Content Suggestion Job Ban changes

[Dinklesprinkle]

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.

 

[Shark]

+SUPPORT

We're held to certain standards as a Department. We have internal regulations/policies within the department as well as a CL4 Punishment guidelines that we're forced to use as a way to punish people. SA/SC should follow similar guidelines.

 

[zazi_18]

+SUPPORT

 

[Glazzing]

-support

 

[Niox]

site leadership smell
+Support

 

[The Guardian]

I wonder what highlight submission was posted to make this post be written :clueless:

+ Support

 

[cityismy]

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.

This should not be happening, on the UK server at least there are job ban guidelines and regulations that should be followed by all leadership regardless of rank

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.

This seriously should not be happening in any circumstances, this should be reported to their superiors or even SL, people with that sort of corruption/ego shouldn't be in leadership positions whatsoever, in no way should site command or admin ever be trying to remove someone from any position without good reasoning, this can be detrimental to the server and should not go unreported

 

[Dinklesprinkle]

I wonder what highlight submission was posted to make this post be written :clueless:

+ Support

ive had this idea in the back of my head for awhile but i will admit that clip kinda did shpark this suggestion alongside other things lol

 

[Playdoughzombie]

+Support

 

[Hypnotoad]

- Support

There are scenarios where I need to job ban people of security and research for being absolute minges, this would inhibit me from doing so and require I go to a department leader for every simple job ban which is ridiculous, I always go along with fun RP that goes against my group being ethics, I enjoy unions etc because it’s different and makes the server enjoyable and have people arrested for saying bad things to Ethics etc, the only time I use job bans is if their actions are not justifiable at all. I agree Site Leadership shouldn’t be job banning people for calling them a slightly bad name and that in itself is unacceptable (I’m not sure who everyone is referring to). Those scenarios where people are doing so for unjust reasons should be handled by the Chairman / Chief Overseer, or if need be the SL team. SC and SA should be following guidelines and SC should only deviate from such guidelines if it is absolutely needed. Whenever I have had to job ban someone I usually go to Department leadership first. I do not think taking away the ability entirely however is fair.

And yes, Site Admin and Site Command sometimes pull rank, buts that’s their whole purpose, they are experienced individuals who should be trusted to know what they are doing, and sometimes need to step in over Department Leaders. I agree departments etc should be more independent from SC etc, and that’s why I am an avid supporter of SA and Department Leaders being the main guys around here with SC taking a step back and not being a bunch of micromanagers, which they shouldn’t be!

 

[Biscuits]

-Support
I'm not going to contact GSD CL4 to jobban some GSD Guard breaking GSD Protocol

if SA / SC / Whoever try abuse their power to jobban people for the most minor things then you should be recording it and making complaints to the appropriate people

 

[FrostByte]

- Support

The issues you're having have less to do with Site Leadership being able to job ban people, and more with site leadership themselves. If these are actual problems being experienced, then this server needs to review how they select site command and who currently holds those positions. This Suggestion just doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the grand scheme of things. Why would a member of the O5 council or the site director have less authority over a security guard than a captain does?

And if people are blatantly disrespecting site command or administration, they should be dealt with in roleplay. Job bans for minor cases of disrespect shouldn't really happen. Use one of the four MTFs that this server bloated itself with to capture them and either arrest them or make them a d class for the funny (this is kind of a joke, and doesn't include an actual job ban)

 

[The Guardian]

Just ask y'all selves how often complaints about CL4 and CL5 actually get dealt with.

Besides, she was saying to either ban the usage *or* add rules to it.

 

[Biscuits]

Just ask y'all selves how often complaints about CL4 and CL5 actually get dealt with.

Besides, she was saying to either ban the usage *or* add rules to it.

they get dealt with

 

[The Guardian]

they get dealt with

For something like an unwarranted job ban? I highly doubt it. They only get dealt with in extreme cases and even those take weeks/months of stacked behaviour.

 

[Harold Hawks]

-/+ Support

SA/SC are already held to a higher standard in regards to professionalism and usage of the powers available to them. Failure to do so should be met with warnings from SL, strikes and possibly removals which is plenty. If we aren't already adhering to these standards then you should report it up the chain. Though a requirement asking for us to need to report when we do these and why to department leadership isn't a bad thing to have in writing.

 

[Zen]

- Support

There are scenarios where I need to job ban people of security and research for being absolute minges, this would inhibit me from doing so and require I go to a department leader for every simple job ban which is ridiculous, I always go along with fun RP that goes against my group being ethics, I enjoy unions etc because it’s different and makes the server enjoyable and have people arrested for saying bad things to Ethics etc, the only time I use job bans is if their actions are not justifiable at all. I agree Site Leadership shouldn’t be job banning people for calling them a slightly bad name and that in itself is unacceptable (I’m not sure who everyone is referring to). Those scenarios where people are doing so for unjust reasons should be handled by the Chairman / Chief Overseer, or if need be the SL team. SC and SA should be following guidelines and SC should only deviate from such guidelines if it is absolutely needed. Whenever I have had to job ban someone I usually go to Department leadership first. I do not think taking away the ability entirely however is fair.

And yes, Site Admin and Site Command sometimes pull rank, buts that’s their whole purpose, they are experienced individuals who should be trusted to know what they are doing, and sometimes need to step in over Department Leaders. I agree departments etc should be more independent from SC etc, and that’s why I am an avid supporter of SA and Department Leaders being the main guys around here with SC taking a step back and not being a bunch of micromanagers, which they shouldn’t be!

We've been told you can't job ban for OOC rule breaking - mods should deal with that.

-Support
I'm not going to contact GSD CL4 to jobban some GSD Guard breaking GSD Protocol

if SA / SC / Whoever try abuse their power to jobban people for the most minor things then you should be recording it and making complaints to the appropriate people

Can't record it, because it's just them running a command, they could be doing it from anywhere for anything, all other people know is who job banned who, and for how long. Unless by chance somebody happens to see the full incident of why, record it all, and have the full context, that doesn't work.

they get dealt with

For something like an unwarranted job ban? I highly doubt it. They only get dealt with in extreme cases and even those take weeks/months of stacked behaviour.

-/+ Support

SA/SC are already held to a higher standard in regards to professionalism and usage of the powers available to them. Failure to do so should be met with warnings from SL, strikes and possibly removals which is plenty. If we aren't already adhering to these standards then you should report it up the chain. Though a requirement asking for us to need to report when we do these and why to department leadership isn't a bad thing to have in writing.

I've only ever seen SA/SC get removed for minor unprofessionalism issues, never for when any of them are actually problematic, those ones tend to stick around for ages. As an outsider, it looks like it's just a small group of people that are SL's favourites, and anybody else that gets in are quickly removed for the most minor things.

 

[Bohemia]

- Support
already rules around it

 

["Puggo"]

-Support

Site Command are held to a proper standard and a professional level suitable enough to make these decisions.

 

[Joe "Enoch"]

-Support
SC/SA are people that are selected from former directors and are all responsible enough to make these decisions. If any member of SA/SC makes a bad job ban, report it, and it will be dealt with.