Roll Back Security Uniform Regulations

[Snakebittenn]

Hello, I'll try to keep this short.

The current CCIA notice is that Security, basically, cannot have shit from the loadout at all except for Security items. 

I find this unnecessary. Historically, we've just operated off 'You have to wear your department colors, preferably an armband, preferably the uniform, the HoS has full control over what you do and don't wear.' It's always worked, and only in edge cases are Security completely unrecognizable as Security (unless they are intentionally dressing to deceive.) It doesn't serve any actual purpose besides stifling customization.

Also, it is an unevenly applied regulation. Why does Security have this, and not Medical, or Research, or Command? I don't think it's good, and I think it should be rolled back to HoS discretion.

[Snoopy11]

I support a change to it instead, that officers/security need go be identifiable to keep it vague enough.  Perhaps add a clause that they must have a badge, their ID, and perhaps other pieces of equipment visible to identify them as a member of security. 

[Wigglesworth Jones]

I like this idea, as it having more control over your character's appearance isn't too bad of a suggestion. The point raised about other departments not having uniform regulations is a good one.

[Guest Menown]

Do you want officers fighting off mercs in skirts and sundresses? Because this is how you get officers fighting mercs in skirts and sundresses.

[Brutishcrab51]

Security is Security. They should wear the uniform. No one's ever gotten on me for wearing a tie and an armband or a tailcoat.

 

This is unnecessary and inappropriate.

[Snakebittenn]

10 minutes ago, Menown said:

Do you want officers fighting off mercs in skirts and sundresses? Because this is how you get officers fighting mercs in skirts and sundresses.

How many times did you see this before we had the reg.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Brutishcrab51 said:

Security is Security. They should wear the uniform. No one's ever gotten on me for wearing a tie and an armband or a tailcoat.

 

This is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Is Research not Research? Is Command not Command? This is unevenly applied.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The regulation as it is seems fine to me. Its a net to catch crazy stuff. Its been fairly applied imo. -1

[NewOriginalSchwann]

I really don't want to see the red-headed security officer women fighting mercs in high heels and tango dresses. This is unneeded - security should be visually distinct at at passing glance.

[Brutishcrab51]

Even third-world warlords and their militias try to stay uniform, Paradox. NanoTrasen internal security is a paramilitary unit, much as people will argue that it isn't (heavy body armor, heavy weapons some of which are specialized, an expectation to combat pirates and apparently capable of dealing with Hunter-Killer war droids and terrorists, like SWAT), it is. It should remain visually distinct. This directive is here for a reason.

 

That reason is for the officers that wear dresses, grey suit-jackets and fedoras, jean-shorts, no shirt and cowboy hat and that ridiculous shit. Refer to above, it does not stop reasonable loadout items.

 

If you want to have crazy as fuck loadout equipment, why are you playing Security? It is unfairly applied because Research is not as uniformly required to be identifiable, other than labcoats. They're Scientists, not armed security. Medical tends to wear their uniforms (and hit each other when they don't), Command varies. The Head of Security should wear his uniform, the Captain could choose to wear his uniform, the Head of Personnel could personalize, the Research Director could personalize (within reason), the Chief Medical Officer could personalize (within reason), Engineering should wear its uniforms because they engage in potentially hazardous activities and the uniforms help identify them (see the same reason Security should wear their uniforms).

 

This is because of the intensity of requirement for immediate visual identification for these professions. Does it seem unfair? No, that's the visual responsibility of Security and friends.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Brutishcrab51
Forgot about Enginerds.

[Guest Menown]

1 hour ago, ParadoxSpace said:

How many times did you see this before we had the reg.

Many times. Seen it with wedding dresses, high heels, skirts, ect-ect. You know how people act in this game. They forsake practicality and logic for cute.

[Garnascus]

-1 

This is not dress up. 

[AmoryBlaine]

This is unnecessary. Security is uniformed for a reason, and that's how it should stay.

[MattAtlas]

10 hours ago, Menown said:

Many times. Seen it with wedding dresses, high heels, skirts, ect-ect. You know how people act in this game. They forsake practicality and logic for cute.

Basically this. Especially security players who already wear cat ears on the daily.

-1

[UnknownMurder]

On 18/09/2019 at 13:28, ParadoxSpace said:

Historically, we've just operated off 'You have to wear your department colors, preferably an armband, preferably the uniform" . . . .  It always worked!

While I don't play often now, but I did play in your "Historically"  and I will tell you that it is a lie and/or misleading.  Even if I told you what I have seen, you would just shut me out and tell me we just need stronger moderation. This is the strongest moderation we have at best and you will only want to weaken it.

The reason I respond this now rather waiting for you players to resolve the issue is to ensure that we don't repeat the past mistakes. This just happens to be one of the past embarrassing mistakes.

-1

[Soultheif96]

I would like to agree with the majority here and also support UM’s statement.

Security should not have alternative uniforms to security uniforms. We want to identify you on the spot like this. *snap fingers*. None of that undercover bullshit either for a lot of nefarious reasons too. 

You are security, you best act like it and look like. 

-1. 

[Kaed]

You are all taking this game way too seriously. I guess it's some point someone decided that 'High roleplay' make creating an obnoxious network of bureaucracy and bullshit that people have to wade through and avoid beaurocratic landmines.

This isn't fun. Being able to have choice in a game on how you look where customization of appearance and outfit is an enormous part of the gamepkay. Yes, there are outliers to this that are unacceptable, such as wearing a wedding dress to work or high heels in a position where you need to be able to move easily.

But blacklisting everything so every security member has to have exactly the same is not the way to fix this. It's like using a mallet to fix a broken watch. We need to stop relying on this stupid fucking CCIA law/regulation system that we've come to rely on to tell us what to do. Our heads of staff should have the common sense and responsibility to tell us a security officer who comes to work in a dress and high heels to take those things off and put on a real uniform, while still leaving room for the officer in question to express some kind of cultural identity with an accessory. If for some reason you don't think we can rely on our head of staff's to properly enforce sensible clothing regulations without plopping down a blanket ban, then that's a problem with out whitelist process, and needs to be addressed rather than using a sloppy work around like this.

All that you have done with this endless stream of obnoxious ccia notices is create an environment where people are encouraged to play regulation gotcha with each other, rather than relying on people to moderate each other with some semblance of order and accountability.

Has anyone actually kept track of how many CCIA notices we have now? Last time I was playing we were still getting notified that you have to give vaurca phoron since they need it to live, as if this is somehow news to everybody that they need to be reminded not to be assholes.

Edited September 25, 2019 by Kaed

[Brutishcrab51]

Gotta' wholeheartedly disagree with you, Kaed. And for reasons expressed above.

 

Security is not a role where you play in order to display cultural uniqueness that gets in the way of your actual Security equipment. Your character is doing a job, you have a responsibility to treat the server in-game like a workplace. I've had some fun with regulation gotcha' for people that don't wear uniforms, and even with the ban, it still happens. What about when we don't have a Head of Security or any Heads of Staff?

 

There is absolutely no reason to revert the current standard. It works fine.

[Kaed]

24 minutes ago, Brutishcrab51 said:

Gotta' wholeheartedly disagree with you, Kaed. And for reasons expressed above.

 

Security is not a role where you play in order to display cultural uniqueness that gets in the way of your actual Security equipment. Your character is doing a job, you have a responsibility to treat the server in-game like a workplace. I've had some fun with regulation gotcha' for people that don't wear uniforms, and even with the ban, it still happens. What about when we don't have a Head of Security or any Heads of Staff?

 

There is absolutely no reason to revert the current standard. It works fine.

Please explain to me how, say, a hide mantle interferes with security equipment or duties in a fashion other than it upsets anal retentive people who hate security wearing anything other than a uniform.

[Rushodan]

4 hours ago, Kaed said:

Please explain to me how, say, a hide mantle interferes with security equipment or duties in a fashion other than it upsets anal retentive people who hate security wearing anything other than a uniform.

Its immersion breaking. I don't want a security department that looks like it is a bunch of college students doing a private security social event. We need to step away from memes, this would only lead to memes and nothing constructive.

[Kaed]

46 minutes ago, SHODAN said:

Whatever doesn't matter

You know what never mind. What am I doing with my life, arguing with people on the internet over stupid shit that doesn't matter. I'm out, do whatever the fuck you want with security regulations and self-righteously claim it's for the greater good. 

If I could delete this post I would but I guess I have to edit it to have meaningless content instead.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Kaed

[EvilBrage]

"No other department is held to strict uniform regulations" really isn't an argument - no other department is permitted to detain people either. If you were pulled over by an officer wearing a varsity jacket and skinny jeans, you'd laugh your ass off, and rightfully so. If customization and intense displays of individuality are things you're really into, then I would contend security is not the place to build that character.

You already have more uniform variants than other departments (and accessories to wear with them) to give yourself a splash of personality without undermining the reason security teams are required to be in uniforms.

[Snakebittenn]

Arguably, Medical has an equal responsibility to be identifiable on sight. Yet, we haven't had massive issues with Medical before except edge cases. Medical does not have this notice. I wonder why there hasn't been massive issues lately? Likely because head of staff discretion is just fine.

[ben10083]

14 minutes ago, ParadoxSpace said:

Arguably, Medical has an equal responsibility to be identifiable on sight. Yet, we haven't had massive issues with Medical before except edge cases. Medical does not have this notice. I wonder why there hasn't been massive issues lately? Likely because head of staff discretion is just fine.

As a reminder, it is policy in these forums to read the thread before commenting. 

 

Security has more options in loadout, and hence more options for abuse. The reason we determined that security needed regulations beyond discretion was due to many cases of security wearing ridiculous outfits (which was outlined in this thread), which showed to staff that a policy was needed. If medical engaged in similar behaviors a similar policy would likely be enacted, but since this has not happened, no such policy has been made.

[Brutishcrab51]

Huh. Kaed deleted every single one of his posts from this.

 

Could someone with forum power come to a conclusion on this suggestion given its downhill turn?

[The lancer]

Voting for dismissal, as per all the above and the previous policy suggestion to remove it.