On the subject of security

[Cassie]

So, because I feel that a lot of the conflict is caused by the following questions not being answered, I think a lot of the discussion and debate around security can be solved with the following questions being answered, preferably by admins but discussion is fine too:

1. Is good security RP-focused or OOC focused?

(Explanation: Well, I am already aware security is there to combat antags, and deter workplace regulations being broken, sometimes deal with griefers (I personally think they shouldn't have to). But the question is asking if security is RP-focused - IE: Round events and victory outcomes don't impact on ability as sec officer, but rather the ability to roleplay an interesting security officer, or OOC-focused on keeping the round 'clean'. Or both? Is security judged by how well they can catch crooks or shoot a gun?

Take this analogy: On a HRP server, is a bartender skilled at the amount of recipes the player can make from memory, and how fast they can make a drink? Or how much of an RP-creating service person they roleplay as?)

2. Security vs. antags. Play to kill the antag or play to make an interesting and unpredictable drama?

2a. How serious is security ganking vs antag ganking?

3. When can security come off patrol?

(In this regard, sounds very boring to do this every round with minimal interaction. Especially during extended. *shudder*)

4. Should security be allowed to verbally abuse crewpeople?

(I understand this is an RP server, and also in real life you get security officers/police who are verbally abusive even though it would be in their job description specifically not to arouse more fear/anger on the station. My complaint is that abusive sec is not actually RP'ed, or just isn't RP'ed well, and it's not kept "secret" or, "under wraps" like how real corrupted people act. and if their commander like the HoS or Captain is nearby they don't blink an eye. More realistically, they would flinch and say "Excuse me, Powells, that is a violation of 'Conflict Management', where did you get your licence?".

All in all, not limiting freedom, but I'm just asking for the above to be taken in consideration. Security is infamous for provoked and unprovoked verbal assaults, at this point it's not OOC'ly enjoyable or funny, here's an example:

 

------ (follow) says, "Fucking bitch caught my baton with her teeth."

------ (follow) says, "Heheheh."

------ (follow) says, "Whore."

 

I don't wish to name names since this is a systematic example and not an attack on a specific individual. But yes, can security do that?)

5. Are players OOC'ly allowed to commit crimes (within reason)?

{I don't mean to not get arrested because that's fine, I mean the OOC'ly outlook - are they allowed? I'm not talking about robbing the vault, or being clownish in general. I am talking about the minor-regulation testing employee you see in your regular workplace, maybe the one who climbs over the bar table for a drink with their friendswhen the bartender is SSD, or RP'ed barfights, or the person who ties a cable coil to a coin to get those premium cigars from the vending machine, etc. Harmless fluff crimes. )

Thanks.

[GlamourChariot]

My opinions are in no way representative of the rest of the staff or "da rulez" as such, but here's my outlook on it.

1. I believe that quality RP comes before mechanical prowess, easily. As a heavy RP server the mechanics should exist to server and further the roleplay storytelling experience, whether you're a security officer or a scientist.

2. In a perfect world, it'd universally play to make interesting and unpredictable drama; unfortunately most possess an innate desire to "win"

2a. Given their obvious advantages, security should probably more heavily scrutinized for ganking behaviour than antags, though neither should be able to get away with straight up ganking

3. Not sure I understand the question ;:v

4. Not as much as they do. The entire station is a whole lot more informal than it would realistically be allowed to be, and that just comes from the kind of people we are OOC. I believe more heads should smack down on all the informal language etc especially on general comms, but that's up to the players and would be pretty anti-fun in most people's eyes if actually enforced.

5. Yes, I'd say so. If they want to do anything and they aren't sure of it they can just ahelp it and do whatever they're told they're allowed to. Within reason, the staff isn't likely to hamper your efforts to get fired if you have decent enough reasoning and / or it fosters some interesting RP.

Now while I largely agree with what you're getting it, your post does emit a pretty anti-sec vibe and a couple of the points you're asking for us to discuss come off as loaded questions, just a warning.

But yeah, I like to foster the srs bsns type RPs that not everyone enjoys, so shrug. No formal sec with good intentions on the outside and subtle mean streaks that you never see, unfortunately. Just vulgar, vulgar mofos.

[Cassie]

3. On the station, people who play security complain that security can become repetitive as they have to patrol all the time, even during non-antag rounds. It becomes boring and they don't like to do it all the time. I was thinking of something along the lines of break times or heads allowing more regular breaks between officers, but I don't know.

4. I'm definitely not saying security can't swear, or can't talk informally. In fact, I dislike it when comms become militant and it is quite anti-fun. What I'm suggesting, as in my OP post is that security act a tiny bit more realistically for a security role. I don't like the term "realism" to counter fun in any way, but in this situation it's to tone down something that's getting a bit too much (see spoiler for an example).

There's a few roles on station that IC-wise would be required to watch their public relations due to the nature of the actual job:

1. Command (High responsibility)

2. Security (Medium responsibility)

3. Service (Low responsibility)

Unless you're RP'ing a corrupt security officer (who wouldn't broadcast abuse openly where they can be reported), do it in a way that it makes sense that individual has gotten away with that behaviour. IE: Verbally abusing prisoners in their cells when they're alone, and emoting or doing any other mechanic to ensure it looks like planned RP. Like, not in public and in front of heads where it's obvious. The realism here is that an officer wouldn't be specieist or call their prisoner a "bitch" in front of the HoS or Captain, and if they got caught they'd be scolded/punished for it and not just told "Meh, you committed a crime.".

To tell you the truth it doesn't matter if my post gives bad vibes or not - it's about the validity of my points which is the most important matter and nothing to do with how people see me, or heck, even my signature. Everything else is irrelevant, it all boils down to If those questions are to be answered or not. I bring forth my honest opinions, but I allow them to be challenged, that's how discussion operates.

[GlamourChariot]

lmao you're being so confrontational and I'm trying to agree with you come on man

Now I'd just like to suggest that you relax a little and stop being so srs about it because that's how toxic flame wars erupt ;:v

[Cassie]

I'm here, it's 10am in Britain and I have enjoyed a cup of tea and a muffin for tea. I am really calm right now. Please understand this is how I type during serious discussions and there is no offense intended. I am not going to hurt you. If I wish to be vicious and I am quite direct and obvious, my posting style is nothing like this. People perceive my directness as hostility, but when I am direct I am direct and when I am hostile I am hostile. I agree with many of your points also. I'm straight with what I do and don't agree with, this is just how I am and it shouldn't be taken that bad.

Please re-consider your preconceptions of me based on previous blunt posts and read my above posts in a young female, 20-something, a bit non-serious at time and slips a joke in, also a British girl voice who occasionally enlongates her "o"s, talks non-stop in a disorganized and incoherent matter (I make no sense irl I stick to text for a reason!), and pauses mid-sentence to think of things then says weird stuff anyway, as that's how I actually talk if we were on skype or something.

If you can't... I can't help you. What can I say bub?

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1bzU7uZYREw

Edited April 7, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

1. Is good security RP-focused or OOC focused?

Answer is always both and is easily solved. You can be an effective security officer even with taking time to RP. Just RP with the prisoners that show willingness to RP, if the extent of it is shouting meta-profanities and screaming shitcurity, you're free to put them in a cell without further contact. Some of them are just angry, however, and attempts should be made to calm down prisoners, because having them start breaking out of their cell can sometimes be prevented. The real shitheads are dealt with by the admins, and so for it seems they don't intend to let Security deal with them.

2. Security vs. antags. Play to kill the antag or play to make an interesting and unpredictable drama?

The latter, of course. What it boils down usually, is antags doing griefy shit and Security answering by force. Example, overly annoying, ganky wizard, which cannot be contained by any known means other than lasers, and does not in turn, provide any RP. You cannot make unpredictable drama as an antag, not really.

2a. How serious is security ganking vs antag ganking?

Look to the previous question for the rest of the reasons. When it comes to most antags, security is always issued weapons when it seems the situation would call for it, but are told not to use lethal unless fired upon or have no choice. Whatever people say, self-defense crap excuse does not really work here unless the enemy is armed with actual ranged weapons. You can be healed up or worse case, cloned. This means there is no actual fucking reason to murder someone if they can be easily detained by non-lethal measures.

That said, to an extent, I think that Security gank is more serious. Currently. What prevents the nuke ops from engaging in RP combat is the fear of overly ganky or powergaming security. Imo, it is okay to kill as an antag, in whichever method you want as long as it has an actual point and produces RP down the line. I've seen antags to powergamy shit, though which is indicative of playing to win on their side as well.

3. When can security come off patrol?

I don't force officers to patrol regularly as a HoS or Captain, this has caused me to have a lack of presence and them becoming slow. Security needs to keep patroling to stay focused as most HoSs allow them a break when they ask for it.

4. Should security be allowed to verbally abuse crewpeople?

No, and even if they do, they do not represent security. They should be treated as any other personnel who abuses people, through complaints and by talking to them. Likewise, insulting an officer should be applicable only if the verbal abuse from the violator actually hampers their ability to do their job. Telling an Officer to 'sod off', when they have no actual reason to question you is not 'Insulting an Officer'.

5. Are players OOC'ly allowed to commit crimes (within reason)?

Yes. I support meaningful RP crimes. This includes murders out of jelousy and hate, as long as it's not metagrudging. Example, a love triangle that escalates into a murder of one of the parties should not be bannable. Idea that murder should be reserved for antags is bullshit, imho, because giving people access to weapons and an OOC excuse to kill will not magically spawn RP. People who actually invest time into stories surrounding their characters should not be limited if or not they get picked as a traitor. I'm against grief, of course, this should always, at best, be the area for antags.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Guest

[Gollee]

------ (follow) says, "Fucking bitch caught my baton with her teeth."

------ (follow) says, "Heheheh."

------ (follow) says, "Whore."

 

That was a changeling talking about capturing the Captain; nothing to do with security, but using it out of context like this isn't good.

Security should be watched for insulting people; as should doctors and service staff; they all have to extend a likable exterior to people they interact with.

[Cassie]

Alright, very well. I was observing that round but not fully knowing the IC context but considering it's happened to me twice (and sadly I didn't log back then. Here's a new example then:

 

----1 says, "You're an idiot."

[doc] says, "Also, you've come into medbay, and I have not been informed of anything that has been going on."

[doc] says, "Do not touch me sir."

----2 says, "You fool."

----2 asks, "Sirrr?"

----2 shoves Carl.

[doc] says, "Ma'am, rather."

[doc] exclaims, "Stop that!"

----2 says, "Get the fuck to worrrk."

[doc] yells, "You have no right!"

----2 shoves him again.

[doc] yells, "Excuse me!"

[Gollee]

That is the sort of thing that should be reported.

[Guest]

idk about you but I'm beginning to tire of these threads because there's always a large amount of assuming and generalizing that goes on when attempting to address the issues of 'security.'

it's not the department, it's the shitheads in it that don't deserve their job. Do me a favor and report those people when you can.

[Cassie]

Okay, 1138 please check the title and purpose of this thread, then you will understand why this can't be individual issue, but a systematic issue that has be handled in a way other than incident reports. It's not the 'shitheads' that are simply the problem, it's the system that allows the 'shitheads' to proliferate and retain the shitheadry on the server. Not sure if I can come up with an analogy to explain this.

So yeah. If the questions are answered, then perhaps admins can regulate what is and isn't acceptable behavior, a set guide if you will - and there will be less debates on incident reports if x person's behaviour was justified or not. It strongly discourages people to write up incident reports if the server's not even set on what is and isn't okay behaviour. The incident reports section has repeated issues related to the questions brought up in original post, so this topic is actually quite useful and we should use it as such.

[Guest]

We're not dealing with shitheads in the right way, you're saying.

Righty. Here's the system in which shitheads are dealt with IC.

1) Shithead does something shitty.

2) Someone witnesses the act of shittery, reacts in either disgust or whatever.

3) Witness makes a case against the shithead in the IC complaint board as a mocked up incident report.

4) DOs review the case, take appropriate action from there.

Why the system often doesn't work, is because of number 3. It is not a failure of the system, it is a failure of the community to properly relay IC issues to the IC channel. The moment they take it to OOC is when they lose a lot of credibility. It is a failing of the community to not report when shit like this goes wrong.

The DOs don't appear to do work because one, you guys aren't giving them any work to go on, and two, they don't frequently announce their intentions or the direction they want to take with the IC community.

In an idealistic workplace, really small and big shit would get reported regularly. You know what I see in the incident reports board, almost 100% of the time? A lot of IC grudging and bickery with no real backing to their argument.

This is an issue the players need to be figuring out for themselves. The system isn't going to change because people are lazy.

And remember that the DO corps and the staff have open-door policies. If you have questions or concerns, go to them and ask questions and gain information on the matter. Info never hurts.

[Frission]

idk about you but I'm beginning to tire of these threads because there's always a large amount of assuming and generalizing that goes on when attempting to address the issues of 'security.'

it's not the department, it's the shitheads in it that don't deserve their job. Do me a favor and report those people when you can.

 

I've found even when they do get reported, nothing tends to get done about it. They get to keep being a shitter sec and go off their merry way OOC while the victim of their behaviour faces the consequences IC, and often OOC too.

There is supposed to be a rule on this server that says "don't be a dick" -- very rarely does this seem to get applied to command or sec players and their behaviour. Whoever they're harrassing however then gets harrassed because they're angry about it. 'The angry one must always be at fault', after all. Can't imagine why they're angry. Can you?

[Guest]

"Don't be a dick" is an OOC rule. Doesn't apply IC until command doesn't take kindly to it and decides to slap you.

[Frission]

Every IC action is a conscious OOC decision on that player's part. "It's my character" is never an excuse for behaviour knowingly intended to upset other players. That's kind of the core point of this whole thread actually.

[Guest]

Good point.

Nonetheless, my point I stated earlier still stands.

Even it if means jumping the chain of command a bit, report shitheads to command staff when they have time.

If they aren't available, make an incident report.

[VoltageHero]

4. Not as much as they do. The entire station is a whole lot more informal than it would realistically be allowed to be, and that just comes from the kind of people we are OOC. I believe more heads should smack down on all the informal language etc especially on general comms, but that's up to the players and would be pretty anti-fun in most people's eyes if actually enforced.

 

Stuff like this is kinda the issue I have with these threads. People want the station (not even just security) to be played a certain way.

A good deal of "serious RPers" want Aurora to be more "realistic" for them, and want stuff like this. More "less-serious RPers" don't. This is why you can't say "we need to do (x), and eliminate (y)".

At the end of the day, it's a frigging game. This isn't real life. You guys are are so harsh on literally every department, when it doesn't fit your own ideal, not even security.

And no, just "reporting people" isn't going to do anything, assuming you're talking OOCly. That's just silly. Reporting people ICly is a different story.

In the end, my biggest issue is this. People want Security to be there to safeguard their RP. They want to know that they're not going to get griefed, and this is the extent most people would (understandably) want to deal with Security. People forget Security are often actual players too, and not staff-players (if that makes any sense). I assure you too, if Security was less strict, within a few weeks people would make a thread about Security not doing their job.

And on the subject of IC dicks...eh? There is literally no reason somebody should just remove their character's behavior, because one or a few people were upset. There are a handful of character across departments that aren't the nicest of people. Too bad, this happens in both real life, and other RPs. As I've stated before, telling everybody to be a "happy, Mary Sue" would get bland, and boring. Nobody forces you to RP with anybody. If you're taking IC things said OOCly, that also is not something that (I'd assume) any player intends.

[Cassie]

1138, I believe if there were clear guidelines on how security should behave, and it set in stone and acknowledged as "This is how you play the job", then the amount of incident reports wouldn't be as high. You see, you can definitely make an incident report about many cases, but if it was set in stone many people (especially being carried over from other servers where shitcurity is not handled) would be warned in the rules/regulations first (heck, even make a corporate regulation about it so it can be handled IC'ly too) and the situations will be more fluid to resolution.

I think, maybe try to understand that it can be difficult for some people (IE: Not Cassie) to take a forum battering, and people can be very dismissive in incident reports, sometimes it's also the issue of metagruding post-reports which notoriously hard to prove unless you've got tons of logs and persoanal history to prove it. Some people don't like the forwardness and conflict of those things because of the publicity and the grudges of "Ugh, you made it public!", so maybe make a more visible opening for more private reports with an admin as a middleman - who can be reached by ahelp and then carry it to forum PMs between the two parties or something. You might do this already, but make it more obvious for newer members because when I was new I had no idea you could do this.

Not everyone will bring it forward, I think it's staff's (and players) job to be proactive and notice subtle forms of "Not okay'ness" and "Too muchness" going on within ranks, and also calling out dodgy behaviour within sec before the actual incidents happen to make it hard for shitcurity to thrive, even if it means telling off a friend (who may indeed have a nice side) now and then.

[Frission]

I don't disagree with 1138 that it should be the norm, and ideally it should work that way. I just had a very bad experience recently that's colored my opinion of trying to report things. I might PM you about it in a bit so you know where I'm coming from.

Back to the original topic though, I never did answer the questions from the first post, so let me see about that.

1. I think encouraging more and better roleplay from security players goes a long way towards reducing incidents of what we lovingly know as 'shitcurity'. Someone who's there to be a more fleshed out character, even minimally, is less likely to go around spewing insults and abusing fake laws. That said, they should know that roleplaying a 'bad cop' is to be frowned upon.

2. I leave this up to the officer's discretion, honestly. I would prefer they default to trying to take antags alive, but sometimes it's just not possible. One must be vigilant against defaulting to the 'it's not possible' idea all the time, though.

2a - I don't know enough about the game to answer this question.

3 - I think this is a good idea, letting them have down time, especially in code green. If we have a lot of sec staff, they could try rotating breaks? I dunno.

4 - Absolutely not. I would maintain a Zero-Tolerance policy against this.

5 - Yes. Too much strictness just stifles fun. Remember in the end that we're playing a game, not sitting down to go to work for a few hours without pay.

[VoltageHero]

1138, I believe if there were clear guidelines on how security should behave, and it set in stone and acknowledged as "This is how you play the job", then the amount of incident reports wouldn't be as high.

 

We have these for all the departments, more or less.

Science still makes bombs and blow them up when they aren't supposed to.

Medical still dumps people out of cyro when they're dying.

Why exactly would this change anything?

[Erik Tiber]

lmao you're being so confrontational and I'm trying to agree with you come on man

Now I'd just like to suggest that you relax a little and stop being so srs about it because that's how toxic flame wars erupt ;:v

I'm not quite sure if shitposting is the correct response here ;:v

[Frission]

Why exactly would this change anything?

 

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

[Jakers457]

Let's not forget Security is one of the hardest departments to work in. There's no game mechanics such as rebuilding or cloning to clean up after a screw up.

[Cassie]

Yes, these things will still happen. The difference is: Since they're set, making complaints is way easier than pursuing an unwritten rule. Less incident reports will happen, the topics will be shorter. For example (and don't follow the bomb thing too logically here):

*Making bombs and exploding them in silly areas is against the rules*

*Player 1 sees Player 2 do this*

Player 1: Player 2 just set off a bomb in medbay.

Admin 1: That's no good.

Admin 2: Yep, that's definitely against the rules.

Player 2: I confirm I did that. But it's not so baaaad, the bomb was very tiny, and no one was there---

Admin 2: It was in the rules however, to stop anybody getting hurt. There's reasons it's there. Make a complaint about the rules but in this situation you have broken them so Player 1 is justified.

Player 2: Fine.

*Making bombs and exploding them in silly areas is not defined in rules*

*Player 1 sees Player 2 do this*

Player 1: Player 2 just set off a bomb in medbay.

Admin 1: Hm, that's a bit of a grey area.

Admin 2: I don't like what he did to be honest.

Player 2: I can confirm I did that, but I quickly wanted to test the bomb before round end.

Player 1: But I you vented it and I couldn't leave.

Player 2: Didn't see you there bud.

Player 1: Well just don't do it.

Player 2: It's not against the rules though.

Admin 1: Tbh it was a silly thing to do.

Some Random Dude: Meh you didn't die, so whatever. Let's wait until someone actually dies from this.

Player 2: It's not fair because blah blah and it was this and that, and no rules were broken and blah

Admin 2: I dunno, man. It's subjective, no one got hurt and blah blah

- endless discussion, topic eventually resolves, issue repeats self -

[Guest]

1138, I believe if there were clear guidelines on how security should behave, and it set in stone and acknowledged as "This is how you play the job", then the amount of incident reports wouldn't be as high.

 

We have these for all the departments, more or less.

Science still makes bombs and blow them up when they aren't supposed to.

Medical still dumps people out of cyro when they're dying.

Why exactly would this change anything?

 

I see your point. As a Cap, incidents from science and medbay pass my table, and I have to deal with general nonesense from cargo a lot. I can't be arsed to babysit them so I deal with them as reports come up, mostly from CMOs and RDs, usually with a demotion. Security, on the other hand, almost always has a HoS, and a lot of them don't know how to deal with wild guns. I know because I've been there.

A lot of these can be resolved by people coming to me in person and simply explaining their situation, instead of yelling shitcurity IC-ly and OOC-ly. As for the other crap, it's good it's here, maybe if they are reminded enough, people could actually remember that things like RP combat exist and that processing can be made fun through effort of both parties.