Yesterday, 01:51 AM
(This post was last modified: Yesterday, 02:53 AM by Lord_earthfire. Edited 24 times in total.)
(Yesterday, 12:55 AM)Agent reburG Wrote: I ask, shouldn't security handle this?
Breaking and Entering falls at first in their jurisdiction, but I BET 90% security will not care, so will headstaff, AI that opened the doors, ahelp them too?
If sec needs to handle something non-antags do, you need in most cases to ahelp that. Breaking and entering is also an example in the "stay in your lane" rule.
Head staff and AI opening it is fine. They have access and can give it. But if i see a medical director AI-opening into chenistry as a scientist, yes, i dhould ahelp.
The problem, like we talked about, isnt about the rules. Its about enforcement. So do your part and ahelp. I personally need to get better at that as well.
(Yesterday, 12:55 AM)Agent reburG Wrote: Also address the bloody Chempenser at the Bar, double down or drop this hypocrisy.
The job of a bartender is providing chemicals. Mainly alcohol related ones. The difference is that medicals job is not making chemicals, their job is -using- them.
Compare the bartender to pharmacy, and medbay to the personal getting drunk. You don't want the drinking staffie on the bar machine.
Redundancy is good. Botany can make chems, bartemder can make them, qm can order them. It's not bad that you can bypass chemistry/pharmacy by ordering by qm. What counts that a different department does it and friction/interaction is created.
The problem arises when a department uses a recource that is meant to be limited but are also given the ability to create it.
You are talking about a hypocrisy because you don't understand the issue.

Goonhub