[Implemented] On Security Transparency During Crises

[Kaed]

Something [mention]Bauser[/mention] recently said encouraged me to open this thread.

 

Right now there doesn't seem to really... be any policy on security and information dispersal, that I'm aware of? But almost always, I have to admit, there is a tendency for the security department, and command, to some extent, to shut the crew at large out of stuff that goes on.

 

You've all seen it. "internal security matter, we're going to blue' etc etc. The crew inevitably asks what's going on but are stonewalled 'for their own protection' or 'to prevent panic' or whatever, until some of them start dying because they don't know wtf is going on because sec refused to tell them.

 

Can we set some policies to actually have in place about this, rather than just leaving it up to the HoS/Captain's personal preference whether the non sec crew gets to be involved in goings on with antagonists?

Edited January 5, 2019 by Elliot

[Allakai]

This is something I cannot agree enough with. Often times I find myself really annoyed when something is going to absolute shit and the civilians are not told until it is almost too late. I can understand why RP wise and realistically sec doesn't say too much, like for example:

"So guys don't panic or anything but there's someone who can shape shift and sucks the life out of you, this alien has already killed a doctor, one of the engineers, and a scientist, and right now we have no clue who it is now"

It's a bad example but sometimes being a civilian is really crappy because often we're told to just sit in our departments and sit around which usually ends up hurting civilians in the long run. I.E. Cult has already gained a ton of power and juggernauts are smashing their way through walls and security hasn't said a damn thing.

Just a mild annoyance but I do agree security needs to give at least some details on the situations because inherently not telling the crew what is happening when something is obviously amiss creates more panic. At least to me it does.

[Bauser]

I don't know what I said, but I agree with this sentiment. I broadly think non-security players should have more opportunities to interact with the events of antagonists - even if indirectly, benefiting with roleplay by the fallout.

I think a sensible policy to set would be: Whenever the station's alert level is changed, the announcement needs to show a fairly detailed explanation of why. If we could make increasing the alert level totally contingent upon security or a head of staff explaining the situation, the crew would always have something to work with.

A template could be made, for instance, like...

1) What event has taken place to demonstrate the Aurora is under threat?

2) What steps have command and ISD taken to abate that threat so far?

3) What will be the security benefits conferred by increasing the alert level?

[Elliot]

On 9/28/2018 at 8:36 PM, Bauser said:

A template could be made, for instance, like...

1) What event has taken place to demonstrate the Aurora is under threat?

2) What steps have command and ISD taken to abate that threat so far?

3) What will be the security benefits conferred by increasing the alert level?

Wow, this is an old thread. Regardless I very much like this idea and to assist in this, a directive could be formed around this depending on further feedback from the community and the CCIA. I propose the following:

Regarding Incident Management - Station Directive 11

Spoiler

To clarify the expectations of how emergency incidents are to be handled aboard the station.

During emergency incidents it is expected for departments to assist in the safe resolution of said incident and the recovery of standard operations. When it becomes clear that an significant incident is arising that could effect standard operations of the station or cause significant damange to crew or property, it is expected that (when possible) all on board personnel are provided with the following infomation:

1. A brief description of the current incident.
2. What steps have been taken so far to combat this incident.
3. What further steps are needed to resolve this incident.
4. (If applicable) A brief description of the reasoning behind a change in alert level.

Exceptions to this include where the above infomation would compromise station security or safety. If this is the case it is expected that as much infomation as is safe to do so is dispensed for the crew.

 

[BurgerBB]

I did not know that this thread existed before mine. I made several threads regarding this issue and I strongly believe that this would help roleplay.

There is a serious issue with members of command withholding information about the round for some unknown reason, or at most, an icly reason. 

[ben10083]

@Elliot

Might be best for in Directive 11 that number 3. be changed to "Recommended actions", aka something like "get to a secure location" or something. If you do "further steps to bet taken" That will just give antags a red carpet of what sec will do next, or the exception will be pulled. Either way I feel my replacement will be a better fit

[Resilynn]

Wholeheartedly agreed.  I've been arrested in rounds before for informing the crew about mercs kidnapping people, some protection would be... nice.

[sonicgotnuked]

On 12/9/2018 at 12:19 AM, BurgerBB said:

I did not know that this thread existed before mine. I made several threads regarding this issue and I strongly believe that this would help roleplay.

There is a serious issue with members of command withholding information about the round for some unknown reason, or at most, an icly reason. 

Sadly, that seems like a player issue with command. I personally inform people the basics when I am raising the code. 

 

I don't think there needs to be actual enforcement because some thing you have to keep swept under the rug and vague. How would the crew react if the malf AI was blowing up APCs and anything around them could blow up in a moments notice. How would the crew react about the death cult kidnapping people randomly from the halls.

 

I understand that some of these things add to the fun of a round if command tells you those examples, but sometimes it causes unnecessary issues. 

[Kaed]

2 hours ago, sonicgotnuked said:

Sadly, that seems like a player issue with command. I personally inform people the basics when I am raising the code. 

 

I don't think there needs to be actual enforcement because some thing you have to keep swept under the rug and vague. How would the crew react if the malf AI was blowing up APCs and anything around them could blow up in a moments notice. How would the crew react about the death cult kidnapping people randomly from the halls.

 

I understand that some of these things add to the fun of a round if command tells you those examples, but sometimes it causes unnecessary issues. 

I'm sorry, but panicking sounds like a problem with the players. If there is a psychotic AI trying to kill everyone or a death cult kidnapping people, then the crew at large should damn well know the problems that threaten their lives.

 

Trying to block out the crew at large just in case someone panics and acts like an idiot is the wrong way to do this.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

I always explain an emergency to the beat of my characters own understanding and provide advice to travel in groups of 2. My announcements always say to avoid the gunmen instead of sheltering in place.

 

Quite a few times command gets angry, which always weirds me out.

 

A good policy. +1

[Elliot]

Due to both approval from the lore nerds and the fax nerds, gonna accept and impliment this.