Talk:Decommissioning

Chliever Stuff
So I'm fairly certain I know what parts are Chliever-stuff-related (most of the Decommissioning process and aftermath, possibly the 'messing with Real World continuity' offense), but I'm wondering if that really has to be removed. I mean, the way the page is written, all of this seems like it could still happen for anyone who wanted to write a Decommissioning - the Real World continuity offense seems like it should still be an offense, and the whole 'you can say goodbye to your partner, but we'll have to neuralyze you after it's over' thing seems like something that would actually happen, considering agents have souls and whatnot...

Is it just that the writing these bits come from is no longer considered in-continuity? Would someone else need to write similar pieces for these parts to remain on this page (not that I'm offering)?

KittyNoodles (talk) 15:21, November 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Part of the issue as I understand it is that the whole thing verges on the grimdark, which we want to avoid. Even taking it at face value, though, it strikes me as a strange sort of punishment&mdash;I mean, you commit a serious crime against another sentient being, and you're forced to settle down somewhere and live out the rest of your days. Oh no...? Also, the way it's worded at present, it sounds like there's supposed to be a shame factor that prevents people from doing these things, but it also states the perpetrator has to be completely lucid when they commit the crime and not regret it. Basically, they have to be a cold-blooded sociopath. Shame isn't going to deter anyone twisted enough to merit this punishment, and furthermore, you can't exactly feel shame if your memory of the incident and everything leading up to it is taken away. It's just not very good as a punishment as it stands, IMO.


 * On the other hand, if you just can't be trusted not to do something incredibly stupid in the Word Worlds, like in the original reference, it might make sense to stash you safely in a place where you can't do any damage. The PPC might be understaffed, but the last thing it needs is agents who are idiots and/or trolls, y'know?


 * ~Neshomeh 23:19, November 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. You're right, now that I look through the piece where Chliever's partner was Decommissioned is a bit.. edgy for the PPC. 'Specially the part where the poor guy's jerking around and whatnot...


 * And yeah, the whole thing seems a bit strange. I wonder if it would be easier just to scrap everything and overhaul the whole idea of Decommissioning - keeping the whole 'keep idiot/troll agents from messing with the Word Worlds' part, but totally reimagining stuff like the process and the overall perception of and requirements for Decommissioning. Hmm...


 * KittyNoodles (talk) 10:16, November 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think a rewrite is called for. What I'd do is cut it down it to include only what we can infer from the existing, in-continuity reference and leave it up to other people to expand on it in stories if they feel like it. Though, Dazey Baker's case might warrant a mention here, too. This page currently says forced retirement is a separate thing from decommissioning, but I can't think why (except perhaps to make decommissioning more srs bsns). Anyway, she's mentioned on the Retirement page as an example of being sent home post-snapping in action&mdash;I'd also rewrite that page to tone down the "punishment" framing and to link here.


 * Are you interested in doing this, or would you rather I took a hand at this point?


 * ~Neshomeh 16:44, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Were-agents?
The page as it is now, with the primary grounds for decommissioning listed, says agents are removed from the organisation for allowing were-agents to roam free during a full moon. That's understandable, but what about non-dangerous weres, or weres who fulfil some kind of important function? The DIA has a Discworld werewolf, for example - is he never allowed to Change?