Security (And other roles) Less Likely to Become Antag

[ben10083]

Yet the reason he said it was loyalist is because they tend to stick with it, I feel we need a better reason than "it would be funny" or "it will mix it up" to mess with loy or rev values for sec

[BurgerBB]

One of the main reasons, besides community hostility, for abandoning this PR is the worry in the back of my head that there will be less security officers playing because of this.

Like let's all just be honest for a moment here and admit that it isn't a coincidence that sec is usually almost always empty during a secret merc, raider, or crossfire round. I think an additional PR that makes security more fun to play should be merged after this one is to prevent a drop in security.

[EvilBrage]

The problem isn't that security is not fun to play.

The problem is that the inherent authority that security members tend to have (without any serious form of oversight) tends to attract certain kinds of players - and those players, in turn, tend to destroy the reputation of the department as a whole, and because the department has a terrible reputation, many players refuse to deal with it - and the cycle continues.

If you want to get different sorts of people in security, crack down on the bad behavior in security.

[Carver]

I'd say a better solution is simply not allowing the same character (not same player, but same character) to roll antag two rounds in a row if one is looking to prevent the cases of 'John Baton' being vamp, then traitor, then changeling 3 rounds in a row.

As for rev/loyalist, I believe both should be unaffected. Neither is particularly 'dangerous' as an antag type on their own, and as recruitment goes I can only hope people join the respective factions based on IC thought and not 'because it's new and fun'. I'd sincerely hope, as well, that most current 'Sec as Loyalist' types do so because it's in their character to do so (and perhaps as well because, logically speaking, joining revs means you were a fucking abysmal hire for NT security).

[ben10083]

On 29/09/2019 at 04:19, EvilBrage said:

the inherent authority that security members tend to have (without any serious form of oversight)

Following forms of oversight:

1. Many regulations specifically against them (and yes, other officers will arrest them over it)

2. Chain of Command

3. IRs

4. If above methods fail, a fax can be sent and a response can be sent to enforce something.

 

Please avoid sticking to stereotypes when it comes to suggestions in the future.

[EvilBrage]

5 hours ago, ben10083 said:

Following forms of oversight:

1. Many regulations specifically against them (and yes, other officers will arrest them over it)

2. Chain of Command

3. IRs

4. If above methods fail, a fax can be sent and a response can be sent to enforce something.

 

Please avoid sticking to stereotypes when it comes to suggestions in the future.

One has to wonder how it became a stereotype in the first place, if the concept has zero merit.

In a vacuum, the above proposals certainly would cut down on the bad sort of behavior we see routinely from the department, but they break down when considered in concert with the actual circumstances of the server in any given round.

1. My experience is that other officers will not interfere with their fellow security members, barring maybe a head of security. Any dispute certainly becomes a game of "he said, she said" and in that event, the other members of security will side with the officer far more often than not. There is no evidentiary standard required by regulations.
2. Good luck, if that chain of command doesn't include a head of security. I routinely witness entire security teams ignore captains and acting captains.
3. If I filed an IR for every instance of security malfeasance I saw, I would spend more time on the forums than playing the game.

None of these methods accomplish their intended goals.

Far better than ramping up an attempt at policing the police, however, would be to restructure the security department to better facilitate the sorts of interaction we are looking for - behavior would improve naturally, but this is neither here nor there with regards to the suggestion at hand.

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree with regards to why we believe this suggestion is ultimately beneficial.

 

[ben10083]

2 hours ago, EvilBrage said:

Good luck, if that chain of command doesn't include a head of security. I routinely witness entire security teams ignore captains and acting captains.

my last response so we dont get this off-topic. Captains>sec, even acting. So they can just order the arrest just like a HoS can. You can discuss this with me further in dms.

[Butterrobber202]

big agree due to the opinions above.