Aurora Heads of Staff - Whitelist restriction

[Jakers457]

We shouldn't let practicality get hindered by social issues. There is no real scandal or reason for everyone to see the Heads discuss or bicker about their personal policies. Nor is it necessary in bringing people who do not play heads, get involved with a party they are not involved with.

Not because we're elitist, but each Head position is pretty difficult and having a board where heads can butt heads or exchange experiences has actually benefited how the Heads play. Most heads play more or less on the same page now, allowing crew to not have one head who does something completely different to another, just only dealing with minor variances. It's not about elitism, it's about being able to discuss with people in the same boat.

Without disrespect to Bokaza, I got respect for you, but you've basically created the issue despite it never being one in the first place.

[Tainavaa]

That is my point in saying it's an "arbitrary problem".

[Guest]

You're all taking things far too seriously and contributing to our "newfangled" problem. I doubt refering to ourselves as an organization, let alone a government is going to wash out any suspicions or tensions related to the invisible head subforum.

In my eyes, it is just a huge wasteland of paperwork related arguments and a guide/help thread for heads from time to time.

As for people in the whitelisted section being in the same boat, making discussions easier? We're not in the same boat. We're more polite while discussing things there, but we hardly share most opinions.

Recently, a thread was made in there discussing who should get a corpse first, the CSI or Medbay. As I said there, I thought we should be debating that in the general, or maybe suggestion subforum since it didnt involve any head positions. Much like now, Jakers said he enjoys discussing suggestions on the Whitelisted forum because people were more interested in reaching a productive compromise than strangling each other.

I'd argue that we can achieve this on any other forum by simply trying not to be such huge dicks to each other.

I also have a problem with the Head guides and tips threads. Now, they're useful to have but I just dont like them being in the Head subforum instead of in the public section. If we're operating under the assumption that playing command is very hard, we should shove those tips in the public guide subforum so anyone can see them and take note.

I'd consider the "General orders" and paperwork related discussions to be something only Heads of Staff need to deal with (And I wouldnt force anyone else to torment himself with paperwork discussions unless they outright ask to be able to) so, I think we dont need to change anything there.

So, in summary.

Keep suggestions to the suggestions forum. Keep guides to the guides subforum.

That, in my opinion is enough to remove most of the elitism associated with the command subforum.

[Jamini]

Well this thread exploded today. Right.

Tainavaa? It may be worthwhile to step back a bit. You've made your stance clear, and that is fine. Let's look over the preposition as a whole.

The suggested course of action is as follows:

 

To give view, but not post, access to all registered users to the Head of Staff forums.

 

Arguments for View Access

 

"This is causing some players to be partially excluded from discussions that directly impact them regardless" - Bokaza
"Everyone should be able to voice their opinion on regulations and such, if not in the subforum, then raise questions in the General or Suggestions, while quoting from there." - Bokaza
"(we) want a quiet place to discuss what to do. " - Bokaza
"OOCly, it affects everyone, not just heads." - Gollee
"Its just a place where we go and argue about paperwork, keeping it hidden will only raises tension." - Starfish
"It makes sense from an RP-standpoint that it would be restricted to those who actually have the access." - Valkrae
"The reason players don't really have a say is because they're not command, they haven't filled the roles (probably) here on Aurora and they don't have a play-style or their own personal SoP to discuss with the other players." - Xander

 

Arguments against View Access

"People who are non white listed and want to participate but cant I imagine might develop animosity for those they disagree with but can't really voice." - Tainavaa
"One of the few reasons the concept of "need-to-know" exists." - Tainavaa
"If everyone sees and has the right to comment, in or out of the subforum, you might as well just take it away" - Tainavaa
"We shouldn't let practicality get hindered by social issues." - Jaker
"There is no real scandal or reason for everyone to see the Heads discuss or bicker about their personal policies." - Jaker
"Nor is it necessary in bringing people who do not play heads, get involved with a party they are not involved with" - Jaker
"Having a board where heads can butt heads or exchange experiences has actually benefited how the Heads play." - Jaker

 

Reviewing the head board right now, the following topics are on the front page:

UPDATE: Duty Officer Action
-Sticky
-Notice regarding Duty Officer Action on various players who have had complaints. Very important for heads, not something a normal player should know

Cloning Policy: Possible Solution 
-A discussion on cloning policy for antagonists
-Probably something most players should be able to see. Affects everyone.

[Guide] Greytide 101 
-A guide on handling trouble players/migrants from other servers
-Could go in the guide section, but really only relevant to heads. Normal players don't need to see it.

Intro's/Characters We Play 
-A list of characters and who plays them. Also a quick meet-and-greet personally.
-A non-issue for people to see.

Cloning policy 
-A discussion on general cloning policy.
-See Above

Captains. 
-Captain players sharing tips
-Not super necessary to keep hidden. Would be useful for future heads of staff to read.


Head of Staff Manifest 
-An up-to-date list of all active heads. not really up to date.
-See intros.

On the topic of console building. 
-A discussion on who should be involved/responsible for building department-specific equipment.
-Not really relevant to anyone who isn't the CE or another head that might want consoles done. Engineers might want some of the info, but it's really more a policy debate.

On the Topic of: Autopsies 
-A discussion about Autopsy procedure. Who gets the body first.
-See console building above. Mostly relevant to the CMO, HOS, and their respective departments.

On Account Suspensions 
-A discussion about suspending station accounts as punishment.
-See console building above. Mostly relevant to the HOP, Captain, and HOS.

URGENT: Station Directives 
-A EXTERNAL link for posting proposals for station directives. Said link does NOT have a login.
-This really, really should not be visible to people who are not heads of staff or server staff. As the suggestions here directly impact in-game policy.

RFC: 001 Principles of Engineering operation and efficiency. 
-Some suggestions for improving engineering.
-See console building above.

Proposal: Security Training Program 
-A suggestion for HOS characters to cross-train some station staff in official sessions.
-See console building above.

Red Alert Drill 
-A suggestion for a "Red alert" drill on extended.
-See console building above.

HoS Copypastas 
-A SOP document that OP posted for other HOS characters to use.
-I don't see why normal players couldn't see it. It contained a lot of jokes though.

(Player)EVENT - Biohazard Training! 
-A suggestion for a "Biohazard Training" event on extended. Never panned out due to lack of interest.
-See console building above.


Remember the real reason we play on this server. 
-A discussion on creating fun scenarios as heads and following procedure. we talked about a biodome too.
-harmless to show to non-heads. Actually, may be beneficial to have them see it.

Keeping the station from blowing up 
-Tips and tricks heads use to avoid having the station get destroyed.
-This really. really. really should not be visible to everyone. As a determined and talented griefer could use the information in there to their advantage.

The thread we all need - how to make Mutiny work 
-A thread on mutiny, and acting during it as a head
-Not super relevant to non-heads.

SOP vs Station Directives 
-A thread discussing old SOP and the new directive system
-Not really relevant to anyone anymore.

Keeping players in game 
-An OOC discussion on keeping players in the game. When, why, how.
-Should probably be a general discussion topic.

The Standard Operating Procedure 
-A discussion on the old SOP, which is now gone.
-Not really relevant to anyone anymore.

A Friendly Reminder to Heads of Staff and SSDing 
-A quick reminder that heads are supposed to Cryo
-Completely not-relevant to people without the whitelist.

Emergency Shuttle 
-A discussion on when to call the shuttle.
-Considering the subject, this should probably be visible to the rest of the crew. I believe this was reposted to general chat after the discussion.

Demotion Procedures 
-A discussion on setting up ground rules demotion procedures.
-Considering the subject, I'd rather not have this discussion public. It would allow people to try and line-toe, which is irritating to deal with.

 

Currently We have:

Five players giving arguments for giving read access.

Two players giving arguments against.

Roughly equal number of arguments for each.

Four threads which probably should not be visible to people without the whitelist.

Eleven threads which are irrelevant to non-heads.

Four threads which would be beneficial for non-heads to see. Two of them are introduction/heads of staff listing.

Two completely irrelevant threads due to change in policy.

Considering the numbers, I would suggest the following:

1. Addition of a sub-forum to the head of staff forum where more sensitive threads. (Duty officer, directive suggestion link, anti-griefer tactics) should be posted. This forum would only be visible to white-listed players.

2. Changing the general discussion area of the heads forum to public viewing.

3. Slightly heavier moderation when it comes to sensitive and non-sensitive topics. Threads without sensitive data should be in the public subforum, threads with sensitive data should be in the private subforum.

4. Topics which involve more than just headstaff should have a second topic in the general forums with a link in the body of both topics. To act as a place that non-white-listed players and visitors can air their opinions publicly without cluttering up a discussion between the people who actually can/are playing the affected role.

[Guest]

Without disrespect to Bokaza, I got respect for you, but you've basically created the issue despite it never being one in the first place.

It's a fair thing to point out, maybe, I am making too much noise, yes. But consider this: You can argue that vast majority of who care about regulations are already in the subforum. You can argue that most people don't give a damn about command staff politics. But you can't argue that none of these discussed effect non-whitelisted players and that we are the only ones qualified to put an opinion on that questions.

That said, rest of the players need to see that there is a discussion going on which effects their enjoyment of the game, so that the server does not become full of paperwork shitlers overnight who are ruined everyone's enjoyment. So, I think solutions are to alter the whitelist restrictons, split the subforum as Xander suggested or relocate discussions as Rectum suggested.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The Head whitelist subforum includes information from Duty Officers that realistically only Command staff would see. Whether or not they gossip about it is another thing, but the meta is strong and I don't think most people here could resist making IC snide remarks about someone being reassigned to janitor for a week, or something.

I also prefer the atmosphere of discussion. This very thread is a good example of how every other suggestion people disagree on go - we argue for ages and get emotionally invested and upset/heated and you have to use a scalpel to pick out anything that was actually said. You don't go to bed one night then wake up to find a thread exploded to 9 pages of arguing. The most 'controversial' head threads are about cloning and the station directives, and they're like, 3 pages and everyone is more or less chill.

There's also the matter that its another benefit for whitelisted players. "I have higher security clearance." sounds cool. If you really want to see the forum, there's nothing stopping you from applying to be a Head.

tl;dr I prefer it being restricted to whitelisted players. If it's a big hooplah I'd be fine with making it view only, but that would take away avenues of discussion amongst whitelisted players where they can communicate with fellow seasoned command players who won't get offended because they want to spitball a change in x protocol or something. The rest of the playerbase tends to inflate everything up to 11.

Mandatory slippery slope argument

Where does it end??? Should everyone see the private Duty Officer chat? The lore team chat? Public admin meetings??? IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE, PEOPLE!!

[Guest]

Considering the numbers, I would suggest the following:

1. Addition of a sub-forum to the head of staff forum where more sensitive threads. (Duty officer, directive suggestion link, anti-griefer tactics) should be posted. This forum would only be visible to white-listed players.

2. Changing the general discussion area of the heads forum to public viewing.

3. Slightly heavier moderation when it comes to sensitive and non-sensitive topics. Threads without sensitive data should be in the public subforum, threads with sensitive data should be in the private subforum.

4. Topics which involve more than just headstaff should have a second topic in the general forums with a link in the body of both topics. To act as a place that non-white-listed players and visitors can air their opinions publicly without cluttering up a discussion between the people who actually can/are playing the affected role.

 

This is an interesting suggestion, though I'm unsure if it would be the solution. It clears up a lot of the issues the other whitelisted players had stated earlier, if not all of them.

Depends if we want to add a slight bit more amount of clutter to the subforum, though, and if it's worth it. Guidelines for what's considered sensitive and what is not would also be up for debate, which is another issue I'm foreseeing (and would likely result in more blown-up threads).

Another thing is non-whitelistees potentially creating general discussion topics on their piece of the non-sensitive threads they can actually view. Annnnd possibly saying things they probably shouldn't or in a rather disruptive tone.

But, really, since you're the only one who wants to compromise here, I'm throwing my vote in Jamini's direction.

[Jakers457]

The most practical compromise is to announce the finalised policy to the non-whitelists. There is no need to see us bicker and some of us have opinions that would have us chastised by the community. I believe it is a safer place to discus sensitive topics relating to command and that non-whitelists shouldn't get involved until everything has been decided.

edit: Woops, double post. Delete the one above.

Say, after the policy has been put into practice and people are hating it, then the Heads can put it under review. That way we can give trial runs to policies without it being shot down by 'what ifs.'

So I offer this, we announce the final results of the discussions and keep it at that.

[Guest]

The Head whitelist subforum includes information from Duty Officers that realistically only Command staff would see. Whether or not they gossip about it is another thing, but the meta is strong and I don't think most people here could resist making IC snide remarks about someone being reassigned to janitor for a week, or something.

Mandatory slippery slope argument

Where does it end??? Should everyone see the private Duty Officer chat? The lore team chat? Public admin meetings??? IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE, PEOPLE!!

I'll say it again, I have no DO access and there is like, almost nothing DO in that subgroup. It's just discussions on regulations, paperwork and protocol. Some of it effects the gameplay of non-staff players greatly. This should not be kept 'classified'. As for the things that actually might fall under the category, Xander already suggested a split.

As for the slippery slope, that won't happen considering how much bickering there is over something pointless as the heads subforum. Other than that, when has transparency become a problem?

 

Another thing is non-whitelistees potentially creating general discussion topics on their piece of the non-sensitive threads they can actually view. Annnnd possibly saying things they probably shouldn't or in a rather disruptive tone.

But, really, since you're the only one who wants to compromise here, I'm throwing my vote in Jamini's direction.

 

There are things people shouldn't say? Such as? I agree that people shouldn't be toxic, or start rage treads, but why does everyone assume that will be the end result?

Both Xander and Rectum offered valid compromises.

 

Say, after the policy has been put into practice and people are hating it, then the Heads can put it under review. That way we can give trial runs to policies without it being shot down by 'what ifs.'

So I offer this, we announce the final results of the discussions and keep it at that.

I agree with this.

[Skull132]

An alternate solution, that involves maybe less pkaying around. As Inverted said, there's stuff there which should be echoed in other forums. Guides, maybe general discussion, etcetera.

But no one has really stopped any of you from doing it. Basically, figure out which topics need to be pushed eslewhere, and push'em. Same thing for taking and looking for input elsewhere: feel free to ask around and gather opinions.

It will require an active effort, though.

[mrimatool]

What Skull and Rectum(hueh) said was quite a good one.