Icuris

I have this concern that the quality of one person’s RP is being measured by how often people are talking with them. Socializing is absolutely a huge component of the game. Another component is the role/rank that each player has while they play. It seems like there’s a concern that one component of play; the IC interactions is lacking, hence the change. In the name of “balance” parts of the security role have been severely limited to accommodate a problem...that evidently many players feel was never even an issue. The restrictions are too much and have complicated the security players role beyond that of any other role, and that is simply unfair. While each department has its own unique challenges in game, the new challenges are arbitrary at best, and grossly unbalanced at worst. Others have already gone over this. My personal concern is that the chance of officers walking in on antag activity in places generally considered safe in the meta to be greater then any restriction we can impose on said officer. In essence, it will not matter how many restrictions are imposed on the department assigned officer, part of their role is reporting suspicious things and investigating them. The antag roles already have their own difficulties. Having to worry about an armed guard that will shut you down like it’s there job just adds to the difficulty. Because of this concern, I am not in favour of Sec having any department access and would personally prefer a revert to the original system.

This character was originally a blank slate for me to use whenever I wanted to play a Sec officer. Silverton’s starting to come into their own and I am curious to see how that’s being perceived by other players/characters.

Voidborn-ripped straight from whichever media resource... Stellernaughts Overlanders, if it’s decided that they are strictly from space? main concern is: Making the new subspecies and mechanics easy to understand and easy to use. If both can’t be achieved the new role will be underused or not used to it’s full potential.

[mention]Synnono[/mention] I am under the impression that since I'd ahelped the issue, and it was deemed an IC issue, that a character complaint would not be considered as they are not used to circumvent a staff decision . From the player/character complaint rules. This in mind, I am unsure of what other avenues you are suggesting I take, when none appear valid besides a staff complaint. Regardless, your extended break down of how CCIA may handle issues with heavy antag involvement, or incidents generated only from antags is greatly appreciated.

Thank you [mention]nursiekitty[/mention] and [mention]SirCatnip[/mention] for fully explaining your justifications for the ruling. It should go without saying, but this complaint is only in place as it is the most suitable way to discuss these issues and is not reflective of any personal conflicts I have with either of you. My issue boils down to this. We know Sec isn’t a military group, that was never a question. I absolutely hate the “but IRL” argument but it is out of the question for an officer. They aren’t given a firearm to look cool. Any job that involves the use of lethal force will simply ask you during your interviews, “are you willing to use lethal force on a human being” If the awnser is no, you’re not hired. Hence my view that an officer with this behaviour would never be hired in the first place, thus making it an ooc issue. My argument is just my own expectations for players and their characters and my understanding of the actual security jobs. Regardless of the outcome, I will shift my view in accordance with the final decision.

Thank you for awnsering my question. Best of luck with the application. +1 (even though it’s a dirty lizard HoS)

If the argument presented is based on what we should view as the "reasonable" or "expected" circumstance of the game, we will go nowhere slowly. There are many mechanics, and even roles in game that are not "expected" to be needed; but, we as players know better, and live with the small amount of meta necessary to allow "unreasonableness" to be present in game. Regardless, and I am repeating myself, the officer who refuses to be adequately equipped and the medical doctor who refuses to treat an individual based on their species fall into the same category of issue. I strongly disagree with the idea that the incident be measured on the consequences of the player's actions to determine if it's an OOC issue or not. IE if the MD's allows the patient to die by refusing to provide treatment, or if an officer fails to perform a task by refusing to use certain equipment. There is either misunderstanding, or misquoting occurring if this statement is taken at face value. My original admin help is very clear. I see the incident as an OOC issue. It is not for me, as a player to handle OOC issues. Hence the ahelp. My willingness to handle the issue is irrelevant if I see it as an OOC issue. Hence the ahelp. My awareness on how to handle an IC issues is to the wind, if I consider the issue to be OOC. Hence the ahelp. If there is anything else that needs to be clarified, say so. If not, I have said my piece and will wait for [mention]Sharp[/mention].

The answers provided in the application demonstrate suitable knowledge beyond the character's own limitations and have satisfied my concerns regarding the player's understanding of a head of security's role. The points of contention raised by Coalf and Konflict pretain to how critically important communication is, for a HoS character, and indeed the quality of the character/player can be determined by how well coordinated their team is. There are a number of player/character complaints regarding this subject, and I recommend reviewing them to broaden your perspective of what players, staff, and IC characters expect from a HoS. [mention]EJ_Denton[/mention], a question for you, regardless of which character is used in this application, being aware of Coalf and Konflict's points, how would you best adjust yourself to fit the role as HoS?

I invite you to post the original ahelp if you feel inclined to quote it. The jist of it being "Character X has IC trait 1, I don't think okay ICly. Not in the mood to deal with it ICly." Which in my mind is acceptable, considering I viewed it as an ooc issue. 1. Lethals being valid in the circumstance of the round was never a question. 2. From the wiki, Adding to the fact that when pressed on the matter, the alternative was for them to use gear we didn't have (Ninja stole the ion early, ended up ordering a second). Simply put. Lethal force=Lethal Scenario, you are being put in mortal danger by participating in the scenario in any form, and refusing to adequately arm yourself, not follow the instructions of a superior, and yet still participate; puts yourself and others at needless risk. The consequences of this scenario, if I am following you correctly are what you evaluated to consider this an IC issue. Correct me if I am wrong. I am standing on my argument that regardless of consequence, it is unacceptable for a character to not do a basic facet of their job because of an IC character trait. I'm viewing this in the same circumstance of a MD player refusing to treat an alien player due to IC spess racism. I Question: What do you think is an appropriate IC response. To be direct, I'd simply demote anyone who came forward as a conscientious objector completely out of security. I strongly dislike the IRl argument, because it is a game, and I do agree that the consequences of the player were minimal at best, but a person would actually NOT be hired in any work that has lethal compliance tools if you morally objected to taking a life. End note I appreciate the provided example of them readjusting as the round demanded. Thank you for going through the logs.

BYOND Key: Icuris Staff BYOND Key: NursieKitty Game ID: bTU-dvHg Reason for complaint: At around 16:30 I issued an adminhelp concerning the character Macy Poehl, a security officer who was a conscientious objector to using lethal use of force. As far as the round is concerned, ICly we were stretched too thin, and had too many things happening for me to adequately address this in game. Regardless, I view it as an OOC issue I view a "conscientious objector" to lethal use of force; to fall under the CCIA ruling, that no character may posses disability, or in turn adopt a practice of belief that actively prohibits them from doing something in their job description. It is a well known fact that in game sec officer's may/will use lethal force if the situation demands it. There is not a place in the entire modern world that would ever knowingly hire, train and dispatch a law enforcement personnel who would not use lethal force due to any system of belief. Evidence/logs/etc: https://ibb.co/iDKXxS Additional remarks: I take issue with the ruling, as I believe it to be done without context of the round, where only two sec officers were present at the time, and an easy scan of logs will showcase the necessity of a player/character who adequately meets the demands of their job in game. It was not an interesting addition of IC conflict, it was a stonewall in what is well known to be a basic requirement in game, and for every ooc law enforcement agency ever. If this argument is accepted, I would like "conscientious objector" trait completely removed as I view it unacceptable for any security player to possess (aside from maybe forensics).

I’d argue that the collective psyche of a bunch of sub-organisms that has no sexual identity, a poor understanding of sentient indaviduality, and a lack of understanding of socially normative behaviours for different species would make a poor choice for the head of personnel. If the counter argument is that only super special well adjusted Dionaea would take the HoP slot then I see it as a slow moving, less effective human. -1

The basis for the recent mapping changes, according to Juani, was put forth to the respective security and medical discords. Not the forums, not the main discord, but unofficial discords that don't even comprise a fraction of the playerbase of their respective departments. I feel like this was an incredibly irresponsible and poorly thought out thing to do. For clarity’s sake. Discussions of mapping or any suggestion for that matter are not representative of the affiliated security discord, NT-ISD. Any and all suggestions or discussions occurring are the concerns of the individual speakers. In regards to medical’s current mapping situation. I will state that the original mapping plan had many, many flaws, such as a giant completely underused waiting room at the literal bottom end of the department. However, the basic functionality, short term was better and provided more space. Despite that, I can see the logic of the new mapping situation in respect to patient delegation according to needs, but the location of certain services needs to be readjusted. Surgery not being the place with hallway windows. Chemistry not being locked in a corner with the chemistry vendor being an inconvience to get to.

I am posting with the understanding that like incidents may be added for testimony Round number I do not recall. Believe it was 18-03-05 ~22:30 PST MALF round I arrive around an hour into the round, and go about security things for a while for another hour or so until crew transfer/code delta Main point of contention At one point, the AI starts providing [false] announcements of intruders in Tcomms, the HoS states that a Borg is rogue, and we had CSI working on a number of things but I am uninvolved in that issue, we’re on code blue but we’re never told why. We have reports of intruders, and sudden tcomms drop. I rush over to the armoury, HoS in his office, ask what the plan is. I count two minutes before receiving a simple response that “no intruders have been verified”. HoS then goes into armoury and grabs ion rifle. Walks out of armoury, and walks into Maint beside the armoury without a word. The brief conversation that did occur played on “need to know” info and that we aught to simply just listen. Without any further word from the HoS, no word over radio from them for ten minutes after they left through maint, I respond to a call for help. Find them in the bridge, near death, two dead borgs beside them. Just as we leave sudden code delta The entire time, for roughly 45min the AI has been announcing some sort of computer nonesense regarding a hack, and some hostile entity taking control of station systems. I am outlining this round, what I personally witnessed and only that to highlight the similarities between my post and others. I do see it as a communication issue as well, a skill that is easy to learn once the error is brought to attention. If a response is needed I will be unavailable for most of today.

In general terms, Based on the borders of the human settled areas, what do the humans of the ingame year sound like? Most factions have their roots in a broad geographical area of earth so even a general idea would be nice to work off of. Sol Tau Ceti Frontier Republic of Elyra Eridani Federation Empire of Dominia

+1 for Trial RTNP has shown themselves to be level headed and functional as a whitelisted head of staff. If they pass their interview phase I believe that they would serve as a suitable trial moderator on the grounds of OOC patience, empathy, and communication. I believe them to be adaptable enough to learn and develop more skills best suited for a moderating staff member.

Reporting Personnel: Clement Beach Rank of Reporting Personnel: Head of Security Game ID: bQd-bAnM Personnel Involved: Clement Beach, Head of Security (Involved head of staff) Sonorous Zouzoror, Security Officer (Perpetrator) Mika [iPC], Medical Resident (Victim) Time of Incident: 14:30 Real time: 04:40. 2017-08-30 Location of Incident: Medical Bay, prisoner transfer between medical and security. Nature of Incident: []Workplace Hazard [X]Accident/Injury []Destruction of Property []Neglect of Duty [X]Harassment [X]Assault []Misconduct []Other _____ Overview of the Incident: ZOUZOROR detained IPC Unit MIKA for a charge of battary. It was revealed that MIKA was detained post treating ZOUZOROR for a laser wound. ZOUZOROR refused treatment from MIKA stating he wanted to see a "real" doctor. MIKA is a trained medical resident and was able to properly treat ZOUZOROR while the medical department went about their duties. During detainment ZOUZOROR ran causing MIKA to overheat to the point a completely damaged shell. Given the short distance between security and medical, it may be that ZOUZOROR ran in a way to cause MIKA to overheat. Arrest was declared invalid by HoS Clement Beach. Did you report it to a Head of Department or IAA? If so, who? Head of Security is reporting this incident as it was not handled on station due to end of shift. Actions taken: I had to speak with Officer ZOUZOROR on overuse of force prior to this incident. This incident in question shows a gross misuse of security authority by Officer Zouzoror as his validation for arresting Mika was that he simply did not want to be treated by the IPC. This invalidates the arrest and then makes any use of force against the IPC invalid. The IPC was burned across its entire body from being forced to needlessly run. Causing damage that had no valid reason for occurring. The officer was not in present danger to run from medical to the brig.

I'm having trouble linking the idea of adding security dogs with the need to remove Detective/Forensic Tech roles While I do like the idea of making detectives and forensic techs operate as specialist officers instead of specialist civilians I have always found suitable objectives for detectives and forensic techs alike while playing as my HoS character. I will not make a secondary replacement suggestion in this thread But for things like contraband sniffing and locating hiding staff members I would personally look into R&D style upgrades for Beepsky instead of adding to the already large array of security equipment.

Alright, been working for the past few days. To address some points, I like Jackboots compromise of suggesting that Forensic Tech/Detectives have completed Nanotrason Security Cadet training. The main point was to have a minor change that links the Investigation side closer to security. The main point isn't to drastically change the general duties of the Forensic Tech or Detective. In fact, there should be no in game changes to the activities of the detective and forensic tech other than them having a further comprehension of the security department. While I am in full agreement with Delta on how the detective aught to operate, the purpose of the lore change is simply to establish a foundation to future changes.

A completed cadetship addition to requirements fits the bill perfectly as of what I'm trying to actually suggest.

I think there may be some confusion or perhaps I was not clear. The activities that the Forensic tech and detective conduct do not change in any shape or form. The purpose that is implied behind the lore change is to add some sense of accountability in the forensic techs and detectives role, and grant them some greater authority in their activities. It also results in them being certified in general duties but under no normal circumstance should they be. A key point to remember with this suggestion is this, there is not a reputable police agency, that would allow their forensic specialist to be hired on straight away. All agencies promote from their ranks and train accordingly or hire from other agencies. An example of this, is fingerprinting specialist. They are trained cops first, than fingerprint specialist, but you'll never see a fingerprint specialist pull someone over for speeding. It is simply outside of their priorities to do so.

Basic Outline Change lore as to have Forensic Technicians and Detectives require some form of experience with a law enforcement agency or Nanotrason security as an officer. The warden is considered a specialized security officer. WITHOUT altering the responsibilities of the Detective & Forensic Techs [investigation Division]. The suggestion aims to categorize them as specialized, BUT fully trained and certified officers of Nanotrason Security. Reasoning 1. Allows Security to lorewise and ICly use Detectives and Forensics outside of their assigned area when the need arises. 2. Enforces an OOC and IC expectancy of Detectives & Forensics level of competency and reliability. Essentially, puts Investigation Division under the same restrictions as officers. They are after all, a part of the Security Department. 3. Grants Detectives and Forensic Techs "expert authority". This is something that is commonly used but I want to see detectives and forensic techs declarations of authority enforced. And that authority is enhanced, much like the Warden's if they are specialized officers, versus some separate entity of security. Possible Negative Outcomes 1. Forensic Techs and Detectives attempt to function in the role of officers. This can be an IC or OOC issue depending on the circumstance and should be handled accordingly. 2. Security attempts to use Detectives and Forensic Techs to bolster ranks when fighting antagonists. The common reason behind Detectives and Forensic Techs not participating in situations is lack of training. This suggestion would change that. However, much like the warden, the Detective and Forensic Tech have a role to play on station. Operating outside of that role, regardless of lore changes should have IC or OOC consequences. Conclusion The suggestion is that any and all Forensic Technicians and Detectives be; trained and specialized officers, instead of operating as a separate entity of security activities. The best comparison to currently offer in security, is the Warden, who is a specialized officer rank with different authority and restrictions. The restrictions that detectives and forensic techs will not change but their functional ability and accountability should be enhanced. In short, when that level 7 biohazard is overwhelming security and engineering...I never want to hear the detective or forensic tech claim helplessness due to lack of training. And I never want to see them unload a lethal weapon into someone because they don't understand that guns kill people.

Plain and simple Round Start: Allow crew members to spawn on the arrivals shuttle or in the cryo/dorms area, instead of spawning in their respective departments at the start of the round Reason: Idea that each round is a new shift on station and that the first shuttle/awakening from the pods are the fresh staff for said shift.

If a bartender were to allow someone to drink themselves to such a stupor (without cutting them off or informing medical/security/their respective head of staff) that medical had to intervene to literally save the person's life, I'd automatically slap a Neglect of Duty charge onto the bartender, as well as hold them responsible for the well being of that patron if their condition actually gets worse. Is this not the standard?

Suppose I just bump this instead of making a new thread?

Kinda devolving into a "he said/she said" type deal. As, I believe Garn may be mistaken on the time we called ERT I suggest bringing up the relevant logs and whichever person in charge of this complaint to step in so we can be 100% sure of details and process instead of going back and forth.