soulping | GULGULLANA

[ you're ushered into a tiny break room, which is SURPRISINGLY WELL LIT! There's some chairs, a single table, fountain pens and inkwells, and a box of (stale) donuts. ]

[ on the table is a single sheet of paper, with the following questions:

TEAM NAME (if made up of multiple teams, choose a new one):

1.) What would you say your skills, as a team are?

2.) How would you define suffering?

3.) How far are you willing to go to achieve victory?

4.) Where do you see yourselves in five years?

5.) What are your team's weaknesses?

6.) What accomplishment are you most proud of?

7.) Tell me about a time you made a mistake.

8.) If you saw another employee stealing from the company, what would you do?

9.) Describe your team.

10.) What motivates you?

11.) What makes you uncomfortable?

12.) Can you say: 'Peter Pepper Picked a Pickled Pepper' and cross-sell a washing machine at the same time?

13.) If I came to your house for dinner, what would you prepare for us?

14.) Calculate the angle of two clock hands when time is 11:50.

15.) Has a member of your team ever killed another living creature? Did they enjoy it?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ Congratulations! You are the CLERKS. You are responsible for record-keeping and budgeting.

Your training scenario is simple -- your current budget is currently too low to afford much in the way of safety equipment and routine maintenance for anything other than the most expensive and hardest to replace equipment. Employees below you are also not receiving livable wages, which is leading to a decrease in the quality of their work. The ENFORCERS are also lacking in proper enforcement equipment. You must decide whether to raise the budget or not, and how much it should cover. ]

[ wow what.... what is this even. nothing in her mind actually comprehends this ]

Edited 2014-03-04 01:46 (UTC)

[ ...he can. sort of. understand just what's going on here, but that's the extent of it. ]

Maybe we should just increase the budget by a bit. Enough to break-even at least.

Do you think so? I can't understand any of this.

[ BUT IT SOUNDS GOOD TO HER ]

Basically, the point is to make things better like Diz said, but then there's the fact that our decisions might affect a lot of people if we do it randomly like that.

From the question alone, whatever we decide effects the various employees as well as enforces... Who do we prioritize in this sort of situation?

(no subject)

doublechecks - 2014-03-04 01:57 (UTC) - Expand

pronounced - 2014-03-04 01:59 (UTC) - Expand

[Well, I kind of have experience in this category in my memory, so.]

Basically, we're being asked to choose whether or not to improve the situation, and how to improve it.

Edited 2014-03-04 01:51 (UTC)

I'm getting that, but I have a feeling it's a lot more complicated than it seems.

It is, yeah. Part of the problem is that as mentioned before, the Echo's stance is that deaths are supposed to happen. We also have to assume that whatever we do affects what other teams are doing, too.

I said I was going to protect Epona somehow so whatever we decide must not harm any of the other teams in any way possible. If the other teams are represented by the employees or even by the products then there must be a balance for this.

Re: ROUND 2

debate_avenger - 2014-03-04 02:03 (UTC) - Expand

pronounced - 2014-03-04 02:05 (UTC) - Expand

I'm all for increasing our worker and enforcer's welfare, but I'm not sure if prioritizing them would result in a good thing or a bad thing.

[ ... ]

Or we could always focus on the machines and ignore the people, safety in handling procedures means less death, right?

I was thinking of a 2:1:1 mix, with 50% of whatever we raise going to equipment maintenance, 25% going to lower-level employees, and 25% going to enforcers, myself. We can adjust the percentages as needed, but if we're going to raise the budget, we shouldn't just focus on one thing.

Edited 2014-03-04 01:58 (UTC)

And the drawbacks from raising the budget?

[ because that sounds too reasonable to her for it to work out so nicely... ]

Edited 2014-03-04 02:04 (UTC)

Most likely, the extra budget will come out of us.

[Interpret that as you will.]

[ and it's something that she just silently considers ]

debate_avenger - 2014-03-04 02:12 (UTC) - Expand

pronounced - 2014-03-04 02:19 (UTC) - Expand

We'd need to make more profit so we can stay in business.

[ as simple as that. ]

We can't make any profit if our workers are working less and things are breaking.

doublechecks - 2014-03-04 02:15 (UTC) - Expand

I'm sure there would be other ways for that. If I'm understand this concept, we're only one part of a much bigger chain.

[ after considering Cross' suggestion. ]

Personally, I'd think a 1:2:1 would be better suited, we can have the worker's morale going up, which might lead to less protection needed.

Also, the added budget can go to teaching them so they could learn more about the machines in order to maintain it themselves.

Maybe we can make the rewards contingent on the workers learning more about the machines? If you can repair what you work with you get a bigger raise.

Practical. We can save on maintenance costs by pushing them to the employees.

Yes, the more satisfied they are, the more willing they are to work. That could work too.

[ hm...! ]

I also agree, this alongside Wipe's idea doesn't too bad for everyone involved.

[ not like she has any business sense but. ]

Maybe there's something we can do in the middle. If we raise the workers wages, then the Enforcers shouldn't have to enforce as much and they can do without some of their equipment.

...Hm, I think I like where this is going.

[ Considers it!!! ]