087 - Warden Meeting. [IC Meme]

[bythe_books]

Warden Meeting: 07/03/????
AGENDA

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Warden Conduct & Expectations
   
2. Inmate Conduct & Expectations
   
3. Warden-Inmate Relationships
   
4. Security & its Future
   
5. Inmate Consequences/Punishments
   
6. Jobs
   

PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Basic Warden Training
   
2. Warden Consequences

VOTING

Comments

Re: Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[hopeless_hacker]

In light of the growing population it doesn't feel necessary for Security to exist at this point, at least not for day-to-day issues. There are more than enough competent Wardens available to escort an Inmate to Zero if that's what needs doing, and we as a group should be prepared to watch each others' backs.

As it is, I'm not questioning anyone's competence but I think the presence of a Security team causes more problems than it solves. Issues relating to the security of the Barge should be dealt with by the Warden population as a whole and not deferred to a smaller group. It fosters resentment when one person's opinion is thought to have more weight than someone else's, given that this is an environment where nobody asked for or expected a hierarchy beyond Admiral > Wardens > Inmates. We already have enough problems making joint decisions without an extra cause for divisiveness.

Having said that, it's not always practical to spend time on diplomacy that's better spent on action. Maybe in times of complete disaster, for

Re: Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[fireworkbubbles]

I hesitate to ask... [a cleared throat] but shouldn't all Wardens be trained to disarm an armed opponent, get themselves out of a dangerous situation, or something like that as well? I'm not saying full on martial arts training, but something that will help them in a situation such as that. Perhaps not to contain it, unfortunately, but to survive, and be able to call for help.

Then, of course, comes the question of just who should arrive, which I believe should be handled as the one Warden proposed - sorry, I don't know your name - by a small elected group, for the larger disasters, and by volunteers, for the smaller ones.

Re: Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[fireworkbubbles]

Yes, I completely agree. I don't, exactly, carry weapons, and am rather more dangerous to myself with them, than I am to anyone else. Hence, the ability to get away, safely, so they have time to call for help.

There isn't always time, while you're in the situation, but if you can get away from it, it'll at least give you enough time to call, in theory, so others can come help.

Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[hopeless_hacker]

I think what you're referring to is a wider issue of trust. If I am in a situation I can't handle alone and I call for backup, I would expect somebody to answer that call who is equipped to help and won't make the situation worse. And I would do the same for any other Warden.

The Security team is, as far as I know, made up of self-selected volunteers who have no extra authority and no extra privileges. And it's largely composed of the sort of people who would respond to a distress call anyway, so why even bother making the distinction? If we were to clarify the role of Security I think it would be to state that their purpose is, as I've said, to ensure safety and security during periods of crisis. The rest of the time I think we can take care of ourselves as a larger group.

Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[hopeless_hacker]

Obviously. The last thing we'd want from this arrangement is to see anyone getting lynched.

Re: Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[mrs_persson]

I was about to propose that very idea of an elected group -- a sort of steering committee, as it were. That way, there's a known body of authority to which to default in times of emergency.

We'd want to define clearly when that body's power would be exerted, of course. Danger to life and limb due to an attack, organised inmate uprising or riot, and so on.

Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[hopeless_hacker]

I agree with this completely. And I think an elected group would be the most reasonable course of action, even if we do end up seeing most of the same faces we did before. Agreeing when exactly to resort to this will probably have to be a discussion for another day, though.

Re: Security and its future/non-future/what you want them to do.

[gimmethemap]

I...don't agree with this. At all. Actually for similar reasons I was against establishing a security team at the beginning.

We say that it'd have to be defined clearly when this group would have power, but if we slip into one of those months, or spans of months, where one horrible thing seems to happen one after the other, we run the risk of becoming dependent upon the authority of those specific people, and in the end might hesitate to dismantle it again once things become calm.

This should be read as her joshing him for agreeing with her and nothing more :|

[gimmethemap]

Colonel Sexby, you cad. Stop falling in love with me.

Re: Sexby's one of my few characters WITH a sense of humour. so you get it back. 0.o

[gimmethemap]

Would you prefer Mister Sexby?