevin points to is an isolated incident and example of one player using his IC resources to harass another player, who turned around and used his IC resources to harass him back. It doesn't set a precedent nor should rules be created specifically to explain and codify this one time thing.

But demotions are still a thing that happens with some regularity, should there not be a policy on it?
When does a demotion breech IC issue ground and go into OOC?

The questions weren't brought about by that specific incident, it just made me realise theres no real established policy beyond "Demotions are IC issues".


By the way if it came off as me supporting Jeb for throwing an autistic shitfit and getting slapped down you obviously don't know me as well as you think.

Violaceus wrote:

CocaneStyle wrote:You know what pisses me off as a head, when one of my subordinates asks for a different job and the HoP doesn't ask me if he has permission to change his job. Or even tell me that I'm down one subordinate if he doesn't even ask me.

People aren't slaves to you, you know.

Yes they are.

I am personally of the opinion that the HoP should be deposed if he is handing out high level access such as (but not limited to):
Security
Engineering
Secure storage
Any head of staff office
All-access
Science

When in doubt ask the corresponding head of staff.

Increasing jobslots is a slow process compared to handing out all access which can be used to make more all access IDs. I think it is likely totally possible to deal with it IC.

I guess I should've started a new thread...

But what about demotions?
Can the HoP demote anyone they feel like, for example because the person decided to act like a dick and hurt the HoP's feelings
From any department, even withOUT that department's head's permission?

What about other heads, if someone (who is not part of their department) is harassing their department can they beat them down and take their id, then use the bridge ID console to demote the git to sub-assistant?

And what of security?
If someone is abusing their access can security do a pseudo-demotion via confiscating their ID?
Should security have to take that ID to the HoP to have the access stripped or are we content with sec just throwing the perp out and making them do the leg work of getting a new ID themselves? (Personally I think the prisoner consoles should have an option to just strip the ID of any accesses and change the job title to *DEMOTED*.)

But demotions are still a thing that happens with some regularity, should there not be a policy on it?
When does a demotion breech IC issue ground and go into OOC?

The questions weren't brought about by that specific incident, it just made me realise theres no real established policy beyond "Demotions are IC issues".


By the way if it came off as me supporting Jeb for throwing an autistic shitfit and getting slapped down you obviously don't know me as well as you think.

As far as I'm concerned, demotions are an IC issue as long as the motive wasn't OOC, and they're not ramdomly griefing people.

Security may confiscate IDs like they confiscate anything else. Stealing IDs for their own gain is already covered under security policy.

So they are treated like most regular IC interactions. I don't see the need to specifically police either of these OOC.

Malkevin wrote:By the way if it came off as me supporting Jeb for throwing an autistic shitfit and getting slapped down you obviously don't know me as well as you think.

We've talked long enough over issues for years now, I know you well enough to know you were thinking about the precedent the situation might set and not directly choosing a side.

The instances of someone getting demoted are still very low compared to the instances of someone getting promoted. Lots of rounds go by without anyone getting demoted.

Rather than try to cook up more rules for what happens (eg. should an engineer ask the CE before he can quit?) just look at every situation as a promotion to another position, even if it's obviously a step down in rank or responsibility, and try to contact the head responsible for the department they're entering.

I would encourage HoP's to request all relevant equipment from someone before giving them a new job, and consider refusing to transfer them outright if they don't return any gear they took from their initial department. Taking insulated gloves, a tool belt, mesons, and other crap from engineering then requesting to be made into a new clown is basically theft.

I always said that other heads should have some form of ID console power, at least to remove those access's in their specific department.
Cmo should be able to remove medbay access from a doctor (Or the clown when he is given all access)
HoS should be able to remove armory/sec access from an assistant (Or more likely, captain clown)
etc etc

Falamazeer wrote:I always said that other heads should have some form of ID console power, at least to remove those access's in their specific department.
Cmo should be able to remove medbay access from a doctor (Or the clown when he is given all access)
HoS should be able to remove armory/sec access from an assistant (Or more likely, captain clown)
etc etc

They do. For many months now. There's even an ID console on the bridge they can use.

I've been a gone for a bit, My bad.
Still, doesn't seem to be being used.

HoP is such a stressful job at roundstart, but once they've assigned like 10 jobs and no one asks for any they usually fuck off. Every HoP that gave me sec access asked the HoS first( then I got 3 implants wtf). If they can't give themselves all-access, give anyone else all-access, it'll be pretty easy to meta that the HoP is bad and/or working together with someone who may also be bad. I think it's fine as it is.