Jamini Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 It's not his job to die for the station. I never said it was. -He could have tried to organize the people who wanted to resist. -He could have armed up some people and sent them to storm the core -He could have joined in an attempt for a few minutes, then bailed if things were not succeeding. He had a good SIX MINUTES. -He could have done anything at all. This is an overwhelming threat with an extent that is unknown. A lot of people - I'm going to assume you as well - seem to think that Heads of Security need to be some ever-vigilant supersoldier badass that's ready to respond to any threat at a moment's notice. That is not the case. Hell, even if he WAS an ever-vigilant supersoldier badass, he does not have the intel to accurately and safely say whether this is a threat that the station is ready to encounter. Nope nope nope. I think he is the fucking head of fucking security. His job is to identify and handle threats. He doesn't need to break character, even if playing a coward, to fill his function and organize people to resist the threat. Also, AI's are NOT that fucking mysterious. Their abilities are mostly known, and he had personal who /did/ know how to handle it that wanted to go do something. You are looking at it only from your point of view. I'm looking at it particularly from a tactical point of view. What I was taught, is that you do not enter a fight without sufficient intel and the foreseeable odds are roughly 3:1. Neither of this is the case. And in fact, with an artificial intelligence with complete control of the station, I would say the odds were probably much less than 1:1 without going into meta information on mechanical limits of AI and rules as well as the meta knowledge of knowing people will be fanny flustered if they did thing to stop someone (such as VENT EVERYTHING VIOLENTLY). The AI was alone. The station had upwards of thirty crew. Half of them were weapons trained. The Odds were far, far greater than 3:1 in his favor. That is a tactical assessment. But here's something to think about. All these pieces of evidence you're giving, are pieces of evidence supporting why you should have fought the AI. You have not given pieces of evidence supporting why he should not have made that decision. If you say something along the lines of "we were prepared, ready, etc." that falls under reasons why you should have fought the AI. That is not a reason he should not have made the decision he did. 1. He abandoned his post, and his livelihood, without any resistance. It's very likely his character would never, ever work for NT again after losing a station in that manner. 2. It's very likely that he was going to die on the outpost due to the lack of any shuttles, limited air, limited food, limited medical supplies, limited power, and limited communications. 3. He is a member of security. Specifically, the head of security. His role and job are to protect the crew, The Station, and It's assets. He utterly ignored two of those when he had a very real chance to preserve all three. I would not object if he had made any attempt to solve the issue or address the conflict. He didn't. He immediately turned and ran for evacuation. I stand by my statement: Such a character should not be a head of staff.
Tainavaa Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 You are literally asking for him to die for the station. He had every reason to believe he would die. You can continue to be a contrarian. But let's look at some points. Aurora is not his livelihood. It is his workplace. He does not own Aurora, he does not own NanoTrasen. He's just an employee. You are stating what he COULD have done. This is something that only supports my statement that there are many ways to go about a problem. Therefore, it is irrelevant. He did do anything at all. He tried to make sure the crew were safe. He is not a warfighter. He is the head of security. To put it in perspective, let me show you a video of a head of security as it relates to local government. You will notice - while obnoxiously hilarious - that it he is not a warfighter. Yes, he is supposed to identify and handle threats. He identified one, and handled it his way. You do not like the way he handled it. You're correct in that AI aren't that mysterious. However code delta was called. The station is about to blow up. How soon? I don't know. Does he? And is it enough time? Maybe he believed it wasn't. I certainly wouldn't. The station had upwards of thirty crew, and half of them were weapons trained. This relates to the situation with the station's AI... how? I fail to see how this contributes to a tactical advantage regarding an AI. Because the AI controls the station. You're in the AI's territory. With regarding the station specifically he is disregarding the crew's safety. The reasons you have given not to make his decision are as follows His livelihood, which it isn't. regarding the station and its assets, as well as its crew. The AI shakes things up a lot, especially when the station is going to blow up. Staying meant that there was a high likelihood of himself and everyone around him dying. If you say that's not true, then you are already asserting meta knowledge into his character. Because IC, you don't know. You absolutely do not know. He's not going to die for the station, and without asserting meta knowledge as stated earlier, the odds are likely below 1:1.
Baka Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 I don't think a Head of Security not becoming a martyr and evacuating the crew to preserve what's left of someone's livelihood is grounds to remove someone's whitelist. It was a one-time incident as well. Due to no information which states otherwise, I see this as a in-character issue. I will be leaving this thread open for 24 hours.
Guest Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Mmk, let's get back on track regarding the complaint here. Was Xander at fault whatsoever in regards to the OOC rules? I believe it's a no. While what they did absolutely irritates me and I personally believe that no HoS on the planet should ever have to roleplay with a malfunctioning implant when it clearly isn't the case during X situation, it's not actually relevant and the discussion on whether or not that's ok deserves its own thread for organizational purposes. While there were some questionable decisions, they were made ICly. And given that it was a bloody antag round, there is nothing that can be done. Well, maybe not. Maybe we could have a reassurance that what happened this round was utterly stupid and that we should all agree not to make such poor decisions again and to better our roleplay given these experiences? And, as a result, learn what foresight is and to avoid making dumb decisions that end up damaging the quality of the round or future rounds. tl;dr, Shit happened. Let's make sure this shit doesn't happen again and consider the possibilities of what may occur given a course of action. I believe we call this security risk assessment, which, not surprisingly, is the calculation of when a security risk may occur given a course of action, in this context. Minimizing damage and maximizing productivity, this is exactly what makes a workplace great, right? So let's do that. Let's focus on being productive from now on, and refer to Skull's signature just for the sake of preserving my own sanity when spamming the 'view new posts' button.
TishinaStalker Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Minimum requirements for heads of staff are five years with NT in your respective department. He's worked for Nanotrasen for years. No he hasn't if he doesn't want to. http://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=NanoTrasen_Occupation_Qualifications#Tier_10 Just to clear things up.
Tainavaa Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Even if he was, that's irrelevant. It's not his station.
TishinaStalker Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 ... I'm not trying to argue that...? I'm just trying to clear up things about heads of staff. ._.
Jamini Posted June 8, 2015 Author Posted June 8, 2015 Even if he was, that's irrelevant. It's not his station. So you are arguing that heads of staff have no interest or responsibility to protect NT assets. Alright yeah, I'm done. Please lock this thread.
Recommended Posts