Remove Security 2

[Triogenix]

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

Putting aside everything that has already been said about the event being done with admin-spawned gear that was impossible to fight, I was the Head of Security, and that character had no intention of killing soldiers of his home country, much less getting his entire team slaughtered by trying to repel the military force that had them outnumbered and outgunned. This was an IC decision, not just because we'd be PK'd, but it would've happened in a merc round if a similar instance occurred. We were actually getting security ready to fight, but in a covert manner, not overtly charging in guns blazing to our deaths. This was really more of a poorly-run event than anything.

So, over the course of this thread I've realized a majority of what I said surrounding that event specifically was incorrect, and while I would like to remove it from my original post I think it would be wrong for me to sweep a mistake I made "under the rug" so to speak. Knowing what I know now after reading responses from both you and @DanseMacabre I don't think I'd make it again, and with that I am slightly thankful for this thread being able to get rid of some of my incorrect assumptions about what actually occurred, as well as showing me other perspectives that I hadn't seen. While I still believe it was a reason for overall dislike, based purely on perception and assumptions filling in the blanks by those who were not directly involved(engineers, medical, a couple of people from the ERT team, etc), I hope they can also realize from this that the assumptions made by "us" whatever they may be were most likely wrong. I still standby nearly everything else I said about why I personally think people dislike security as a whole, and thank you both again for showing me a different side of what happened.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Triogenix
I forgot to readd a sentence before submitting. And forgot to delete another.

[StationCrab]

I think security should stay. It has a clearly defined role. As with every department, the quality of players within it is in constant flux, but the majority of my personal interactions have been positive. Sometimes I see sec players jump to violence over minor things, but it's rare enough, and there are ahelps to aid with that sort of thing.

[Captain Gecko]

Wait, so "Remove security" is serious, it's not a meme phrase?

More seriously, I played antag a few time, although I wouldn't call myself an antag main. I don't think there is much problem with the security department itself, although there is, and always will be, problems with some characters and/or players (I'm not giving names and I cannot anyways since I don't remember them), but I think I see one big problem, and that's not really Security's fault.

Imagine a perfect world where all sec players are not here for the sake of hunting antags but to play correctly, and where antags don't nuke the station outright and keep a good gimmick. Now the antags and security meet, what do? As security do you:

- Not stop the Antags risking them causing harm which is basically defeat for security gameplay-wise?

- Not stop the Atangs because you wanna let them express their gimmick (which is basically Antag RP heaven), despite this not really making sense for you gameplay-wise or even in character?

- Stop them because you have to and basically end the Antag business as you are intended to do and crush the Antag's planning?

I could keep going but you get my point. For Sec and Antag to have as much fun as possible, they need to, somehow, get to understand each other OOCly and try to know how much RP vs gameplay they want to achieve... and RP wise, do they want something that fits their characters? That fits the lore's logic? Or maybe try to work together to have it culminate in some super dramatic round? Anyways, that's a level of understanding that is basically impossible to achieve, assuming all of the players would agree in the first place.

I believe the best way to avoid this is to stick to the lore, and a bit to the characters. By sticking to the lore in this context, I mean corporate laws, things like that. If you do something that warrants an arrest, then expect to be arrested, if you do something that warrants investigation or doubt, then there will be. Now, on Sec's side, if there is no such thing then they should not ask Cargo for the Entire Sol Army armory.

 

So yeah, TLDR; this is more of an Antag/Sec relationship problem.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Captain Gecko
forgot to put something in bold

[BunkyB]

dont remove sec, remove sec antags

if you roll on-station antag as a sec character, you deserve punishment

[Caelphon]

Don't think it should be removed, but perhaps overhauled. Make them LITERALLY be mall cops. 

[CampinKiller]

7 hours ago, Caelphon said:

Don't think it should be removed, but perhaps overhauled. Make them LITERALLY be mall cops. 

I'm incredibly curious as to not only the WHY (especially given current antaggery), to include in terms of the lore, but also as to how serious a suggestion that is.

[Caelphon]

This isn't a military station; its a civilian/mining station. There is no need for such a heavily armed force aboard the station. 

[ClemTheDuck]

On 15/02/2021 at 22:54, Zundy said:

The issue isn't sec but antags pretty much all being geared towards combat, and sec is the combat department. 

If antags were geared towards busting power lines and damaging station infrastructure then we'd be here talking about the "issues with engineering" and how we need to give everyone a little bit of engineering skill so they can get involved when the antags vent the main hall and shut off the engine for the Xth time.

The only real solution is to introduce non-combat antags, however that may be.

I really do agree, I feel like a lot of sec hate comes from the fact sec deals with most antags. Which itself comes from the fact that many of the round types give antags with combative play styles. And while there have been many gimmicks where people have done peace stuff like peacewiz or peacemerc. You can’t deny that wiz, ninja, merc, ling, autotraitor, and even fucking borer. Are designed to be combative with gear and abilities that promote violent gimmicks, and thus promote sec intervention. I won’t pretend like I know how to fix that problem, but I feel like the main reason people have problems with sec stems from the types of antags that pop up.

 

 

[CampinKiller]

2 hours ago, Caelphon said:

This isn't a military station; its a civilian/mining station. There is no need for such a heavily armed force aboard the station. 

I'm not sure if you've noticed the incredible amount of canon attacks and violence that's happened at the civilian mining station, and security remains relatively lightly armed from a lore perspective.

[Carver]

23 hours ago, Caelphon said:

This isn't a military station; its a civilian/mining station. There is no need for such a heavily armed force aboard the station. 

Expecting this exact argument, I addressed this earlier.

Quote

One note of concern, on the in-character perspective. The current pre-NBT setting is a Corporate station in Corporate-dominated space that has a ridiculous record for being targeted - in RECENT times - by all manner of groups, from mere pirates (The event that introduced the TCFL) to Skrellian Tups (Warbling) to a significant remnant of the Solarian Navy (KotW) and more that I can't be assed to list. This ultimately doesn't contribute to any atmosphere of 'this station shouldn't need such heavy Security', quite to the contrary, I would be terrified to be working at this infamous station.

 

[Lmwevil]

15 hours ago, Carver said:

Expecting this exact argument, I addressed this earlier.

 

:upside smile face with tears of blood:

 

man for a top secret research facility we're pretty blatant huh

[Boggle08]

Security definitely has a place here, without question. Command can't regulate the station without them. The corporate law might as well be toilet paper if we removed them. From a setting and lore standpoint, it makes perfect sense and incentive for our soon-to-be spacefaring ship to have asset and crew protection. It's a crucial part of maintaining the HRP atmosphere.

From a gameplay standpoint, they are still unhealthy. We do not have a problem with security and command players being psychologically wired to be dicks that keep all the fun in a box away from everyone else, the design of the game and In-Character incentives encourage the playstyle. Isolate, Control, and Contain will generally be the motto of a station with a healthy, well staffed command and security department. Keep the station together, Keep the crew from dying. Exceptions exist outside of this framework, but the station is in perpetual orbit of this meta-outlook. I generally follow this outlook whenever I play command.

Because all of our gamemodes are geared towards direct physical violence, and our station crew generally observes and respects the regulations/chain of command, we have this paradigm. When it breaks down, you suddenly get a game that includes more of the crew in the action. I know we're HRP, but some of the most engaging times I've had on the aurora came from cult, revolution, and revenant rounds where everything goes to shit and command/sec throw away the regulations in favor of just trying to weather the round and survive. It's surprising how the hatred against sec instantly evaporates when people get to stand shoulder to shoulder with them to tackle a dangerous problem neither could've taken care of on their own.

 

Besides introducing gamemodes that are more balanced around other departments/not violence, Like Zundy suggested, we should also consider the implementation of systems that include the crew into more of the round's shenanigans. New gamemodes are a good idea, but they require coding, time, testing, and investment from someone. Inclusive policy changes only require just that; policy changes. We need security, and command, to say "No" less often.

New policy aboard the NBT sounds like it will dabble into this. Unreliable ERT summons coupled with a potential new system and infrastructure for crew militias means that command will have more incentive to levy from the rest of the crew instead of summoning a thematically uninvolved kill team to mop up the problem. For this, I hope the policy regarding militia operation revolves around a dichotomy of department crew holding their workstations in a static defense, and occasionally some joint operations with the remainder of the ISD whenever it is deemed situationally necessary. The militia should be there to help supplement or even directly contribute numbers to security, and their default equipment should focus more on keeping them alive and less on killing. Anything with a magazine larger than 1 needs to be in pistol cartridge. Anything larger than a pistol caliber should be a single-shot breach loader, or if we're feeling really generous, bolt action.

To finish and summarize up my thoughts before this post gets more bloaty than it already is: I don't think every round should be oriented around direct conflict and violence, and more of our round design in the future should be interesting without needing the classic idea of an "antag". I don't think we should exclusively blame command and security for the way they act, when our rounds are designed as they are. I think that security should still be the first and primary means of dealing with violent gimmicks and antags, because it makes sense. I anticipate the potential for a militia system, only because almost all of our gamemodes are designed for, and often create, violent outcomes.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Boggle08