Scheveningen

Verified filthy sec main here. I don't see the security age thing as a problem. Someone has to start somewhere. Space may be relatively dangerous, but considering how most military forces allow drafting in various nations at 16, I dunno, it seems fairly consistent. I also figure the NT exams require you pass over 80-85%. Which is not insignificant, that's a lot of information you need to retain to begin with, and that must transfer over as you pass and become an officer. Onto the whole flashbang thing, 10 second stuns when you're unprotected is fucking huge, but rightfully so. I believe thermals/NVGs/mesons also mildly enhance the stun caused by flashbangs regardless of helmet protection (could totally be wrong), which is also something worth noting, but the concussion effect is substantially less of an issue. The combat hardsuit helmets (i.e. the syndies AND the combat hardsuit, in addition to the ERT/deathsquid suits) makes this a complete nuance, though, completely nullifying both effects regardless of goggle usage. The blinding still makes it a battle condition to be aware of. This is softened with sunglasses which dumb it down to 5 seconds if point blank, three seconds if it's a bit further off, and at other distances it drops you for a brief second before you get back up again. Side-tracking again, but it's important I say this: Stop this meme. There are different paygrades of security officer for a reason. Not every sec officer is a naive green rookie named Baul Plart. They can be, but this should never be the expectation nor the standard (much as newfriends display otherwise and continually drag expectations of security much lower), considering how standards for security officer entry are not supposed to be low, NanoTrasen isn't retarded. As much as it would be amusing for us to have segways implemented only to be inevitably used for combat purposes, let's stop pretending "BAUL PLART, SECURITY OFFICER" is anything other than a meme because the only time you'd ever say security officers are mall cops is when a shitposty discussion is going on in the general discord and you want to contribute mild-mannered humor. This is not an argument on a Heavy Roleplay server where anyone is free to design their character from a degree of being barely qualified but qualified enough to a 15 year security department veteran or something, stop using it as such to push stupid arguments because you can't come up with a better rebuttal to a suggestion. Either that or stop posting, that would be fine too. Also, if hostile antags are proving too difficult to secure using non-lethal means, it probably means the situation is far too untenable to resolve without killing them. To be less confusing: You probably should be killing antagonists proving themselves to be too dangerous to consider arresting and locking them up. Risk vs. reward needs to be weighed first when it comes to that sort of decision-making. Sorry, I'm sure it's fun for the wizard to have security bent over a desk like a Nevada casino groupie, but there comes a point where it slowly stops making sense to use the same level of force over and over again only for it to not work. If a problem needs to be put down after enough losses have been suffered or you anticipate it's only going to get worse, you should probably put down the little rabid doggie. Flashbangs are only so good, and you're using them improperly to begin with if you're trying to detain one guy. That's a waste of a flashbang, or rather, you're not maximizing its potential usage. Flashbangs are and will always be intended for group-based incapacitating and dispersion. Also great for flooring an entire room of civilians just to get to the one shitter causing trouble in a crowd. And for hostage situations, but only so you can pull out the hostage before you fill the other idiot's mouth full of lead. Pretty darn good in those situations. It's pretty darn bad when a flashbang backfires on you when you toss it at an antag and it either does nothing or even worse, he throws it back at you and then pins you to the floor like the doofus you are for failing to use the right tool for the job. That being said, if we're willing to entertain this idea. On /tg/station, security is equipped with bowman headsets. They're distinct from other headsets due to the fact that they completely cover the ears and help to substantially reduce the concussion effect of friendly flashbangs being thrown. This is only particularly useful during rev rounds as nuke ops on /tg/ prefer to use explosives such as the MGL or !FUN! chemistry grenades for a more lethal edge, as an example. It would probably be a very bad idea to entertain this sort of equipment that can be acquired roundstart on code green, as on /tg/station the code level automatically escalates to blue if the station detects antags. If it doesn't everyone can assume it's extended up until random events there end up inevitably spawning swarmers to ruin everyone's day. It'd be interesting to see bowman headsets at least for auxiliary purposes, stowed in the armory. I'm sure they'd be super useful during riots. We don't really need them, though. It'd be nice, but, really? Seems more like a QOL change that would inevitably warp into some nasty powercreep if somebody decided to abuse it.

Note that neither bartender or chef are "hobbies." They are full-on careers that require some degree of vocational training or in the case of the chef, academic credit. Not to mention the jump in paygrade that occurs with a captain deciding to be a chef for a day. That by itself makes little sense.

uhhh then this entire thread should've been redrafted to suit that niche, then? "add drugs to traitor uplink" or something sounds like a completely different discussion from "give people the opportunity to bring kilos of weed to work"

Syndicate strike team thematics are at least more entertaining and enjoyable to watch because they're very much in line with what you expect as the round type's bad guy. It fits with SS13 tradition and sometimes I feel it's a shame we permit such freedom with faction choice instead of making it more random and opting the players into a faction that their leader chooses for the entire group. Everyone only ever seems to want to do Generic Sol Strike Team #3451 with angry mahreen stereotypes undermining the round's roleplay quality.

This is a better idea.

This is an obnoxious feature that does not add interesting depth to a zero-interaction ghost role with a 5 minute respawn timer that permits you to cause an amount of grief in the manner of throwing contents of boxes all over and destroying the container itself.

If you don't have the accreditations to be job-hopping you shouldn't be job-hopping. If you're job-hopping you better respect that no one person can job hop to every single department and would only have at least two specializations and sometimes no more than that. A CMO knowing their entire department and having degrees in chemistry/anatomy/virology is not terribly unreasonable. It's unreasonable for a CMO to also hold accreditations in electrical engineering because medical doctoring and electrical engineering are completely unrelated and barely have enough synergy with the main career to work.

the HOS was not Jane Pyre, it was Sophia(e?) Rifler. wrong redhead. I was the CMO this round and I was pretty adamant in saying that it was pretty damn stupid for the HOS to order a head of staff be mugged of their ID just so that the officer can get into an area where the captain was being assaulted. Pretty fucking stupid escalation there and pretty bad common sense exercised on the end of the officer to not get what a stupid order sounds like.

i too, think its very idiotic to suggest that administrators should be limited from other roles because of your concerns that it centralizes too much "power" into individuals who gain those responsibilities. which is funny because the moment someone becomes admin that's more than most could ever dream to earn, so. just had to get my very important opinion out there y'know I don't see how Skull was being "rude" at worst he was being frank in addressing the issue. Facts don't care about your feelings.

It depends on the situation and if an antagonist is deserving of being declared "robust on sight." They need to have done something to deserve being considered as valid to take down.

It is not quite fun for random idjits to magically know the wizard's name without said wizard having already told the entire crew who he is. It's unreasonable to assume administrators would be able to enforce this to a reasonable extent where this immersion-breaking behavior is even punishable if it's done maliciously. My proposition is as follows: Each character as part of their set-up has a unique radio identifier scrambled in 8 characters with various numbers and letters. Once it is rolled in character creation it can never be changed, it is set in stone forever until you make a new character. Your ID could be an embarassing S3XMOLE1 and you could do nothing about it besides ask for a regeneration of the identifier by an admin. The radio UID for each character remains the same every round and no two characters can have the exact same UID. Getting a new headset doesn't change the UID as it's based entirely on employee DNA recognition. Certain antagonist types get randomly scrambled hashes and the antagonists may choose to modify their headset to adopt hashes of existing crewmembers if necessary, by default the hashes are always ########. Names of characters no longer display on the radio. Instead, the radio UIDs substitute displayed names. For the AI and borgs, if the UID belongs to an existing crewmember it displays their name instead, even if it's actually the fault of a modified headset. To ensure this isn't entirely flawed, if the modified headset wearer is attempting to adopt the individual's identity the synthetics will see the text displayed in italics if the perp is not wearing a voice changer. Otherwise it acts as normal. Radio UIDs can also be looked up on telecommunications to identify who is abusing communications or not. Each headset upon examination also displays its last registered UID. Voice changing abuse may also be identified in this way with display notifications that state there are audio distortion anomalies but it is more subtle. The heads of staff now all have telecommunications monitoring modules on their computers in their office, allowing them to see who's abusing their headset, however, this is more limited than the main monitoring console in that it cannot identify anything other than the radio UID and the message that was sent. This allows for information balance. As an example for display: Now; [Command] Joss Nann says, "Have you ever had a dreams that, that you, um, you had, you'd, you would, you could, you'd do, you would, you want, you, you could do so, you, you'd do, you could, you, you want, you want him to do you so much you could do anything?" Instead: [Command] [s3XMOLE1] says, "Have you ever had a dreams that, that you, um, you had, you'd, you would, you could, you'd do, you would, you want, you, you could do so, you, you'd do, you could, you, you want, you want him to do you so much you could do anything?" My proposed system would create more interesting scenarios in terms of radio communications and transmissions of information thereof. This has the mild consequence of completely invalidating crew banter over radio comms since nobody knows who is talking, but a dash of proper radio comms SOP would allow people to transmit the necessary information in a reasonable way. That, and why are you sitting at your desk like a slob expecting to get social interaction that way? If you want to chat with your clique you should go through the effort of finding them to chat them up instead, which would certainly encourage more close-up interaction for less important matters.

You cannot expect to give two different cases equivalent treatment for a similar situation because no two situations are ever really the same and it may not even be appropriate to respond the same for every given case. It leads to boring gameplay, after all. A person would be more inclined to holler for security for an individual hacking into your workplace with tools, donning a full-face gas mask that covers his or her face entirely, rather than doing for the same for someone clad in wizard robes who simply looks silly walking out of your personal bathroom having just used it. There's a different, and much more obvious, implication for the former case than the latter.

Whether joking or not this is a terrible way to start off an application. It is not something appropriate that anyone would write given the already controversial stigma Tajaran applications face due to the past reputation of the species on Aurora. It already raises a red flag right there regardless of sincerity. Sexual repression is, quite literally, a state in which an individual feels they cannot express their own sexuality due to social conditions or internal psychological struggles that are ongoing. To be sexually repressed implicitly states your character seems, appears and otherwise is heteronormative to outsiders. In case you didn't see, I believe Mofo recently denied an application with another feminine homosexual catboy medical department character. The example I'm citing is morein rather extreme compared to what is being described in the OP here, but it somewhat defeats the point to have an openly homosexual Tajaran character concept from a background where homosexuality is not only frowned upon but intervened upon in regards to the slightest suspicion that a Tajaran expresses homosexual tendencies. I detest character designs that only make the homosexuality a larger focus than any other attribute of the character as it makes a bigoted implication that sexuality is the only thing that matters or should matter, whether it is your intention or not. It is a sickening level of objectification that sets back any progress for LGBQT members to simply want to be accepted as being normal as anyone else is. The common stereotype for any trans/gay character on this server has always been played off as an effeminate flamboyant tart and this trend is honestly disgusting. Not supporting this application until some real work has been done to make this a more believable character. Hive and Sue did not make a reformation to Tajaran views on homosexuality just for nothing, they did it to create quality control on Tajaran characters whether they were already gay or not. The tension makes it far more interesting for players to roleplay Tajaran characters because they legitimately need to respect the oppressive authoritarianism that their nation has affected the Tajaran people with, and RP accordingly. A characters sexuality should never come before other meaningful character attributes because otherwise you are playing nothing other than a walking stereotype of a sex object. That is nothing short of offensive. This stereotype barely gets near to being true to the reality of LGBTQ experiences and I don't know a single person that has ever done this short of extremely sexually active homosexual friends I know. Handkerchief/hand-signalling code is fetishist BDSM shit and not representative of normal LGBTQ behavior, and it's even been said that this social phenomenon was purposefully created by an ideologically hostile party to give the LGBTQ community a false reputation as fetishists. I'm seriously stunned.

I'd hazard a guess you were three brothers of African descent but I otherwise don't see why you would've been banned besides mild suspicion unless "three African brothers with same last name join into the round" somehow violates the spirit of the rules. It seems like this is why banning staffmembers should actually wait for plasmagrief to take place before preemptively banning for it since plasmagrief itself is very easy to fix. bombgrief is slightly different but is more reasonably stopped by watching the individual walk out of the lab with bombs in their bag first and stopping them in their place, in case anybody drops that circumstance as a possibility, it's obviously handled differently. Maybe there's more to the story here, though? If there isn't, though, this seems a bit like an extreme measure taken a bit too soon. Intent can only be properly gauged by actions taken first, though. Do you know da wae doe?

I don't think there's a more superior choice for this sort of candidacy role. I know that I am quite notorious for long-winded paragraphs when I don't like something but I'm quite the opposite when it comes to me endorsing something because I find it difficult to criticize something that has more potential to be rewarding than it has to possess inherent faults.

ok thats your opinion but for other characters that aren't lawful good anti-corporate superheroes it suits them just fine. Did you report them at all or are you just saying this in hopes it'll devalue any of my points?

No, its quite inclusive. You have no idea what you're talking about. Now onto this thread - why not add a second Head of Security? Boy how else do we make this suggestion thread even worse. Need I go on about how the very idea of it will undermine chain of command and line leading further, and create more drama to the security job that nobody wants? If you've ever worked at a job where there are multiple shift managers and two of them are working the same shift, you'll know exactly how awful it is to have to work with two heads that manage the same thing but aren't on the same page on what they want their subordinates to be doing. More unnecessary confusion, making a very simple situation more complex than it needs to be, and otherwise not a productive line of thinking. If you want to make security's job easier, dumb down some of the restrictions without doing too much takeaway from original mechanics if necessary. Focus on making less mean more rather than trying to make adding more things will make security suffer less stress to playing the job that they can't be set up for failure, but will inevitably do so anyway because you piled on too much.

The buddy system is ideal for code green situations. Generally speaking you only need one officer to deal with a single situation but it is 2x safer of a bet to send just two for one, and even on such a large station as the new Aurora, rarely does more than 2-3 violent situations ever break out. I put anyone left over on desk duty whether they like it or not. Better sitting at the brig desk than out on their own without a shred of accountability. You rarely need vision so much until you confirm there are antagonists on the station. Tactics change based on the situation but the buddy system is pretty safe for usage on code green and blue. That's their choice and my HoSes will punish them for disobeying orders and abandoning their posts accordingly. Disobeying reasonable orders is almost as bad as being a traitor! If they don't want to play along with the rest of us then maybe they don't deserve to do what they want, either. The buddy system naturally wasn't designed to be flawless, smart traitors will completely avoid unnecessary conflict and I personally chalk up a 1v2 as completely unnecessary and bad odds to play with. The buddy system is intended to keep officers safe primarily from themselves before antagonists really have a chance to be included in the equation. I'm sure being double-teamed is a sour experience for everyone but I had to contend with stun talisman cheesers and a wide range assortment of other stun fishing tactics antagonists choose to use to take me out of the round "just cuz antag lul." You don't play most antag types to have the numbers advantage anyway.

You don't need senior officers to make a communicative team work, tho. Your senior members of staff is anyone who isn't a pleb-cadet. Officer-cadet, officer-cadet and officer-officer is the ideal pairup for teams. That's four officers and two cadets with all of them partnered up.

The loyalty implant has always been much of the same in thematic in line with inhibitor chips. Unless this has changed by [mention]Senpai Jackboot[/mention] 's definition. I've no idea why you think a chip that simply enforces the thought process: "Never go against the interests of the corporation" - isn't a fathomable thing a very powerful corporation with very powerful enemies would do to ensure loyalty among their high-ranking personnel, sdt. What's honestly wrong with it? It makes sense and creates an interesting moral greyness that adds a necessary depth to roleplay in the higher-risk roles. Loyalty implants stop Heads of Security and Captains from being limp-weenied cowards that fork over the station and the company assets in exchange for quite literally anything such as "no wait don't kill my captain's gf" or whatever. Instead they have no choice but to fight to the potential death to defend company resources which is far more interesting than having the two most (arguably) important job roles decide to give up doing their job because they encounter a situation they don't want to deal with and take seriously. That's largely the OOC purpose of it; to enforce interaction with antagonists when it comes down to it, and enforce their loyalty to the supposed company they worked so hard to attain status for. Mindshields are dumb and only encourage metagaming, which isn't a problem on servers like /tg/ or whatever but it's pretty common to simply ask for a mindshield so that the cult/revs/gangs have to expend extra effort to kill you instead of either flashing you, stabbing you with a pen or dragging you over a glowing crayon rune. It would easily become a problem here because you adopt the exact same stigma and expectation for a roleplay environment that does not have the exact same stigma and expectations as its source environment that the feature came from.

Sure wish to know how discussions relating to giving security more inherent power and shiny new occupations for nothing other than principle somehow benefits new players. I'm sure they all work very hard coming up with new ideas to promote more newbie outreach. But I guess I'm too out of touch to be reasonable in saying that people aren't going the right direction with security play when they make suggestions like these huh?

Whatever. It masquerades as inclusive but promotes ideas of exclusivity. It's elitist through and through.

Also, Senior Department Member roles are a joke. Nothing screams 'power player' like those job titles and I'm somewhat glad I've not seen that trend anymore ICly. I've no idea what the NT-ISD secret elite club comes up with in addition to that but that being one of the things discussed in that discord tops one of my many things that I dislike about the numerous server-related secret clubs. Ability must come before mediocrity and nepotism. You either know your place or you don't.

Nothing I love more than the consistent repeat suggestions we get asking for new roles people will compete viciously for and not actually have a broad understanding of what the role is intended for, but would rather hold what power they think the role has simply for the bragging rights of saying, "We are the elite!" -- and only proving what a ponce they'll be in that role. Adding auxiliary support functions to departments are neat but not when they include a shred of higher authority than the other more standardized jobs yet not being above their head of staff. This creates more problems pertaining to adding useless middleman figureheads to fix issues solely pertaining to a lack of proper leadership and team management and not an issue of being stretched thin. The buddy system is a tried and true system that works, it's been the security meta for goodness knows how long because no other strategy really works to such effectiveness as the buddy system. For as long as the pair is alive, they keep themselves accountable (I.e., they will report on one another if the other fucks up catastrophically, or they'll keep absolutely subtle about their security corruption because they cannot possibly get away with an accusation that both officers abused someone. Additionally, if one tries to kill the other and succeeds, the murderer is rather cut and dry) and more importantly they try to keep themselves and each other alive, assuming neither is a bad guy. Without one the other is weak alone, but together they are quite strong, especially considering the amount of pressure it creates for any single individual that dares attempt to take on two officers alone. There's no need to add a dispatch role. Priority of response and who gets to response simply operates on a "Dibs'd it" principle. A duo must dibs the case first, if they don't get it first, then they don't go and they remain on stand-by to handle a secondary issue in the event it happens, or to backup the primary responding team if necessary. This prevents the entire security force showing up at once to deal with a bald janitor stealing ice cream from the kitchen robot. There is no need to add more admittedly useless bureaucracy to the already barely functioning system, even if it's intended to create more order. The system is, to its merit, simple enough that it is difficult to properly break without taking a mighty sledge to the issue by way of removing the officers through brute force. Making simple systems more complex may add additional depth to them, but depth causes an array of unforeseeable minor issues that may pile up and cause more chaos rather than bringing order to the original problem. Reasoning explained in a couple questions; 1. Well, what if the Patrol Sarge is an idiot? 2. Well, what if the Patrol Sarge isn't where he needs to be? 3. Well, what if the Patrol Sarge isn't communicating on point in an emergency? 4. Well, what direction am I supposed to be taking if the person designated to dispatch me just stopped existing? In which, people defending this will respond with, "Officers clearly need to grow a brain, a pair of nuts and learn to think on the spot, be more independent and proactive with decision-making." And in which case we're back to square one because apparently that's a different intention from what this thread is suggesting. Community member wants more officer babysitters, despite individuals who already encompass that responsibility in a very simplified and gauche way, happen to already exist on-station. From my experience, these microissues either make or break a security team. Either they're worked on and made into non-issues, or the microcosms pile up and create a much larger picture of chaotic team structure. So, do we need another job that may only exacerbate this issue rather than try to fix it? Issue being; "Officers need more oversight and the HOS can't be everywhere to deal with it and also objectively dole out fair justice, because of the burden of proof." No, definitely not. Communication must be facilitated by the responsible parties. If they want their teams to function, they need to set boundaries, expectations and systematically engineer their own cogs of a well-oiled security machine themselves and enforce their team members to go along with it without incurring mutiny. If this doesn't happen under a HOS it means they're doing a fuck-up job of team management. And it will show and globally broadcast to the entire crew when it does.

Man. Gonna put it pretty simply, this was obviously drafted off of principle and not for purpose. Coalf and JB were very obviously heated in discussion about topics of the lore and it ended with "If you think you can do better you can apply", which is something that's been repeated a few times to JB's numerous critics who funny enough, turned out most of the time to be lore devs and churned out a lot of work! But ultimately this seems to be boiling down to a showdown of ego. You both want honest feedback but neither of you are going to like it in the event it comes and strikes a proper chord in the both of you. I can talk about ego as well, by the way, considering I'd do the exact same thing given the situation. It's a very human thing to want to stretch stuff out like this on the basis of defending one's own principles.