What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion is to request the ability for site admin, Ethics and o5 to job ban people within departments either removed or looked into for adding rules on them. here are some possible examples i thonked up during the creation of this suggestion.
Site Leadership Should not be able to job ban personnel over being called a slightly inoffensive term. if that happens it should be dealt with through RP which would also add more RP opportunities for IA.
-
Site Leadership should involve the department leadership and come to an agreement interms of why they should be removed in all instances of attempting to remove someone from a group.
-
Site Leadership should not be able to pull rank to demand job removals from D/R leadership just because they are above the D/R leadership.
Site admin should still be able to job ban site staff however this mechanic is often abused where situations cause slight inconvenience to the member of site leadership resulting in job bans without involving the department / regiment leadership in any way. I understand that they are site LEADERSHIP however often times these "punishments" are extremely unjustified and quite often over the top over something so minor.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I don't imagine so as people don't like suggesting "nerfs" to site leadership as they would kick up a fuss.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+ Less overall job bans when they aren't required
+ People would have less time worrying about Roleplaying in a standard their department / regiment is not supporting, often times resulting in being removed from [x group]
+ Site leadership would require to debate and hold their reasoning for a D/R lead to commence with the job ban.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Site leadership could probably still pull rank and demand the D/R lead to remove the person to not be punished for disobeying quite frankly shit orders.
- Site leadership would lose a fraction of its authority over the site as they would have to rely on D/R leadership to do their jobs.
- personnel deemed for punishment might not get punished due to D/R leadership not being on at required times.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I feel this should be accepted as often times job banning is too much of a reliant to "get rid of minges" just because they roleplayed in a manor that goes against their groups. This is usually remedied fast by an immediate arrest or overall job ban. I will not and do not pin the blame on site leadership alone as D/R leads often do over-react to inconveniences and i do admit i have fallen into this void myself at times.
from my over 2 years of being in these communities I've noticed how job bans are very rarely used in justifiable measures. they are always used as a stop gap to avoid roleplaying with people they deem unappealing and elect to just take the easy and quick route. Generally guidelines created are rarely followed whilst restricting IA's roleplay as they would prefer to job ban instead of IA doing the purpose they were created for.
This suggestion is to request the ability for site admin, Ethics and o5 to job ban people within departments either removed or looked into for adding rules on them. here are some possible examples i thonked up during the creation of this suggestion.
Site Leadership Should not be able to job ban personnel over being called a slightly inoffensive term. if that happens it should be dealt with through RP which would also add more RP opportunities for IA.
-
Site Leadership should involve the department leadership and come to an agreement interms of why they should be removed in all instances of attempting to remove someone from a group.
-
Site Leadership should not be able to pull rank to demand job removals from D/R leadership just because they are above the D/R leadership.
Site admin should still be able to job ban site staff however this mechanic is often abused where situations cause slight inconvenience to the member of site leadership resulting in job bans without involving the department / regiment leadership in any way. I understand that they are site LEADERSHIP however often times these "punishments" are extremely unjustified and quite often over the top over something so minor.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I don't imagine so as people don't like suggesting "nerfs" to site leadership as they would kick up a fuss.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+ Less overall job bans when they aren't required
+ People would have less time worrying about Roleplaying in a standard their department / regiment is not supporting, often times resulting in being removed from [x group]
+ Site leadership would require to debate and hold their reasoning for a D/R lead to commence with the job ban.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Site leadership could probably still pull rank and demand the D/R lead to remove the person to not be punished for disobeying quite frankly shit orders.
- Site leadership would lose a fraction of its authority over the site as they would have to rely on D/R leadership to do their jobs.
- personnel deemed for punishment might not get punished due to D/R leadership not being on at required times.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I feel this should be accepted as often times job banning is too much of a reliant to "get rid of minges" just because they roleplayed in a manor that goes against their groups. This is usually remedied fast by an immediate arrest or overall job ban. I will not and do not pin the blame on site leadership alone as D/R leads often do over-react to inconveniences and i do admit i have fallen into this void myself at times.
from my over 2 years of being in these communities I've noticed how job bans are very rarely used in justifiable measures. they are always used as a stop gap to avoid roleplaying with people they deem unappealing and elect to just take the easy and quick route. Generally guidelines created are rarely followed whilst restricting IA's roleplay as they would prefer to job ban instead of IA doing the purpose they were created for.
