Remove BC access to the 'Command' Channel, give BCs and all Command access to a new 'Helm' radio channel.

[Scheveningen]

It is important for me to clarify I bear no ill will towards (derogatory) bridge crewmen, and to instead explicitly state the intention of this suggestion is to rectify a common problem within the structure of command that isn't feasibly fixable outside of a code solution as proposed in the title.

This is a fairly easy problem to follow, which I will outline:
 

• Bridge crewmen, are like any member of the crew as support staff. They are not command staff, and hold no authority, and only exist to pilot the ship and run the sensors and guns.
• Any member of the crew that is not command is not obligated to command-sensitive information, which is why the command channel exists, to easily provide such information to a secure network in a discrete manner.
• Therefore, the bridge crewmen should not be privy to the command channel. They are very specifically trained support staff which command should still be able to easily communicate with, but should not be easily privy to command-sensitive information of any kind. Especially not from an OOC perspective when a non-whitelisted person can easily nose into command business.

I believe the implementation as provided in the title would present more benefits in gameplay/roleplay terms than create problems. It is also, from my perspective, far more feasible than an entire command playerbase being told the only way to fix various issues associated with dealing with bridge crewman as command is to keep submitting IRs against them, which doesn't fix the long-term issue being that bridge crewmen should not be even given the ability to misbehave as mini-command. I don't want BCs to be whitelisted much like anyone else and I think this is a better middle ground that solves most of the issues.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Scheveningen

[Cnaym]

Fully support this with the addition of two little things.

First of all I would limit the piloting channel to captain / xo during standard operations, this would mean the other heads can focus on their stuff instead of having to fiddle with another channel. Common and PDA still exists so it's not a loss imho.

Make it so that on red either captain / command can enable command channel for them, or auto enable piloting channel for all of command during a code red situation. This'd be similar to the maint access, the idea here is that a CMO could let the doctors know if the ship is about to come under fire or do the funny moves.

Now these two would just be tiny fluff I would like from an IC perspective but nobody needs to bother implementing these, as for the original concern, none command staff should not have access to the command channel - Full stop.

I can see how the AI needs it sometimes (would be funny if it had not though tbh) and the faction reps getting access to it is somewhat of a gameplay decision I don't support but instead ignore, the main point being both of these roles are whitelisted anyway.

Now as to why I prefer the command channel whitelisted, simple, in any situation that requires the channel to be used extensively it needs to be clear and filled with information. If I cannot field execute annoying bridge crew (ignoring any and all boundaries or realistic behavior towards their direct superiors) without getting bwoinked, this would be the next best thing.

[WickedCybs]

This has been suggested before but it's just not correct when it comes to who exactly is "allowed" on the command comms. Bridge crew have the command frequency because they're fully trusted to have it. There's no such thing as being "not obligated to command-sensitive information" and they also have far more of a reason to hear it than two other roles that have also had the frequency for a long time (the rep and liaison) given how much they're expected to communicate with Command and work to their satisfaction. There is no solution that involves removing their access to the Command comms without redefining the role.

If the Bridge Crew aren't acting properly you should ahelp, as we have higher expectations of how reasonable it is for them to be clearly insubordinate. From what I can see when observing rounds or playing Command, Command doesn't want to discipline or guide their bridge crews. If it's egregious, they still don't ahelp it so I have to hope to notice it to correct things without the benefit of a heads up. It doesn't become very surprising to me then when ignoring the BC's doesn't work out.

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by WickedCybs
punctuation

[Carver]

2 hours ago, Cnaym said:

First of all I would limit the piloting channel to captain / xo during standard operations, this would mean the other heads can focus on their stuff instead of having to fiddle with another channel. Common and PDA still exists so it's not a loss imho.

Heavily disagree with this, sometimes as another member of Command I need to ask BCs to make announcements on my behalf. It's easier to do this with the Command channel, but, I would be fine with a Helm channel if all of Command held access to this channel.

BCs become vastly less helpful to me as a member of Command if I have no direct line of communication - and to boot are liable to end up as a decidedly less social role (social interaction is 90+% of your round as a Bridge Crewman, without it it's an unfathomably boring role).

As for the main suggestion, as above - if all of Command maintain a line of direct communication I don't really care. Though it will make the role a bit more boring - and I'd rather Command discipline misbehaving BCs than hamstring the role.

[Kintsugi]

4 hours ago, WickedCybs said:

This has been suggested before but it's just not correct when it comes to who exactly is "allowed" on the command comms. bridge crew have the command frequency because they're fully trusted to have it. There's no such thing as being "not obligated to command-sensitive information" and they also have far more of a reason to hear it than two other roles that have also had the frequency for a long time (the rep and liaison) given how much they're expected to communicate with Command and work to their satisfaction. There is no solution that involves removing their access to the Command comms without redefining the role.

If the Bridge Crew aren't acting properly you should ahelp, as we have higher expectations of how reasonable it is for them to be clearly insubordinate. From what I can see when observing rounds or playing Command, Command doesn't want to discipline or guide their bridge crews. If it's egregious, they still don't ahelp it so I have to hope to notice it to correct things without the benefit of a heads up. It doesn't become very surprising to me then when ignoring the BC's doesn't work out.

 

Cybs states my thoughts more or less exactly, here. There is no reason why we should cut BCs out of the loop and create an entirely new channel just to support this one solitary job. While delineation of responsibilities is great and all, this is just too far.

[Dreamix]

BC's exact role and place and direction on the ship (and the server) really should be clarified, I think. A while ago, or I was told at least, the intention was they'd be mainly command learner roles, being able to see how command works, without having any actual responsibilities or authority.

But now, it's kinda really weird imo, in that they can effectively control (...command...) the ship if there's no heads, picking where it goes as they pilot it, influencing miners and science expeditions, get to know secret stuff of how the leviathan works, and need to have pretty diverse and extensive education and training (piloting, sensors, guns, expeditions). But at the same time, they have no real authority over any other crew, and have barely any responsibilities most of the time.

Even if they do not have any real authority, de facto they kinda sorta do have some minimal authority. Same as wardens, who are not supposed to be above officers, but do often assume command and delegate them around. BCs, like wardens, are like, "important".

 

So like. The question is, I guess. Do we want BCs to remain command-learner roles, providing advice to command, and being delegated to smaller jobs and assistance? Or do we want BCs to shift more to just piloting/sensors/guns/expeditions, and nothing beyond that, and move away from the command side? If it's the former, then command channel should stay; if it's the latter, then it should probably be gone (same as records and cameras access, which they iirc have as well)

Edited January 30, 2023 by Dreamix
bold text because why not

[niennab]

While Bridge Crew are certainly a type and there have been a lot of bad apples as of late, I think just being more proactive about ahelping and IRing the problem characters should resolve the issue. If not, what we might also need is an announcement in the same vein as the Warden one.

[Cnaym]

55 minutes ago, Dreamix said:

Do we want BCs to remain command-learner roles, providing advice to command

The entire issue summed up in one sentence.

A command learning role should observe and try to understand how command leads their department and delegate tasks, not offer input from a position of knowing next to nothing and being scooped up in the bridge half the round. If I want to know who what's around the ship or where we are going I will ask the BC but if I start a vote of borging or marooning someone I do not need the three stooges to give me their moral input after spending an hour in the bridge bar together because of a code red.

9 hours ago, WickedCybs said:

If the Bridge Crew aren't acting properly you should ahelp, as we have higher expectations of how reasonable it is for them to be clearly insubordinate.

https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Bridge_Crewman

This side all but implies that you are a "very important" set of "command eyes" lol. You know yourself command players are not going to add another ticket to their round while stuff is happening and have to sit in the timeout corner because staff has to make up their mind about something that's not written down anywhere. I mean the first sentence with the funky bold writing basicly negates itself.

[Sneakyranger]

55 minutes ago, Cnaym said:

 

https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Bridge_Crewman

This side all but implies that you are a "very important" set of "command eyes" lol. You know yourself command players are not going to add another ticket to their round while stuff is happening and have to sit in the timeout corner because staff has to make up their mind about something that's not written down anywhere. I mean the first sentence with the funky bold writing basicly negates itself.

Speaking as the person who wrote that page, I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. I feel as if the intent of the page is quite clear: you may ask for permission or volunteer to get involved with certain things. The no-command section mentions once again that you don't have any authority over anyone. As for the bold section, it doesn't really negate itself at all. You cannot tell anyone what to do in a vacuum, but you (as the person almost certainly piloting the shuttle if you are on it) may give small commands to Intrepid crew who aren't Research or Operations, who both have superseding jurisdiction over the shuttle unless Command delegates power to you (which is also mentioned).

The only thing I felt was possibly confusing was "in lieu of", which I intended to mean "in case of a lack of" but that is not what in lieu of means at all and I will edit that as soon as I have finished here. 

I ask that you mention any specific problems with the page or comment on why my addressing of your already listed concerns are insufficient.

[WickedCybs]

2 hours ago, Cnaym said:

You know yourself command players are not going to add another ticket to their round while stuff is happening and have to sit in the timeout corner because staff has to make up their mind about something that's not written down anywhere. I mean the first sentence with the funky bold writing basicly negates itself.

Other than what Sneaky said, I'm not really sure how you can say this when an ahelp can be as simple as... pointing out a BC is not listening so we can look into it. I've always found the time to be able to make a ticket despite playing Command even when I wasn't staff. I know this isn't hard and it did not detain me forever. Given the wiki page on BC's already makes it clear they are subordinate to Command as well and essentially need to be allowed to do anything our minds are also fairly made up on what they can and cannot do and we handle them accordingly. 

It's still up to you on whether or not you think doing something is worth the effort but I'm going to view it as dishonest if that reason is supposedly anything other than "I don't feel like it".

3 hours ago, Cnaym said:

This side all but implies that you are a "very important" set of "command eyes" lol.

Let's see what it actually says, as you're quoting that out of context.

Quote

You shouldn't be interfering with matters that are too department specialized, but there are plenty of situations where a set of Command eyes are needed that you could be substituted for.

Sometimes, there just aren't any command staff for you to help out. This still doesn't render you useless - in fact, you're pretty important still! While you're not a member of the chain of command and don't have any authority over matters, you do still have access to the command and communications program...  perhaps security would like to keep you informed so that you can raise to blue alert if a wily criminal is on the loose, or perhaps you can make an announcement that the chef is holding a little feast on deck three. 

Just another extension of the whole "You serve Command and can expect to help them out" and a note for the no command rounds that essentially states "If Command isn't available you can still make yourself a little useful but you have zero say over what the other departments do."

[Scheveningen]

I don't have the time or negative energy required to nitpick bridge crew behavior and be forced to repeatedly argue a case as to why someone shouldn't be roleplaying a specific way that will inevitably be reframed as me not personally liking how someone is playing, leading to no visible enforcement. They are not whitelisted characters, and therefore the effort expectation is unreasonable from them because anyone can play bridge crew. 

Unless someone is griefing, harassing, or otherwise playing the game in an objectively meanspirited, unsportsmanlike and awful way towards others, there is no reason for any player to be expected that "just adminhelp it" will lead to any meaningful change. Changes in the game code to restrict or free up access absolutely change the way the game is actually played and will modify the impact of certain jobs during the average round. Security got considerably less powerful when their .45s and tasers got merged into disruptors instead. They also got less considerably oppressive when their code green camera access got restricted. These were objectively good changes because it considerably handicapped them being able to participate in annoying character behavior.

As for why consuls and corporate reps get access to command, this is something they would be more reasonably privy to as they are both diplomats for different contextual reasons. They are also whitelisted, and there exist far more considerable IC and OOC consequences for purposefully leaking information to non-command. It also makes zero sense for them to do under any situation, whereas bridge crewmen through the merit of their own freer range of characterization may make up a wider variety of IC/OOC excuses for why leaking said information outside of command is okay in-character.

They should be disempowered from being able to do that, period. Their primary role is to pilot the ship and run the guns, their job is not to be involved with management affairs. As far as being a command assistant goes for their secondary duties when neither piloting the ship or running the guns is relevant, it should clearly be a case-by-case basis should one command member or another choose to empower them to assist them or their own department. Because then that would be the choice of a member of command staff to empower someone to be more helpful. Having proactive bridge crewmembers trying to make themselves useful without being by default tapped into command comms and knowing entirely what is going on would be far more interesting gameplay for them.

Code solutions for a problem are always going to be more meaningfully impactful than simply telling someone the root of their problems is that they are not issuing complaints to the admins enough.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Scheveningen

[Zulu0009]

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

[...] whereas bridge crewmen through the merit of their own freer range of characterization may make up a wider variety of IC/OOC excuses for why leaking said information outside of command is okay in-character.

I am really not sure why this post has been made, since in my several weeks of playing Bridge Crew, I personally have never been bwoinked or notified of unacceptable behavior OOC, and have never witnessed negative or unacceptable behavior. IC, I was suspended once for disrespect to a captain, but that doesn't really count. I don't understand where the distrust in bridge crew player comes from, and really don't understand this concept of secret information? There is essentially NO information that is restricted to command-level staff unless it's a rev round and the loyalist command staff has some secret stuff. Are we talking about the Leviathan? Ship information? What information does this include?

3 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

Their primary role is to pilot the ship and run the guns, their job is not to be involved with management affairs.

Arguing that bridge crewmen, people who, as you rightfully said, fly the ship and open fire on other ships should not have access to the command channel seems like it would just lead to more chaos. I don't see why a person directly employed by the Stellar Corporate Conglomerate, who is aware of command-level information like the Leviathan, should be removed from the command channel. Playing bridge crew, it's already a little difficult to organize with mining for expeditions without the Operations channel, and to talk to engineering without their channel. During antag rounds, BCs are sometimes utterly unaware of what's happening around the ship because we only have access to the command channel, which during chaotic situations is used less than security or medical or engineering.

4 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

it should clearly be a case-by-case basis should one command member or another choose to empower them to assist them or their own department

I'm really not sure what is expected of bridge crew, then. Three people on the bridge who don't have a job when they're not piloting the ship, what are they expected to do without the command channel and without authorization to do anything without command permission?