Regarding the Departmental Security Test Merge

[ReadThisNamePlz]

I only approved of DepSec because DepSec officers had access to Security comms, and were kept in the loop. It honestly makes no sense to me why we'd have to remove their channel access to achieve balance. 

30 minutes ago, IAmCrystalClear said:

From my experience, departmental officers use security comms in the following situations:

1. To ask for a warrant from a warden
2. To inform the warden that someone has been captured and is enroute to the brig for processing
3. To request a general officer back them up, as the suspect is too well armed for a single takedown
4. To request a code raise due to other suspicious activity relating to antags
5. Idle chat with their other officer RP pals
6. Requesting an officer from another department to ask a member of their department to come over or prepare for inbound crew. (Such as asking for a medic or engineer)

I echo everything Crystal has said here. It's absolutely vital for DepSec officers to have access to Security communications. 

[IAmCrystalClear]

As it stands. Depsec decentralises security, splitting them up, and then removes all communication between the split up officers, reducing cohesion and the impeding the ability to respond to any threat at all.

Code-based comms forces security to rely on command. Very few lowpop rounds have command at all.

[Garnascus]

7 minutes ago, Wigglesworth Jones said:

gain, why should the ability for Security players to roleplay with each other be taken away on Green?

Two reasons reasons

1. Communication is the biggest thing we can mess with to achieve our stated goals. The ability to quickly and efficiently coordinate against station enemies is a big part of the problem.

2. It will not remove your ability to role-play with each other on green. It will certainly impact it but you can still ask your head for a break to go to the bar. Every department member ends up their sooner or later. It is also possible that this DOES impact it enough to check the "awful" clause skull indicated for reverting. 

[Wigglesworth Jones]

It doesn't remove it, but it gimps the ability to roleplay a large amount. Rarely will I see more than 2 security staff at the bar - with the radio I can talk to everyone. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by Wigglesworth Jones

[Snakebittenn]

Just talk to the members of your assigned department. Get to know them. Bond. Make new friends. It's what you're here for.

 

17 minutes ago, IAmCrystalClear said:

Very few lowpop rounds have command at all.

It should, honestly, be expected that if there's only 5 people playing the game, it's not going to work at max efficiency.

[Wigglesworth Jones]

"Hmm, yes. Today I will attempt to talk to people who think that hating authority makes them a unique character." this is sarcasm do not take the statement seriously

 Besides, there's nothing saying that I can't roleplay with more than one department. 

[Snakebittenn]

Also, one more thing, can we please trade removing a cadet for removing General Officer.

[Peppermint]

Awful plan on the radio side. On the first issue with access, sure, whatever, give the departmental heads authority.

 

However, why is it that it's totally fine to split sec up, reduce their interdepartmental RP and interactions? It makes zero sense both OOC and IC as to why anybody would have decided this was a good idea, and just generally unfair. The only reason this is being seen as ok is 'sec man bad'. If it was done to any other department - which it makes about as much sense to - there'd be uproar. 

 

What about CSI/Detective/Wardens mainly? Likewise, this was tested previously and the lack of radio totally killed a lot of the enjoyment people had with it, as well as being an overwhelming nerf. I'd 100% take the hallway access over the sudden lack of comms.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Lemei

[niennab]

Personally I don't agree with the removal of the radio on green. There is a number of departmental chatter that will essentially flood into the common radio as a result. Some of which confidential, some of which people likely won't care to hear but it also makes coordinating incredibly difficult. On lowpop, there are times where we can't even raise the code.

With departmental security, we're essentially dividing the department, why limit communication while already spread so thin?

If this and the possibility of removing the General Officer is the price of Departmental Security, something not mentioned here but an idea discussed on Discord, then I am admittedly no longer interested in Dep Sec.

Edited March 29, 2020 by niennab

[The7thLain]

I see zero merit in taking away communications.

Over-coordination can be an issue against antags for the fun of the game, I agree, but what I also will echo is that a code based communication system is exceptionally shortsighted and cuts three roles out of wider spread role-play. Those roles are the detective, forensic technician/CSI, and warden. These roles are encouraged to stay in the brig unless otherwise needed, and unless we move to code blue, they would not even know if they are needed. Do you really expect people who main warden to just sit at the desk all round and do nothing because they cannot communicate outside of their department and are encouraged to not leave it otherwise? If I were in a situation like that I would just stop playing. For detectives and forensic technicians as well, I know that there are many who are good at the role and can competently roleplay with anyone, however they are not really encouraged to be out and about unless needed there, at least in my experience. With the radio channel gone and no officers in the department save for one (1) because they are in other departments, it severely limits the roleplay potential of brig roles and may just make people stop playing them altogether which I feel is unhealthy for the game, although for other players I know their thoughts are along the lines of "the weaker sec is the better because sec man bad."

I understand and can see the merit in making departmental officers loyal to their departmental heads, but the removal of communications is shortsighted at best and fucking stupid at worst. You are taking away communications because the ISD is too good at their job. If medical never let anyone die would you increase the fail chances on surgery? No, you just add brainmed which makes it even easier to save people. If engineering was too good at fixing things and literally rebuilding entire wings of the station would you make construction more complex or decrease the materials they start with? No, you just keep things the same, but you don't do that with the ISD. I understand that the security department can overstep and valid hard at times, but I think that cutting them off from each other, in an already decentralised department with the DepSec merge, is just a blatant attempt to weaken the ISD both mechanically and as a player base given the attitudes that some in the community hold in regards to security characters.

The merge itself is fine. DepSec is fine. Even head of staff loyalty as opposed to HoS loyalty is fine. Taking away communications is counter-intuitive to the security effort as a whole and severely limits the roleplay potential and even mechanical potential of all brig roles, and I say this in full acceptance that I am biased because I play a brig role very often when I am online. How is a forensic tech going to know to investigate a crime scene or a detective to interview a witness that could lead to raising to blue? They wouldn't know unless someone ran all the way to the brig to tell them, instead of just having a steady and efficient way of communicating. It is nonsensical to remove the security channel and rely entirely on command staff when most command roles themselves can be antags and that there will be rounds where there are no command staff online, and doing this ignores the part of the playerbase that plays during lowpop hours.

The DepSec merge is a good move, but breaking up the ISD even further is not. What this looks like is an effort to erase the ISD as a presence entirely as opposed to simply creating more localised presences, and even if that is not the intention, it is what will happen if things like officers making their own channel or using station-bounced radios are also disavowed.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Loyalty to individual command staff is a very bad idea. Security becoming part of the feudal scheming the command staff almost always as a rule engage in will make that element a lot worse. The break up of communications also reinforces this. These are not the right solutions.

[witchbells]

I don't believe under any circumstances that we should be removing a learning role. We have two cadet slots in each department for any player to learn the role, but first and foremost these slots are meant for new players. I will not, for any reason, support subjecting anyone unfamiliar with our server to the cynical lens with which we look at security v. antagonist relations. It's unfair on an OOC basis and sets a horrible precedent for anyone visiting our server. The fact that I've heard the intended effect of this is to "give security less bodies to work with" is absolutely fucking insidious.

Nor will I support the removal of security's departmental channel. Very few people would suggest we would remove any other channel, and yet it's being seriously considered here, again in an attempt to place an unfair restriction on security. I won't spend long waxing on why weakening communication is a terrible idea, in all aspects (especially when communication is such a terribly important skill that staff pick up very quickly) even when I've read suggested alternatives such as "bootleg" handheld channels and PDA messaging. My initial concern about setting an unfair precedent that's cruel to players rings true here as well.

These changes gimp the department to an unreasonable amount that make it an unenjoyable role that's hostile to the players that enjoy it, both new and old. My initial concern with department security is that we would be using it to cripple the department, and I find myself boiling over that concern yet again.

 

If the issue is "antagonists are too easy to catch," then perhaps we should admit to ourselves that antagonist is a role that takes skill.

[IAmCrystalClear]

removing sec comms on green will totally remove my support for depsec. it's bad for mechanics. it's bad for RP.

I like the idea of giving sec loyalty to their department head and staff first. That is the role of departmental sec. This is how I played the role.

[Outboarduniform]

I dislike the idea that departmental security will reduce security to private goons and take them away from their primary job of policing the station.

If we remove general officer as some people propose is intended, and we have a command group that's a real piece of work with their officers, how are fights in parts of the station without a security attachment going to work? Who is going to patrol hotspots like the bar? 

Another part of security is deterrence. What stops you now from committing literally any crime you would like to in isolated hallways, the entire surface level, or even hallways or secure areas? 

Security will have a sluggish response if even one at all. 

I've seen command give up and call an emergency shuttle over solo ninja rounds before. 

How is the round going to go on for long at all if that attitude in command persists in coordination with this absolute gimping of Security?

At this point it is not even reworking a department. It is removing a department and giving you the allusion that it is still there by saying "You can still go to the armory and kill heisters if you want! (But only if the CMO lets you). 

Which is why I compare this to departmental feudalism. The HoS has to literally request his officers back as levies so that they can do their primary job if we add this to SoP. 

[Xelnagahunter]

I'm fully against the loss of the cadet slot. As previously mentioned, this role is intended for players new to the department and maybe even the game in itself. Every other department has two learning role slots, why should security differ in this sense? I, personally, wouldn't mind the "whoopsie" of having the additional slot in security and no I don't play in the role for it to effect me in a positive way at all. I just don't feel like it's fair to the department, it's players, and new players to implement this.

On that note, I also disagree with the comms change. While I like the adjustments to SoP and I feel the dep officers should be considered a part of the integrated department as much if not more so than security, I feel that attempts to separate them will be met blatant disregard for SoP that is instated. Either cheep work-arounds will be made or the officers will find reasons to congregate in public spaces, such as hallways. This also limits the HoS from having any control of their spread out "department".

In all I can't help but find myself echoing the concerns of the people who replied prior. I don't play sec and I can see how this will negatively impact their rounds, which will in turn negatively impact rounds as both another department member or even an antagonist.

[MattAtlas]

4 hours ago, nursiekitty said:

I don't believe under any circumstances that we should be removing a learning role. We have two cadet slots in each department for any player to learn the role, but first and foremost these slots are meant for new players. I will not, for any reason, support subjecting anyone unfamiliar with our server to the cynical lens with which we look at security v. antagonist relations. It's unfair on an OOC basis and sets a horrible precedent for anyone visiting our server. The fact that I've heard the intended effect of this is to "give security less bodies to work with" is absolutely fucking insidious.

I've explained the reasoning in modchat, but I'll do it again. There's only one general officer. That means only one person that will bother teaching cadets at most. How is he supposed to split his own time between two cadets and then whatever shit goes on? In addition, removing available manpower fits the slated goals nicely. Slots meant for new players do not matter if you can't train or assist them. The fact of the matter is that if we keep two cadet slots their training will be worse.

I also doubt that this is "unfair" in any way. There isn't much competition for the cadet slot to begin with, and even if there is, where's the problem? Skip a round and play another later.

[Skull132]

Okay lads and ladderinos. Let's take a step back and a moment to think about this.

First, allow me to establish what it is that we're trying to achieve here and why. A lot of these changes are aimed at outright reducing the amount of effective control the security department is able to exert over the station. This is a necessary since, as has been proven time and time again with events, gameplay additions, etcetera. Any outside entity that is introduced into the round will be put under immediate scrutiny by security, and will effectively be restrained or otherwise controlled by security. While yes, "Realistically" this is fine. From a gameplay development perspective, this is absolutely limiting. We are rendered with the choice of either accepting that, "Yup, sec will keep these guys on a short leash, so anything interesting is gonna get shut out," or making the outside force large enough to be able to outplay sec (which, at present, is at most a 10 man team and that's asking for a lot of trouble).

There is something to be said about not making these matters "security centric". However, special events in the past have demonstrated that security has a knack for butting in on matters which should primarily involve science, medical, etcetera. Which sorta makes sense, since security's job is to control whatever is underway on the station. But again, this is troubling from a gameplay perspective. Granted, security isn't the only actor here responsible for the balance upset here, and we have Other Things:tm: planned for the other actors, like the AI. But, this is about security; just don't come running to me with the argument of "BUT WHAT ABOUT X!" as some of you have been doing on Discord.

With this said, let us gauge what effect DepSec, as previously tested, had on security. We got security officers with extended access in all departments, still adherent to the Head of Security and thus a part of the cohesive security team. The practical effects of this was the reduction response time for security to departments. Which meant less need for them to adhere to warrants, and an easier time all around getting to places. (This also nullified our maintenance access changes! Which were positively received by a majority crowd.) If we compare this to the goals established above, then it should be clear that we did not move towards the established goals at all. If anything, we simply extended security's reach. So, the foot goes down on the fact that DepSec, as tested, will not be merged. Due to the fact that it does not satisfy the requirements set out for it. The matter of the changes as previously tested not satisfying our goals is backed up by the questionnaire and its output.

This is where the proposed tweaks come in. Removal of the departmental officers from the cohesive security department until code blue (at which point the threat the station poses to its opponents should increase anyways) was deemed as the acceptable path to walk down. As already noted multiple times, the most effective way to do this is to make the departmental officers primarily subordinate to their head of staff, and to remove the security radio from them. While yes, as I've stated both on Discord and here, this is a "severe" measure, it is also the one that's most likely to get us to where we want to be. The proposed changes would remove the departmental officers from the easy-to-deploy security response force on code green, and would effectively force them to focus on securing their own department. This reduces security's tactical presence in the round and thus helps us move towards the goals outlined in the beginning.

The alternative to these specific alterations is to implement DepSec with severe access restrictions. Basically just give them main departmental hallway access and drop the other changes. However, again, if we look at the "What and why" portion of this post, you'll quickly see that this alternative doesn't really further any of those goals. All it does is give security access to departmental hallways. That is it. While less egregious than the previous test merge, it is still not a solution good enough to accomplish what is required.

There exist other ways to skin this cat as well, obviously. And something from this hat is being considered for NBT. However, without completely uplifting Aurora's current command structure, implementing those changes is difficult. The only other alternative solution that I'm currently aware of is to directly nerf the number of security team members that are on the station. Remove 2 officers and 1 cadet, say. This should lower the effectiveness of the security team enough to serve our goals.

We are open to further suggestions, but in proposing them, you must keep in the overarching goals. Some of the proposals that I've heard thus far sorely miss the point, and they mainly do so out of ignorance.

[Susan]

My major concern with your train of thought, Skull, is that you're way too focused on the 'game' aspect of this. What are we? Are we a heavy roleplay server, or are we a light roleplay server? Are we going to throw away logical and realistic roleplay in favor of gameyness? You're asking people like me to make a choice between playing a game and roleplaying. If I wanted to play SS13 as a game, I'd go to Goon, where there's no expectation of anything serious having to come out of my mouth.

I, personally, do not see any issue in these 'problems' you've mentioned. Yes, security can have a stranglehold on things. This is, by your own admission, a realistic turn of events given their role on the station. There is nothing wrong with that. Are you telling me that somebody joining as cargo tech because they want to print knives and stab antagonists is perfectly okay, and we're being overbearing by not allowing gun-toting mercenaries to run rampant and shoot at people so everyone can have their 'sit in the corner and cower' RP they so desperately want? The issues you're stating here are the security department's job at the most basic logic level. Strange person shows up on high security research station - > who dis.

My perspective as a security player in the face of all these changes is that they appear to be  malicious attempts to browbeat us with no regard for how they personally affect our own gameplay or roleplay, wielding the opinion of the 'majority' as your god-given shield to blunt any type of criticism. I'm sure if you look at it from a purely gameplay perspective, forcing us all to sit in our department offices with no radio, in the dark, it might make things easier on the antagonists. But as a player, I can tell you that it is not going to be fun to do this. It is not going to be enjoyable. You are asking security, its players, and by extension me to make this supreme sacrifice of going AFK in my office so the poor antags can have a chance. No other department is forced to do this. But if I want to see any of my officer friends, they have to basically ask permission to even go anywhere because I have no illusions that people will be eyeballing officers to prevent them from 'coordinating'. If you go to the bar to hang out, "Urist McOfficer, where are you? You're not supposed to leave!"

Antags have enough tools at their disposal. They don't need any more chances. I've had to sit through so many arguments about security versus antags for the many years I've been playing SS13, and the tools antags have to use have grown exponentially since 2011. Equally, if people are playing bartender or botanist with the expectation that we need to allow cultists to beat down their door and decapitate them -- this is not a heavy roleplay mindset. I think the reason so many of us are bitter or irritated about these changes, at least in my opinion, is that the heart of what Aurora represents is at stake here.

Do we have an expectation of realistic roleplay with believable characters and mature storytelling, or are we just a video game where you sometime write words?

I was under the impression heavy roleplay was the former.

[Peppermint]

I agree with the above. Over and over there are changes to security - immediate negative backlash by both sec players and others follow - and said changes go ahead anyway. The maintenance access change being the biggest one aside from all this. So yes, there does feel like there's a certain measure of unfairness especially when there are admittedly other changes that would be possible, the most obvious being heavily restricted access, and the general attitude seems to be 'sec man bad, so we don't care' (From the playerbase, that is.).

 

My other problem is that this is all a two way street. I strongly disagree on the fact that security is 'too quick to mobilise' or whatever and co-ordination is too easy when over and over again every conflict ends in three different ideas and two rows over how we should sort it out. Instead my opinion is that the recent ccast antag players are just not that good,  though hopefully this will correct in time. The difference between someone who plays antag regularly and their effectiveness compared to the current cast is miles apart, yet it's still security that's getting targeted. Ling, cult, wizard, raider, ect, should be given buffs if they're struggling that much. We also  go back and forth with depsec originally being a buff to sec- an argument that was made during the previous merge as a plus by multiple people now deciding they want a nerf - and now it's decided something needs to make them weaker. 

 

Likewise there's the issue of how sec was using this last time as just 'officer with more access'. The voting shows that even with this people were still supportive of the change. That and where are all the IRs regarding the breach of warrant usage? Where are all the charges, or sec players who were bwoinked/banned? As I sure don't see any. It's all well and good for people to be upset that this is how it went in a few cases, but I don't really see anyone having taken it upon themselves to do anything about it.

Totally ignoring the fact there's zero IC justification as to why this would make sense - and especially with people talking about banning the use of handhelds and other workarounds on an OOC level - it's going to severely effect the players most hit. I think it's a sad state of affairs when multiple people are seriously considering dropping the department as a whole if these changes go through, when a lot of the older sec players have moved on to other departments already due to general attitudes and frustrations. People shouldn't be forced to just not play due to the fact that the proposed merge would be unconditionally less enjoyable to play. And I just know the response to this is going to be either a) tough shit or b) you're being over dramatic, but eh. Worth a try. 

 

None of this is touching on the fact that HoS would be something of a joke role, let alone how warden/CSI/detective are supposed to get by. 

 

There's also the option to just...not use depsec if there are this many issues, which seems to be the easiest of them all.

 

/ rant.

[Xelnagahunter]

2 hours ago, Susan said:

My major concern with your train of thought, Skull, is that you're way too focused on the 'game' aspect of this.

While I do argue in the defense of security remaining fun and engaging for the players and for their chance to RP realistically to the situation, I agree fully with the premise Skull and others are working towards. Adjusting the "game" aspect of the server is the best way to handle much of it without diminishing the HRP standard. By adjusting how the game works, we adjust the way the player interacts with the station and other players, allowing you to maintain your RP by making such adjustments. So far, outside of SoP changes, the suggested plan doesn't control how you are allowed to play the character or prevent interactions. You are still allowed to interact with the team, it just takes a bit of extra effort to not do so on the common channel. There is nothing wrong with that mindset.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

4 hours ago, Susan said:

Strange person shows up on high security research station - > who dis.

This is the root issue. These changes do not change the core relationship security has with antags, our setting, and other crew.

You are fighting your servers own narrative. We cannot be a workplace for an amoral dystopic megacorporate workplace and also have security that DONT subscribe to this role. 

I spent some time arguing that you need to focus on the core and not the symptoms. There is a stronger narrative case for a "weak" security (defined here as one that does not have the firepower or casus belli to immediately harass antags that have yet to do crazy stuff) by a transition to a civilian setting with an ad hoc police force. 

You rejected this as too big but now youre doing crazy stuff thats about near the same level.

Your changes here will continue to antagonize and will not achieve the desired goals because they target the symptoms in the wrong way. You are fighting against the current of your servers narrative and engrained culture. 

A security guard will still have a reason to go after visitors or whoever. These just handicap them and isolate them. A security guard is almost always rejected by other crew. Secdep is one of their only sources of comradery and relatio ships. Its why they are such a tight group in general.

Edited March 29, 2020 by Marlon Phoenix

[PTiberiusM]

7 hours ago, Skull132 said:

This is where the proposed tweaks come in. Removal of the departmental officers from the cohesive security department until code blue (at which point the threat the station poses to its opponents should increase anyways) was deemed as the acceptable path to walk down. As already noted multiple times, the most effective way to do this is to make the departmental officers primarily subordinate to their head of staff, and to remove the security radio from them.

Since I haven't seen this point brought up yet: This will absolutely upend HoS play and ruin it. So, I'm a HoS with little staff under my direct control, most have no reason to leave the Brig unless we have an emergency... but if I flip this itty bitty switch over here from Green to Blue, I get my entire department back and free run of the Station. Blue lets the armory open and the warrants be damned, all Officers report to the Brig for briefing and gats! If it is easier to go to Blue than get a warrant, every HoS is either going to hit that button at the absolute first sign of anything no matter how minor. And if they do it, powergaming and validhunting. And if they don't? Bet they have to deal with Security staff yelling at them to go nuts. Not to even mention the resistance this gets from other staff.

Imagine a shift with just a HoS and CE. Some Engineer fucks around, does something dumb, but HoS doesn't have anything concrete to get a warrant and the CE is holding firm to "Green and Warrant, or kick sand". The HoS then just walks to their office, flips it to Blue, and tells the CE to get fucked. If the proposed change is to keep an officer under the departments control till non-Green and to take away the radios until non-Green, you will see HoS's use anything as an excuse to elevate the security status. And that is something they can do unilaterally. This would make it easier to get around warrants than issue them in the first place and encourages Command staff to dismantle Dep-Sec as soon as they can.

5 hours ago, Lemei said:

Likewise there's the issue of how sec was using this last time as just 'officer with more access'. The voting shows that even with this people were still supportive of the change. That and where are all the IRs regarding the breach of warrant usage? Where are all the charges, or sec players who were bwoinked/banned? As I sure don't see any. It's all well and good for people to be upset that this is how it went in a few cases, but I don't really see anyone having taken it upon themselves to do anything about it.

Real Talk: Because the station goes to Blue and stays there most rounds with antags. Once it goes up it never goes back down. So they don't need warrants. The only rounds that tend to stay at Green or even return to Green are Extended or ones that have plenty of Command staff on station. And, let's not forget, the extremely easy excuse for a Dep-Sec officers to say, "I don't need a warrant to search an area I have access too". Dep-Sec eliminated warrant complaints because it gave each Dep-Sec officer a standing search warrant for their department. So by either elevating to a status that doesn't need a warrant or having officers in a department acts as a warrant, Dep-Sec also does away with warrants and rights against unwarranted search at large.

And if your answer to my concerns about "Players shouldn't play that way", you are dropping back into a policy and SOP argument. I think the entire Dep-Sec pursuit is misguided and should be abandoned whole cloth. Absolutely nothing proposed by anyone addresses the fact that a HoS can push a single button, undo all of Dep-Sec, and keep Officers with increased access on their ID cards in their pocket. No one has any idea how to make that happen without a big change I haven't heard from anyone: It's time to QM the HoS and they aren't Command anymore. And to be clear, I DO NOT want that.

12 hours ago, nursiekitty said:

If the issue is "antagonists are too easy to catch," then perhaps we should admit to ourselves that antagonist is a role that takes skill.

True, but if every time you try to, you know, play an antag and learn you have a 5-man team of Armory Equipped trigger-men come at you as soon as they sniff a whiff... If antag roles take skill, and I agree they do, don't bash antag players who find themselves never getting any practice because they are beaten into the ground quickly. You know how people like to complain that some antags don't "escalate" appropriately? Keep that in mind when everyone, mods included, accept that Security defaults to a response of "Blue and Gear Up" as soon as they see anything or hear about anything. Try to remember that the Security response escalation is allowed to go "1.) Ask them to leave, 2.) Make them leave with non-lethals and perma-brigging, 3.) Make them leave with lethals" and that can happen in the span of a single "Leave. No. Stun baton. .45 goes brrr" Does this surprise you that you have most antags playing sneaky? Why would so many people play sneaky antag if they WEREN'T afraid of the obvious, we-all-acknowledge-it Sec-hammer?

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

31 minutes ago, PTiberiusM said:

Imagine a shift with just a HoS and CE. Some Engineer fucks around, does something dumb, but HoS doesn't have anything concrete to get a warrant and the CE is holding firm to "Green and Warrant, or kick sand". The HoS then just walks to their office, flips it to Blue, and tells the CE to get fucked.

This happens a LOT already. Both jumping to blue to circumvent warrants and the antagonism with engineering.

 

In the worst evolution of depsec it can and most likely will see escalation in the feudal feuding of our departments, who now have their own officer who, if they side with their department, has rp-reason to violently resist the HoS' efforts.

[The7thLain]

8 hours ago, Skull132 said:

We are open to further suggestions, but in proposing them, you must keep in the overarching goals. Some of the proposals that I've heard thus far sorely miss the point, and they mainly do so out of ignorance.

In my opinion, to call those that oppose the changes ignorant is an act of ignorance in itself.

Given the replies and visceral response and critique to almost all elements of these changes from multiple members of the community, myself included, there is a disconnect between what the changes propose and what the community wants. I cannot speak for the entire community myself, but the rants and critiques brought up so far do not indicate a positive light on the changes. Be they the removal of ISD comms both ICly with the channel and OOCly by disavowing the use of station-bounced radios, the loyalty of officers to departmental heads, or the removal of the cadet slot, a large portion of responses have had at least something to pick at this.

The sentiment of things being roleplay focused on Aurora at its heart is something that I support heavily and these changes only serve to balance the metagame so as to give antags, who have plenty of tools anyway and already inflict great losses on the station and frequently require ERT's and evac shuttles to be called, a chance that isn't needed at the sacrifice of disrupting character interactions in a way that does not make sense. Antags are supposed to get mobilised against quickly and efficiently, its a server that has a lore of this station being a high-security research station. Regardless of why things are being done, people are not receptive and this is not just across people who are sec mains as things like the maintenance access changes were. People are not in favour of this change despite the reasoning, as lofty or as "healthy," as its proposed on being.

Players will stop playing the security role as much as it will become mind-numbingly boring with sitting in a brig office for half of the round or petty with departmental feudalism each having their own goon to throw at each other. This makes the claim that this "does not influence character actions" moot because people will just stop playing those characters altogether and get zero interaction with them, and yes, its their choice but its once that people will be forced into lest they really really like the look of their office.

I am influenced by my preference to strong character interactions and roleplay over mechanical gameyness, but as a member of the community I feel that I should not be talked down to as "ignorant," because I fundamentally disagree with the spirit of the changes. Roleplay and the things that help promote it are the cornerstone of the Aurora server, I value the individual relationships and experiences I have with characters more than the mechanical progression of the round, while still acknowledging the importance and inclusion of the ladder so long as it is not at the expense of the former. 

[Garnascus]

7 hours ago, Susan said:

My major concern with your train of thought, Skull, is that you're way too focused on the 'game' aspect of this. What are we? Are we a heavy roleplay server, or are we a light roleplay server? Are we going to throw away logical and realistic roleplay in favor of gameyness? You're asking people like me to make a choice between playing a game and roleplaying.

The idea that we can only focus on improving gameplay balance at the cost of RP is straight up wrong. Nobody bats an eye when we have nerfed antagonist abilities for being too powerful. Abilities such as vampire's dominate, wizard movement abilities and traitor revolver damage. Nobody voices criticism when we change the map to "buff" the crew either. Used to be in the past security's armory was separated from space by a single reinforced wall without a camera. Nowadays the armory has teleport protection, multiple wall layers and ID locked closets. None of these changes sacrificed "RP" in any meaningful way. They addressed problematic areas in which certain situations where dominated by one way to play that was deemed not great. 

We have a problem with security having a stranglehold on the round. We have a problem with them being able to shut down antagonists too easily. We have a problem with security that does NOT boil down to "Git good antags". 

7 hours ago, Susan said:

Are you telling me that somebody joining as cargo tech because they want to print knives and stab antagonists is perfectly okay, and we're being overbearing by not allowing gun-toting mercenaries to run rampant and shoot at people so everyone can have their 'sit in the corner and cower' RP they so desperately want?

Can you tell me where exactly this was said or even implied? We are going to great lengths in explaining we want to REDUCE security's power over the round NOT remove it. Antags replacing security in this position is probably not good either. We must strive for a better balance.