Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderators: In-Game Game Master, In-Game Head Admins

Forum rules
Read these board rules before posting or you'll get reprimanded.
Threads without replies for 30 days will be automatically locked.

Should we require the HoP to adhere to a code of conduct?

Poll ended at Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:26 pm

Yes, as a Head of Staff the HoP should be focused on helping the station.
47
23%
Yes, as a Head of Staff the HoP should be focused on helping the station.
47
23%
Yes, as a Head of Staff the HoP should be focused on helping the station.
47
23%
No, the HoP should be free to give out access and assign jobs however they wish.
20
10%
No, the HoP should be free to give out access and assign jobs however they wish.
20
10%
No, the HoP should be free to give out access and assign jobs however they wish.
20
10%
 
Total votes : 201

User avatar
Ikarrus
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:17 am
Location: Canada
Byond Username: Ikarrus
Github Username: Ikarrus

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Ikarrus » Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:34 pm #40587

Malkevin wrote:For a start, we could reimplement that hop office/human resources office map change I made ages ago, one of the large problems with hops is that they're in a room that no one but them and the captain has access too.

Seeing how all heads can use the identification console now, we could convert that space for all heads to use. Just give the HoP an actual office this time instead of stuffing him into a closet-like office space to spite them.
Former Dev/Headmin
Who is this guy?



Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:41 pm #40589

cedarbridge wrote:RD can detain and remove access from anyone assigned to science without proper notification and authorization.

Uh, no, actually heads cannot demote people for no reason, that's really just being a dick. And there is no difference between someone joining from lobby or someone who got the job after randomly getting assistant.
cedarbridge wrote:HoP has authority above and beyond the heads of staff within their own departments which is false.

HoP has authority over who gets what kind of job. That's the point, his ID gives him exactly that power. Yes, yes, blah blah, he cannot technically assign heads and give himself all access, but in practice HoP does that all the time and nobody has a problem with it.

Somebody will hold the power, I don't understand why cannot HoP hold it. It's just a job, after all, anyone can be playing it.
An0n3 wrote:Saying the HoP has ultimate authority over who gets access to other departments is like saying the CE has ultimate authority over who gets power, and he would be within his right to come turn off your APC's just because he feels like it. If the CMO decides randomly not to clone people from other departments, it's fine because it's his cloner and it's in medbay.

Except that there is literally no purpose in what you just described. However, CE can choose solars over singularity, turn off lights when power is low, CMO can choose to clone captain first, to take out early clones to shove them into cryo, RD can choose whether to make guns for security or not.

Let me provide you with an example. Once I had a round as HoP where miners wanted R&D access, because RD wouldn't cooperate with them and they just wanted their drills and shit. RD just yelled at me to not give them access. I gave them access anyway. RD yelled, but miners just got their shit and went to their mining duties. There, problem solved. And that's not an exception from the rules, it's how it should be. Ask heads, sure, but ultimately HoP should decide what's best.

Most of the times heads don't even answer or don't care from my experience. It's just some heads that scream "RESPECT MAI AUTHORATEE" all the time.

User avatar
Steelpoint
Github User
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:37 pm
Location: The Armoury
Byond Username: Steelpoint
Github Username: Steelpoint

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Steelpoint » Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:59 pm #40593

In my opinion the HoP has the privilege of being able to assign jobs to other heads of staff's departments on their behalf with their blessing. Heads of Staff have full control over their department, including incoming employees.
Image

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:20 pm #40602

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Let me provide you with an example. Once I had a round as HoP where miners wanted R&D access, because RD wouldn't cooperate with them and they just wanted their drills and shit. RD just yelled at me to not give them access. I gave them access anyway. RD yelled, but miners just got their shit and went to their mining duties. There, problem solved. And that's not an exception from the rules, it's how it should be. Ask heads, sure, but ultimately HoP should decide what's best.

Most of the times heads don't even answer or don't care from my experience. It's just some heads that scream "RESPECT MAI AUTHORATEE" all the time.


No, this is when you ask the captain.

If there is no captain, then you're captain.

Congratulations, you've asked the captain in that case.

Otherwise, don't give them R&D access.

User avatar
Malkevin
Confined to the shed
 
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 4:33 pm
Byond Username: Malkevin

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Malkevin » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:30 pm #40604

Ikarrus wrote:
Malkevin wrote:For a start, we could reimplement that hop office/human resources office map change I made ages ago, one of the large problems with hops is that they're in a room that no one but them and the captain has access too.

Seeing how all heads can use the identification console now, we could convert that space for all heads to use. Just give the HoP an actual office this time instead of stuffing him into a closet-like office space to spite them.


It wasn't a closet by its final iteration though...

Image
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
Timbrewolf
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:55 am
Byond Username: An0n3

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Timbrewolf » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:05 pm #40614

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Let me provide you with an example. Once I had a round as HoP where miners wanted R&D access, because RD wouldn't cooperate with them and they just wanted their drills and shit. RD just yelled at me to not give them access. I gave them access anyway. RD yelled, but miners just got their shit and went to their mining duties. There, problem solved. And that's not an exception from the rules, it's how it should be. Ask heads, sure, but ultimately HoP should decide what's best.


You should've been demoted and brigged for that. You basically assisted a bunch of miners in breaking into R&D and then stealing stuff. While it sounds like the RD was likely being shit, you should've talked to the Captain about making him give your miners some equipment in exchange for the materials...because that's a Captain decision and not a "fuck you I'm giving my guys access to your department dealwithit" decision.

...and this is why the HoP should be looked at a little more stringently, because there are a lot of players in that role who believe they're basically the second Captain and it's okay for them to do that.

It was mentioned before in this thread but seriously look at this:

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Chain_of_Command

See how the HoP is on the same level as the other heads?

See how he has no authority over the people under them?

I think that's pretty open and shut just like that.
Shed Wolf Numero Uno

NSFW:
Image

User avatar
leibniz
 
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 6:21 pm
Location: Seeking help
Byond Username: Leibniz

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby leibniz » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:16 pm #40617

An0n3 wrote:
Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Let me provide you with an example. Once I had a round as HoP where miners wanted R&D access, because RD wouldn't cooperate with them and they just wanted their drills and shit. RD just yelled at me to not give them access. I gave them access anyway. RD yelled, but miners just got their shit and went to their mining duties. There, problem solved. And that's not an exception from the rules, it's how it should be. Ask heads, sure, but ultimately HoP should decide what's best.


You should've been demoted and brigged for that. You basically assisted a bunch of miners in breaking into R&D and then stealing stuff. While it sounds like the RD was likely being shit, you should've talked to the Captain about making him give your miners some equipment in exchange for the materials...because that's a Captain decision and not a "fuck you I'm giving my guys access to your department dealwithit" decision.

...and this is why the HoP should be looked at a little more stringently, because there are a lot of players in that role who believe they're basically the second Captain and it's okay for them to do that.

It was mentioned before in this thread but seriously look at this:

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Chain_of_Command

See how the HoP is on the same level as the other heads?

See how he has no authority over the people under them?

I think that's pretty open and shut just like that.


Or the RD should have been demoted, this is kind of a grey area.
Founder and only member of the "Whitelist Nukeops" movement

User avatar
Timbrewolf
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:55 am
Byond Username: An0n3

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Timbrewolf » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:27 pm #40619

leibniz wrote:Or the RD should have been demoted, this is kind of a grey area.


If that's what the Captain wanted. Shame the HoP didn't think to stop and ask him.

This would be like the HoS opening the door to the HoP desk to let his whole sec force in to stun and cuff the HoP while they all give themselves maint access, because the HoP was being a big jerk and wouldn't give it to them.
Shed Wolf Numero Uno

NSFW:
Image

User avatar
Arete
 
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:55 am
Byond Username: Arete

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Arete » Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:51 pm #40621

If the HoP's freedom of choice when using his ID console is restricted to his own department, and he's required to always be on hand to take care of job changes, then the vast majority of his time and effort are going to be spent following other people's orders. Even sec officers have more freedom to choose how to do their job. It doesn't seem like good design to put a player into that role.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:03 pm #40623

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:
cedarbridge wrote:RD can detain and remove access from anyone assigned to science without proper notification and authorization.

Uh, no, actually heads cannot demote people for no reason, that's really just being a dick. And there is no difference between someone joining from lobby or someone who got the job after randomly getting assistant.

Except possession of access has never been the standard against trespassing. If I didn't not sign off on a new scientist and the HoP just decided we needed a bomb maker and sent a greyshirt over with access and a new ID title and I catch this new guy in toxins or whatever, I'm definitely detaining them for trespassing. I'm then calling the captain to deal with the HoP. I like Steelpoint's wording on this matter a lot. The HoP assigns new assignments with the blessing and/or request of the head of that department. The only department he doesn't have that obligation to verify first is his department, service.

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby bandit » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:08 pm #40624

An0n3 wrote:You should've been demoted and brigged for that. You basically assisted a bunch of miners in breaking into R&D and then stealing stuff. While it sounds like the RD was likely being shit, you should've talked to the Captain about making him give your miners some equipment in exchange for the materials...because that's a Captain decision and not a "fuck you I'm giving my guys access to your department dealwithit" decision.

...and this is why the HoP should be looked at a little more stringently, because there are a lot of players in that role who believe they're basically the second Captain and it's okay for them to do that.


The fuck? No. If the RD is being shit, the HoP has the right to ease that shittiness for other players. It is a case of "don't be a dick" and additionally "don't make other people's rounds unnecessarily difficult because you want to be a prima donna." If people abided by this guideline -- this includes people asking for access, people OKing access and people giving out access -- 3/4 of the problems with HoP would be solved instantly.
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

PostThis post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby bandit » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:28 pm #40633

>implying bombing is remotely comparable to allowing miners to have drills
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

PostThis post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Mon Nov 03, 2014 10:52 pm #40639

More to the point, encouraging the miners to trespass is shitty behavior with a stated purpose of "easing the shittiness" of the RD. Which is ironic, because I'm just seeing two piles of shit stacked up and compared. Again, access is not a pass to legal entry. In this case, the HoP granted two miners illegal access to R&D and encouraged them to trespass because the RD wanted to deny them entry. The HoP went entirely outside his jurisdiction to encourage and enable illegal behavior and wants to blame the infringed party for it. Feelings about the RD not providing the miners their tools in the first place, the HoP is entirely out of line and should have been reprimanded (IC).

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby bandit » Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:26 pm #40655

If the HoP does not have the authority to give out legal access, then his job is worthless. Access, and who has "legal" access, is the jurisdiction of the HoP, barring special cases like promotions to security and head of staff. A miner who has done his job and contributed to the round is entirely within his rights to have a drill. It is more reasonable for that miner to have R&D access -- assuming they do not abuse it -- than for that miner to be denied it. A more ideal solution would be for the RD to suck it up and make the damn drill already, but this scenario has passed the point of being ideal.

The fact that you brought up bombing is fucking ridiculous. A better analogy would be the HoP being shit by refusing to promote a research assistant the RD has okayed, and the RD allowing them to tailgate or ask the AI to open doors. It would still technically be "trespassing," but Rule One takes precedence over space law.
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

User avatar
Malkevin
Confined to the shed
 
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 4:33 pm
Byond Username: Malkevin

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Malkevin » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:02 am #40681

Inviting someone into your home doesn't mean you can then enact Castle Law and shoot them for 'trespassing', but they're not trespassing if you invited them in.

And yeah, giving a group of dudes access without the heads permission, especially after he's denied them stuff, is over stepping the bounds the HoP's authority.
Its weird that an RD will refuse to give miners their drills after the miners have given science resources, so I'm betting there's more to that story.
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:54 am #40718

bandit wrote:If the HoP does not have the authority to give out legal access, then his job is worthless. Access, and who has "legal" access, is the jurisdiction of the HoP, barring special cases like promotions to security and head of staff. A miner who has done his job and contributed to the round is entirely within his rights to have a drill. It is more reasonable for that miner to have R&D access -- assuming they do not abuse it -- than for that miner to be denied it. A more ideal solution would be for the RD to suck it up and make the damn drill already, but this scenario has passed the point of being ideal.

The fact that you brought up bombing is fucking ridiculous. A better analogy would be the HoP being shit by refusing to promote a research assistant the RD has okayed, and the RD allowing them to tailgate or ask the AI to open doors. It would still technically be "trespassing," but Rule One takes precedence over space law.

Lets try this one, and see if you follow along.

If the HoP gives himself armory access and walks into the armory, is he trespassing or committing some other crime?

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby bandit » Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:03 am #40721

Under normal circumstances, yes.

However, if it is a blob round (for example) and the HoS refuses to give out the guns and riot gear in the armory, the HoP is within his rights to get them himself, in order to make the round less shit for everybody else. Technically speaking, it would be "trespassing," however that is a meaningless technicality as one choice massively reduces the amount of dickish behavior people experience.
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

User avatar
Kangaraptor
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:33 am
Location: dank memes
Byond Username: Kangaraptor

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Kangaraptor » Tue Nov 04, 2014 4:36 am #40725

bandit wrote:Under normal circumstances, yes.

However, if it is a blob round (for example) and the HoS refuses to give out the guns and riot gear in the armory, the HoP is within his rights to get them himself, in order to make the round less shit for everybody else. Technically speaking, it would be "trespassing," however that is a meaningless technicality as one choice massively reduces the amount of dickish behavior people experience.


At that point the HoS would be the one violating the law, not the HoP. Dereliction of duty and gross negligence. Because it's an emergency (and a blob is only second to, what, nuke ops?) the lawbook is basically thrown out the window. If you spend your time wanking over 'muh law' when the station is about to be eaten, you won't have much longer left to do so.

edit: that's neither here nor there, though; the fact is that the HoP shouldn't be wantonly handing out access unless a) they have authorization from the relevant department head(s) or b) it's a station-ending emergency.
Image

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Tue Nov 04, 2014 5:46 am #40751

bandit wrote:Under normal circumstances, yes.

However, if it is a blob round (for example) and the HoS refuses to give out the guns and riot gear in the armory, the HoP is within his rights to get them himself, in order to make the round less shit for everybody else. Technically speaking, it would be "trespassing," however that is a meaningless technicality as one choice massively reduces the amount of dickish behavior people experience.

You're adding qualifiers to weasel around what you've already admitted to be true. The HoP does not produce "legal" access simply by adding it to an ID card. The access is just that. Access. It holds no weight or legal protection unless it was granted with the blessing of the department where it belongs. Thus, a HoP (without any special qualifying bullshit like blobs etc) granting access to himself or somebody else to a department or area where the HoP does not have jurisdiction and without approval by the head of that department is trespassing or aiding/enabling trespassing. You can say its "reducing dickish behavior" in whatever special cases you'd like to name, but its still out of line and not in line with the job description. You're not the captain and you're not the boss's boss outside of cargo. If there's a conflict with another head you consult the captain or deal directly with the head. Anything else is shit justified by supposed shit.

This also means that security would be within their power to arrest all 3 (HoP and both miners) for trespass, accessory in fact to trespass, theft or grand theft, and the HoP gets an extra charge for abuse of position probably worthy of demotion if the captain sees it that way. The RD would probably have to answer to the captain as well to why they refused the request the miners made in the first place but what the RD chooses to do in their department is not the business of the HoP as a matter of fact.

words.gif

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:07 am #40753

bandit wrote:If the HoP does not have the authority to give out legal access, then his job is worthless. Access, and who has "legal" access, is the jurisdiction of the HoP, barring special cases like promotions to security and head of staff. A miner who has done his job and contributed to the round is entirely within his rights to have a drill. It is more reasonable for that miner to have R&D access -- assuming they do not abuse it -- than for that miner to be denied it. A more ideal solution would be for the RD to suck it up and make the damn drill already, but this scenario has passed the point of being ideal.

The fact that you brought up bombing is fucking ridiculous. A better analogy would be the HoP being shit by refusing to promote a research assistant the RD has okayed, and the RD allowing them to tailgate or ask the AI to open doors. It would still technically be "trespassing," but Rule One takes precedence over space law.


I'm a man who sells keys.

Keys are very valuable, they let you into places and houses. Everyone wants more keys.

Some people want to get into the store, it's locked. The owner of the store wants it to stay locked.

I give these men keys. It's not my house, but I sell the keys.

The reason commands have a radio system all for them is so the HoP can at least give a small shout out to the department head before promoting someone under them. If they say no, it's no. If they say yes, you can sell them their keys. The HoP is an access giver and a paper stamper, he never actually gives someone a job unless it's a service or cargo job.

User avatar
Lovecraft
 
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:19 am
Location: Currently roaming
Byond Username: Rabukurafuto

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Lovecraft » Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:18 am #40756

I wrote a super long post for this thread because Head of Personnel is a job I really love, it's my favorite job, but I realized I can boil it down by saying a few simple sentences.
The job is fun, and not very hard.
The hardest part is learning when to tell someone no.
If I give someone access without informing the Head of Staff and the person uses the access for traitoring, the blame should fall on me in-character.
If I give someone access when I did inform the Head of Staff, it's not just my fault.

I have given out all access, Security Access, Engineering Access, and things of that nature to people who had no right to it hundreds of times, and it almost never came back to bite me in a way that required Admins. No one to my knowledge was killed, nothing bad happened, ect.
Likewise, I have shunned people who ask for simple requests like maintenance well over a thousand times, and more often than not I'll get killed/grudge'd later in the round for doing that.

I have no idea where I was going with this.
I just like playing Head of Personnel.
Friendly reminder that you are beautiful and this server would be nothing without your continued support
I play August Finster, a suave midget with a grudge, as well as Francis Heart, the naked guitarist of the Cosmos.
Spoiler:
Nobody is worthless. PM me anytime to talk.

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:52 am #40758

An0n3 wrote:You basically assisted a bunch of miners in breaking into R&D and then stealing stuff.

CE basically broke in when hacked an airlock to get into captain's office and fix hull breach. Arrest him for basically major B&E then?
An0n3 wrote:While it sounds like the RD was likely being shit, you should've talked to the Captain about making him give your miners some equipment in exchange for the materials...because that's a Captain decision and not a "fuck you I'm giving my guys access to your department dealwithit" decision.

Oh yeah and HoS has to ask captain before arresting people (heads) for crimes.

Seriously, what the fuck, why are you trying to make it so HoP is literally there to press buttons he's told to press. No, ID console is his genetics, his R&D, his singularity, his armory, for God's sake.

And finally, the point that nobody commented on:

What is the difference between people who join from the lobby and people who HoP assigns even though you don't know anything about either and either can equally likely end up shitheads? Why should you not want people assigned so badly and why you don't ask to close slots in that case (which I've never seen happen)?

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:24 am #40760

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:
An0n3 wrote:You basically assisted a bunch of miners in breaking into R&D and then stealing stuff.

CE basically broke in when hacked an airlock to get into captain's office and fix hull breach. Arrest him for basically major B&E then?
An0n3 wrote:While it sounds like the RD was likely being shit, you should've talked to the Captain about making him give your miners some equipment in exchange for the materials...because that's a Captain decision and not a "fuck you I'm giving my guys access to your department dealwithit" decision.

Oh yeah and HoS has to ask captain before arresting people (heads) for crimes.

Seriously, what the fuck, why are you trying to make it so HoP is literally there to press buttons he's told to press. No, ID console is his genetics, his R&D, his singularity, his armory, for God's sake.

And finally, the point that nobody commented on:

What is the difference between people who join from the lobby and people who HoP assigns even though you don't know anything about either and either can equally likely end up shitheads? Why should you not want people assigned so badly and why you don't ask to close slots in that case (which I've never seen happen)?


The HoS should talk to the captain after detaining a fellow Head. Hell, the HoS should run any major events by the captain in general. And the HoS should tell other heads when he arrests any of their subordinates and why, or at least when something notable happens along those lines.

Communication is important and great.

As far as the last one goes, it's because we make at least a passable attempt at appearing to care about roleplay.

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:28 am #40761

Well, HoP SHOULD talk to heads when giving people access. But it's not required to the point of admin intervention or, god forbid, demotion. That's what I'm talking about, yup.
Raven776 wrote:As far as the last one goes, it's because we make at least a passable attempt at appearing to care about roleplay.

You're denying a job. Some player wanted that job. I don't really see what kind of roleplay is that, either.

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:48 am #40765

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:Well, HoP SHOULD talk to heads when giving people access. But it's not required to the point of admin intervention or, god forbid, demotion. That's what I'm talking about, yup.
Raven776 wrote:As far as the last one goes, it's because we make at least a passable attempt at appearing to care about roleplay.

You're denying a job. Some player wanted that job. I don't really see what kind of roleplay is that, either.


You're making a passable attempt to pretend that someone who joins as an assistant is an assistant and not a guy sitting behind a computer playing as one.

Incomptinence
 
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 3:01 am
Byond Username: Incomptinence

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Incomptinence » Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:52 am #40766

I think the HoP should be expected to ask other heads before re-assigning people. A little margin of carelessness should be allowed, you could forget comms could go down. The issue isn't not being asked once in a while the issue is people who never ask AT ALL, these hops are basically the long arm of the grief.

Increasing job slots should be fine though, sec jobs come implanted and each to their position is legitimate they brought the right outfit etc for everyone. Clowns have never had a license to grief here, to their benefit because such policies are dumb ideas. Requiring the head of personnel to judge people unworthy before they join the game is pretty daft and the cooldown is pretty strict on slot manipulation. If someone joins a position and can't handle it just because they have numbers it is basically the tider mentality and you should probably ban them.

As head of supply all supply shortages due to too many people in a job are the HoP's responsibility I do think he should have some obligation to supply the crew surplus he can create.

Lo6a4evskiy
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 6:40 pm
Byond Username: Lo6a4evskiy

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Lo6a4evskiy » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:57 am #40773

Raven776 wrote:You're making a passable attempt to pretend that someone who joins as an assistant is an assistant and not a guy sitting behind a computer playing as one.

Oh yeah and doctors cannot hack doors. So much fun we are having with that approach.

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:14 am #40794

Lo6a4evskiy wrote:
Raven776 wrote:You're making a passable attempt to pretend that someone who joins as an assistant is an assistant and not a guy sitting behind a computer playing as one.

Oh yeah and doctors cannot hack doors. So much fun we are having with that approach.


I said passable not perfect.

User avatar
CocaneStyle
 
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:34 am
Byond Username: CocaneStyle

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby CocaneStyle » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:26 am #40796

Here is what I think.

The Head of Personal should be 2nd in command and above every head except the HoS who answers directly to the captain, do that and then it would be fair to hold him to a higher standard.
Because right now the stick is too short for the HoP to not get the short end of it.

User avatar
Antonkr
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:28 pm
Byond Username: Antonkr

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Antonkr » Tue Nov 04, 2014 1:11 pm #40807

CocaneStyle wrote:Here is what I think.

The Head of Personal should be 2nd in command and above every head except the HoS who answers directly to the captain, do that and then it would be fair to hold him to a higher standard.
Because right now the stick is too short for the HoP to not get the short end of it.

^
I honestly agree with even making the HoP simply in charge of employment altogether. Let him hire/reassign people as he wishes (to an extent of him not being a dick) and then we can talk about enforcing stronger rules. Imo simply saying and enforcing more rules on a position that is kinda lax wont really help much.
No longer an admin by own free will. Feel free to add me on steam.

Apsis
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:26 pm

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Apsis » Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:08 pm #40813

CocaneStyle wrote:Here is what I think.

The Head of Personal should be 2nd in command and above every head except the HoS who answers directly to the captain, do that and then it would be fair to hold him to a higher standard.
Because right now the stick is too short for the HoP to not get the short end of it.

I also agree with this. If you wanna make the HoP have higher standards, give the HoP a higher position. In fact, I already play HoP like this. Run things by the HoS (basically asking if he wants potential antags or not), and the other heads are at mercy of already open job slots.

Also, If a HoP messes up then IC punishments should follow. If he's just griefing then the admins can step in.

omnitricks
 
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:34 am

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby omnitricks » Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:14 pm #40825

HoPs are fine as they are. Like someone else pointed out there is going to be unhappy people whether or not you give out access.

Sometimes I ask Heads as a formality before adding people into their department. Especially when it is already half full or all the way full. If not I'll assign people and they better like it. Its no difference if someone else joins to get assigned to the job or if they want a transfer because they don't like their job/stuck as assistant somehow. The only exception I make is officers where I escort them to the brig to get implanted/have someone know they are new.

The only times I ever ask for stamps or signatures is when I'm feeling like a dick. A nice way of saying you probably aren't getting any access.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:18 pm #40826

Incomptinence wrote:Increasing job slots should be fine though, sec jobs come implanted and each to their position is legitimate they brought the right outfit etc for everyone. Clowns have never had a license to grief here, to their benefit because such policies are dumb ideas. Requiring the head of personnel to judge people unworthy before they join the game is pretty daft and the cooldown is pretty strict on slot manipulation. If someone joins a position and can't handle it just because they have numbers it is basically the tider mentality and you should probably ban them.

Most of the time I've seen these sorts of HoPs not even bother opening slots. They just slap the new access on the old ID and old title and send them off.

As to "just make the HoP second in command and then we don't have to worry about him being a griefing shit to the other departments" thing. That's essentially what you're proposing. The complaint is that that HoP is going over the heads of other department heads and that's generally uncool and undermines their authority and ability to manage their departments. So in moving the HoP above them in the CoC you're essentially telling them "tough shit, he runs your departments now."

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby bandit » Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:23 pm #40827

No one is proposing that. People are simply proposing making the HoP in charge of hiring across the board. Which makes the most sense given his duties and tools.
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

Murazor
 
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 3:43 am
Byond Username: Murazor

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Murazor » Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:49 pm #40830

Honestly the HoP should be implanted as in its current state its basically a captain that can be an antag.
ImageImageImage

PostThis post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

User avatar
Arete
 
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:55 am
Byond Username: Arete

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Arete » Tue Nov 04, 2014 6:36 pm #40859

Violaceus wrote:I don't understand why people say "give more power to HoP, then demand higher standards".

I see "higher standards" as "what we actually demand from all other heads", not "HoP should be at highest standards of all heads".


Most heads can use their departmental tools without asking other people for permission first. The HoP's tools happen to have more potential for affecting other departments, but they're still comparable to the ways that other heads can interfere with each other. HoS can choose to randomly search a department, CMO can release a superpowers virus, engineering can choose how to prioritize hull breaches and other repair efforts, RD can mess with the AI.

Making HoP ask before doing his job and giving HoP the right to determine who gets what access are both options that could make sense from a space law and OOC rule perspective. The difference is that one of those options leaves the HoP without many interesting choices to make at all. If heads having complete jurisdiction over their departments is that important (and I do think that a pretty strong case can be made for this), then the HoP should be removed entirely and replaced with a mechanism that doesn't require a player to just sit there and parse orders given over the command channel.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:01 pm #40883

bandit wrote:No one is proposing that. People are simply proposing making the HoP in charge of hiring across the board. Which makes the most sense given his duties and tools.

The HoP's duties are to process authorized job/access changes and manage the service department. That's it.

User avatar
bandit
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
Byond Username: Bgobandit

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby bandit » Tue Nov 04, 2014 8:40 pm #40889

cedarbridge wrote:
bandit wrote:No one is proposing that. People are simply proposing making the HoP in charge of hiring across the board. Which makes the most sense given his duties and tools.

The HoP's duties are to process authorized job/access changes and manage the service department. That's it.


...and the supply and civilian departments, unless they now suddenly have been removed?
"I don't see any difference between ERP and rape." -- erro

admin feedback pls

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:24 pm #40895

The HoP doesn't need more permissions and power. He's already a secondary captain as he has all access, an egun, armor, and people don't seem to care when he uses any of it.

In essence, he's supposed to be the Human Resources department and the bean counter of the station. At some point people decided that this wasn't fun enough.

Remember that every power you give to the HoP takes away from another head or job's abilities or functions. I'd much rather process in my medbay staff than having six greyshirts running around with genetics access, disappearing for half of the round only to come back and get powers when someone discovers them.

User avatar
miggles
 
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:02 am
Byond Username: Miggles

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby miggles » Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:59 pm #40903

Apsis wrote:
CocaneStyle wrote:Here is what I think.

The Head of Personal should be 2nd in command and above every head except the HoS who answers directly to the captain, do that and then it would be fair to hold him to a higher standard.
Because right now the stick is too short for the HoP to not get the short end of it.

I also agree with this. If you wanna make the HoP have higher standards, give the HoP a higher position. In fact, I already play HoP like this. Run things by the HoS (basically asking if he wants potential antags or not), and the other heads are at mercy of already open job slots.

Also, If a HoP messes up then IC punishments should follow. If he's just griefing then the admins can step in.

this

also the end of the legal access argument is just ":c Hey captain can I have all access" "Yes"
the HoP's all access is now authorized and he can go where he wants
if the captain says no, then the opposite is true
simple
dezzmont wrote:I am one of sawrge's alt accounts

dezzmont wrote:sawrge has it right.

Connor wrote:miggles is correct though

PostThis post was deleted by MrStonedOne on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:46 pm.
Reason: Requested

Raven776
 
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 5:51 pm
Byond Username: Raven776

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Raven776 » Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:40 pm #40918

Why should the HoP be second in command?

I don't think any of you understand what second in command means. It means the HoP suddenly has command over security, medbay, and science. Furthermore, it antiquates the captain, makes the captain inclined to make a useless HoP captain if they have to go braindead themselves, and it doesn't make any damned sense.

Why do we need two captains with one slightly below the other and not even implanted? The current system works fine, and the problem at hand isn't the HoP not getting enough respect, it's the HoP being a boring job. They don't even run out of things to do, they just can't be arsed to sit at their desk all day and do them.

And anyways, SS13 is a game about making your own fun... Fuck, if you're that bored as HoP, go build something in the spare construction room until the station blows up, steal a softsuit, and go start doing repairs. Be useful instead of whining about no respect and the HoS not letting you in to raid the armory.

User avatar
Oldman Robustin
 
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 2:18 pm
Byond Username: ForcefulCJS

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Oldman Robustin » Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:53 pm #40954

I don't like polls like this because the poll choices are very leading...

Choice 1) MAKE THE STATION A BETTER PLACE

2) HOP SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL PEOPLE ON A WHIM


There's a line between forcing the HoP to play a certain way or allowing them to give out all access at round-start.

The second choice in the poll goes right to an extreme that nobody would want to vote for, even if they think choice #1 isn't ideal either.

Just come up with a couple CLEAR rules for HoP-play instead of trying to come up with another ambiguous standard that's going to let shitlers get away with shit while banning legitimate HoP's because it will turn on admin interpretation that always ends up contradicting itself.
Image

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:27 am #40971

bandit wrote:
cedarbridge wrote:
bandit wrote:No one is proposing that. People are simply proposing making the HoP in charge of hiring across the board. Which makes the most sense given his duties and tools.

The HoP's duties are to process authorized job/access changes and manage the service department. That's it.


...and the supply and civilian departments, unless they now suddenly have been removed?

Sure, I kinda glossed over those because somehow my brain lumped supply and service into the same bin. This was a mistake because you can never expect good service at cargo. Zing.

User avatar
Timbrewolf
Rarely plays
 
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:55 am
Byond Username: An0n3

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Timbrewolf » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:08 am #41015

Arete wrote:Most heads can use their departmental tools without asking other people for permission first.



Not when they affect other departments. If the RD decides he wants to use the Engineering construction site as a new area to test bombs, he sure better ask first.
If the CE decides he wants to route his tube rollercoaster through the HoP's office, he better ask first.
Why should the HoP using his identification console to add his assistants to other people's departments be any different?

People are saying the HoP should get a bump in authority if we're going to add restrictions to him, but as it currently stands most people already assume he has that increased authority and he has the least amount of restrictions of any head. The only person with more authority on the station is the Captain. Do we need two Captains?

It's circular, you see? If we gave him more authority then it wouldn't make sense for him to ask the other heads for authority to add people to their departments in the first place. If we actually put him above everyone else, we end up right back where we started and the actual gameplay problem that sparked this entire conversation remains.

Oldman Robustin wrote:I don't like polls like this because the poll choices are very leading...

Choice 1) MAKE THE STATION A BETTER PLACE

2) HOP SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KILL PEOPLE ON A WHIM


But option 2 of the poll is exactly how it currently works. He doesn't need to confirm access with anyone, and unless he's giving the clown all access every round it's not an actionable happening.

He is currently completely free to do whatever he wants with that console unless it results in something so game-breakingly bad it invokes Rule 1. Eg. giving everyone in the line all access in a single round. And even then, it's unlikely the people he gave access to would complain.

If the CE fucks off at roundstart and doesn't setup the engine, we all know that he'll get yelled at.
If the HoS permabrigs everyone, or orders his Sec force to ignore the station's problems to hang out in the brig playing D&D, he'll get yelled at.

Is it not apparent that the HoP has similar methods available to them to plunge the station into chaos "just cuz", and some of them even use it fairly regularly, yet there's no precedent or expectation of an OOC response?

Does that not strike you as a problem that ought to be fixed?
Shed Wolf Numero Uno

NSFW:
Image

User avatar
Arete
 
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2014 12:55 am
Byond Username: Arete

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby Arete » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:49 am #41026

An0n3 wrote:People are saying the HoP should get a bump in authority if we're going to add restrictions to him, but as it currently stands most people already assume he has that increased authority and he has the least amount of restrictions of any head. The only person with more authority on the station is the Captain. Do we need two Captains?

It's circular, you see? If we gave him more authority then it wouldn't make sense for him to ask the other heads for authority to add people to their departments in the first place. If we actually put him above everyone else, we end up right back where we started and the actual gameplay problem that sparked this entire conversation remains.


Giving him more to do doesn't necessarily mean giving him more authority or giving him authority over other departments. The central argument here is that once you take the HoP's choice of who gets what access away, his job is left with essentially nothing but tedium. He can't even choose when to leave his office or else it's dereliction of duty for failing to process the transfers ordered by other heads.

I'm not sure what a better solution would be, but the one being proposed here will not be drawing any better players to the job.

User avatar
cedarbridge
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 12:24 am
Byond Username: Cedarbridge

Re: Higher Standards for Head of Personnel

Postby cedarbridge » Wed Nov 05, 2014 5:58 am #41027

Arete wrote:The central argument here is that once you take the HoP's choice of who gets what access away, his job is left with essentially nothing but tedium.

If this was the central argument, then it was false from the get go. The HoP never had the "choice" of who gets what access inside managed departments outside of his jurisdiction. This has always been the case. One cannot take away what never was.

PreviousNext

Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users