Start whitelisting security.

[Guest]

Hi. Normally I would open with a long-winded preface, but I'll keep it brief.

Remember this thread? Initially, I thought it was a great idea, as it would put a power ceiling on the security department to make room for antagonists, and neither side would specifically steamroll the other. And steamrolls are always pathetic to either take part in or observe for yourself.

Right now you might be thinking; Delta, if you already agree with Skull's suggestion, why make this one?

The Problem

Because that suggestion doesn't address or regulate the rather recent influx of bad security we've had lately as the old security vets parted from the server. As there are many things that can make a bad security player/character, and not everyone knows what bad security really is, since there is no actual set of guidelines that says, 'These are some tips, tricks, and suggested guidelines on how to roleplay as a security officer and be a generally okay/fair person unless you're an antag.'

Basically, you have people coming in who have no idea what they are doing, at the very least. And then on the other hand, you have security personnel who intentionally act malicious over petty internal squabbles. Better known as wewlads, these people run around with authority making everyone else's experiences an absolute pain in the ass.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I stress how much security often contributes to bad roleplay. Because of these people playing the role for the sake of seeking authority and power without actually knowing how to handle either, there is almost always a great distrust for security officers. Antagonists often kill security officers on-sight, ignoring and circumventing the rulings on gank, because of the OOC knowledge that there will always be one validhunting piece of garbage in the department that actively seeks to greentext and ruin an antagonist's time, so they can brag about it for the next few rounds. There are a few regulars present in the community who are like this, and whether they're being ironic about it or not, they're part of the problem.

And then you have scenarios during extended where security players think they're the exception and get to act like the round antagonists by making everyone who is trying to do something that round completely miserable because Urist McRevolverdick is bored and wants to shoot someone.

Security is SUPPOSED to act like peacekeepers.

As a result, we have a vicious power struggle between people who commonly play antagonists and those who play security. Each party treats the other unfairly because of the proactive, paranoia archetype of security officers that constantly worries over worse-case scenarios instead of considering roleplay as the first priority. It's gotten to the point where security is no longer !FUN! because we have people who wait out the 10/14 day period and hop into the role with either 1.) no fucking clue what they're doing or 2.) an absolute great idea of how they're gonna be an asshole and try to get away with it.

This needs to stop.

No whiny, nonproductive discussion thread on validhunting is going to fix validhunting, however. No thread in general discussion about how people are roleplaying space lesbians so poorly is actually going to fix anything. You cannot expect a burglar who you know by face and name to be brought to justice if you're going to whine and bitch about it on Twitter instead of taking the case to someone who can do something about it.

My Proposition

Now here is my suggestion. I've been here for, what, a year? I've played security, science, medical, engineering, all the roles. I've antagged several different ways. I've made people laugh, I've made people cry, I've made people so utterly upset that I could fill a glass full of their tears, boil it so that the liquid evaporates and pour what salt remains into a salt shaker. I have been that guy, and I've been that guy! I think I have a good idea of what I'm talking about, I've not exaggerated whatsoever in my comparisons above. I've seen the extremes enough times that one could consider them to be normalcy.

Let me remind you all why we have head of staff whitelists. We have them so that not just any Tom, Bald, or Harry can join as the captain and order all of the alien races to be nailed to a cross and allow the station to devolve into absolute chaos for no believable reason.

Security has that power, too, and the worst part is that just like heads of staff, they are more likely to get away with shit than, say, a cargo technician going around pushing people and farting on them. Security can do just the same and pull rank/authority. So can the captain, so can the HoP, etc. Repercussions do not matter to these people, and overall it does not matter, because the damage is already done.

What I believe needs to be done is damage mitigation, instead of employing people in the community to clean up the shit afterward. This is very easily preventable if we just start controlling who can actually play as a security officer, not unlike how there's sufficient enough control on heads of staff.

So long as players are able to hop into a role of authority, there will always be one or more persons who will either unknowingly screw up badly, or willingly abuse their position to powertrip.

Oh, also. I want to include ERT in the same whitelist category. Anyone who witnessed the last event will know why.

How will this work, Delta?

It's simple enough. First off, a few conditions. Anybody who has standing as a community member (Head of Staff Whitelisted players, primarily), I would suggest already be whitelisted for security by default. Personally I think it'd be more fair NOT to gimp people who already went through the trouble of applying as a head long before I was even here.

Just a couple things to note, however:

 

• The security whitelist and head of staff whitelists will be drastically different. The former have specific peacekeeping responsibilities, and the latter has more management, red tape and bureaucratic gameplay.

 

Security will almost always be up close and personal with people. Ideal candidates will be people who understand how to escalate force properly to control the situation and stop worst-case scenarios from happening. They should know when and how to follow orders. Unless given a morally questionable order, they should not pout and whine when being told to do something by their boss because muh principles over corporate procedure/existent law because they personally disagree with it. Nobody would ever hire a Marxist as a security officer.

No, I'm not asking security officers to be mindslaves. They're expected to do what they're asked by their own authority and carry out demands by the heads of staff, who are in actual charge of how the station runs. They can, and are encouraged, to speak up and try to communicate up the chain of command if they receive a questionable order. Seriously, I don't mind being told I'm wrong in IC, I make mistakes too and I appreciate it if you think I'm going overboard.

 

• Applying as a head of staff will not guarantee you the security whitelist. While independent from each other, I would suggest that people need to apply for two whitelists if they want to play Head of Security.
• You get the point I'm driving here. I think it's a necessity about this time that we start whitelisting security, that's the end product here. I think it's reasonable enough to hypothesize that gameplay will be noticably better with community members that apply and get accepted to play security.

 

Thoughts, feedback, 2 cents?

[Guest]

Oh, one last thing.

Cadets are not included in this suggestion. Anybody can play cadet day 1. This is probably encouraged just to give a new player to the server a taste of Aurora security procedure/gameplay, and then decide from there if they want to apply for a sec whitelist.

And yes. I know. It's a huge step to take. I think it's worth taking, however.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Guest

[Garnascus]

Strongly agree.... Who is in the greatest position to end a round? security... Personally i would just nerf batons and tasers but a whitelist works too. Im sick and tired of seeing just flat out awful RP from security. Wardens leaving the brig and making arrests. the detective acting like a security officer, all of security forgetting CSI exists and arresting people on code green with no evidence...

yeah...

[Skull132]

I have two questions.

One: what would this solve, that actually reporting cruddy officers and getting them jobbanned doesn't?

Two: do you understand the amount of effort and personnel it would take to actually have a functioning application process on this scale? And no, you cannot compare this to the Head of Staff and species whitelisting on this count, as the scale is potentially a lot greater. From personal experience, it takes roughly half a week to a week to properly process an application, with actual active back-and-forth, and a focus on standards. Further more, said standards need to exist, the creation of which will take time. And how do you plan on tackling these issues? Basically, what's your actual gameplan?

[EvilBrage]

One: what would this solve, that actually reporting cruddy officers and getting them jobbanned doesn't?

 

Playing devil's advocate here - reports and complaints don't do anything, nor does any other action I can think of. Complaints on the forums go into a special kind of limbo, duty officers seem very fond of just demoting them to cadet for a week or two, and any IC action you want to take can be instantly rebuffed with "lol not canon, stop u metagrudge."

I can think of one officer in particular with novels of complaints written about them, and then duty officers did some nonsense and ultimately nothing happened. I'm actually not aware of a single instance of security job banning since I've joined the server, they're generally more broadly administered as temporary server bans and antag bans.

That said, making security whitelisted wouldn't solve anything - it'd just make the role immensely difficult to fill up, and you'd have the pseudo-police running around with stun rods and cable cuffs. That, or a cheeky Head of Personnel who hand-picks people and makes them all security. Neither circumstance is exactly ideal. However, the problem you're trying to address is a very real one - officers routinely ignore the actual corporate regulations, and nothing is done about an individual protesting their arrest (to the point where, as an antagonist security officer, saying "it's okay" while kidnapping people to form your own permabrig fight club is a legitimate strategy.)

I'd prefer to see an understood increase in the expectation to create quality RP, rather than performing an arrest on a whim without so much as consulting the corporate regulations. These players will often later claim that the event was "non-canon" for the express purpose of preventing punitive action against their character. I'm not sure what hard rule could be created to combat this, since it's late for me and my cognitive functions are beginning to slip, but I'll sleep on it and revisit this, because there's definitely a problem that needs addressing, here. However, I'm firmly convinced that whitelists aren't the answer.

For now, though, I'll leave you all with this: Can we provide incentive, positive or negative, for security to do its job properly?

[Syndiekate]

From my time on SS-13, I've mostly noted that the people who play security tend to be the people who don't want to go onto the forums, don't really get involved in the community a whole lot, and in some cases aren't into RP as much as other people can be (Not that this is a rule, just something I've observed on some other servers which might not be totally valid here). And in the servers in-which I've seen security white-lists be put-up, those people (Who can be perfectly fine sec officers, even better than the absolutely hard-RP people in some cases) just tend to not play security anymore. Another thing to note is that some people play sec casually (Myself included) meaning they don't play it a lot of the time, but still enjoy playing it occasionally when the mood suits them, and when a white-list goes up for these roles these people (Who also can just be fine sec officers) don't see the white-list as being worth the time filling out.

While these people who tend to borderline abuse/be shitty cops are the people who hard-line play sec all the time instantly go for the white-list and often-enough GET that white-list that was meant to keep people like that from playing those roles. Simply because it's easy as hell to get through a white-list if you're even remotely intelligent. You just look over those white-lists that are accepted, reword their answers to a slight degree and then make your application. If questioned about how badly they've fucked up in the past they promise they're better and will do perfect jobs in the future. While staff (and most players) feels like they've done something to keep the server 'safer' from shitty-sec because of the paper-thin wall that the white-list is stands between them and 'bad sec'. It's my simple opinion that in the case of security (And heads for that matter, though that's a different issue) that white-lists don't really do anything other than discourage casual players from playing those roles, and make admins feel better because they 'can' revoke said white-list, though it is so rarely done to the point of it being nothing but a comfort for the vast majority of incidents. So no, I don't particularly find this idea to be a good one. Administrators handling it on a case-by-case basis with a stern hand as incidents pile up is probably the best solution you can have.

[Xelnagahunter]

One: what would this solve, that actually reporting cruddy officers and getting them jobbanned doesn't?

 

Playing devil's advocate here - reports and complaints don't do anything, nor does any other action I can think of. Complaints on the forums go into a special kind of limbo, duty officers seem very fond of just demoting them to cadet for a week or two, and any IC action you want to take can be instantly rebuffed with "lol not canon, stop u metagrudge."

-snip-

I'd prefer to see an understood increase in the expectation to create quality RP, rather than performing an arrest on a whim without so much as consulting the corporate regulations. These players will often later claim that the event was "non-canon" for the express purpose of preventing punitive action against their character. I'm not sure what hard rule could be created to combat this, since it's late for me and my cognitive functions are beginning to slip, but I'll sleep on it and revisit this, because there's definitely a problem that needs addressing, here. However, I'm firmly convinced that whitelists aren't the answer.

For now, though, I'll leave you all with this: Can we provide incentive, positive or negative, for security to do its job properly?

 

All events of conflict will be considered canon unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties or spurred by a round antagonist-related action. Duty Officer involvement may result in a specific conflict being made canon regardless of player agreement, as seen fit. This still does not exempt you from rules on metagaming - your character does not acquire knowledge of syndicate items, xenos, etc. simply because they have interacted with them in previous rounds.

[Frances]

I mean, there's two kinds of sec players I see people finding issue with.

There's sec players who are fucking retards. Which can probably be handled with a single adminhelp and sequence of admin-PMs.

Then there's sec players who make shady decisions and "bad" judgement calls (according to some people's very subjective standards, which already makes "solving" this issue quite a mess.) Those wouldn't really have any trouble passing a whitelist, as all that's required to do so is to basically display you're literate (and meet a few other arbitrary requirements such as admins not disliking you too much lately).

Whitelisting sec would achieve little besides making Aurora look even more autistic as we keep enforcing increasingly insane and obtuse requirements and guidelines (although, do you guys want to?)

[Gollee]

As a note, two of the most proactive Duty Officers have been working at reviewing Security since the 30th of September, to little visible effect. If we demote a character, they generally just change slightly, then rejoin next round, there is little that can be done by DOs in this regard.

[Dreamix]

I mean, there's two kinds of sec players I see people finding issue with:

There's sec players who are fucking retards. Which can probably be handled with a single adminhelp and sequence of admin-PMs.

Then there's sec players who make shady decisions and "bad" judgement calls (according to some people's very subjective standards, which already makes "solving" this issue quite a mess.) (...)

And there are also people who may not, or may be "retards", but lie somewhere between the "complete retardness" and decent officers. Not bannable, nothing really can be done about them; may be illiterate or not fond of corporate regulations. You can see that they are bad (in general, objective sense) after observing their character just for a minute; you can't reallyahelp until they do something terrible-bad.

Keep in mind that job-bans can't be handed out like candy. Also, it's easier to remove one player's security whitelist than it is to job-ban ten players. Some of the "terrible" players will already be filtered out by the whitelist.

Life's not just white or black. There are shades of stuff, or something.

---

---

Also, my earlier post on the matter:

TL;DR: WE CAN DO LITERALLY NOTHING, OR ALMOST OVERKILL IT

http://aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3779&start=20#p37520

[Guest Menown]

Can we provide incentive, positive or negative, for security to do its job properly?

 

As somebody that plays security this is what I've seen. We get called shit for doing our job. We get called shit for not doing our job. One of the reasons we've lost so many of the goodsec, is because getting yelled and screamed at every round is just fun.

We understand it's our job, but when it comes to antags, lots of us are scared to even act first. We give antags chances and get fucked over because we know if we do the logical thing, we'll get bitched at in LOOC or something of the like.

[Frances]

And there are also people who may not, or may be "retards", but lie somewhere between the "complete retardness" and decent officers. Not bannable, nothing really can be done about them; may be illiterate or not fond of corporate regulations. You can see that they are bad (in general, objective sense) after observing their character just for a minute; you can't reallyahelp until they do something terrible-bad.

That's when you hop on sec yourself and try to help these guys get better ingame or through LOOC. In my experience, most players who do a "kinda shitty" job are plain new and looking to learn the game, because most come from LRP backgrounds and probably aren't too sure how to handle security well. So you teach them!

Not a sec player? I can see how it would kinda suck, though LOOC is still open for communication. But most of the players I see complain about sec are sec players themselves (not saying everyone finding issues with security is in it, but those that aren't tend to be a lot less vocal and mostly prefer to do their own thing anyway.)

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Would it not be easier on administration to shoehorn security whitelists and command whitelists into one "Special Roles Whitelist"? Our whitelist process is already Byzantine for command. Adding a third one would make us completely engulfed in bureaucracy that is not suitable for a roleplaying 2D social game.

[Frances]

Would it not be easier on administration to shoehorn security whitelists and command whitelists into one "Special Roles Whitelist"? Our whitelist process is already Byzantine for command. Adding a third one would make us completely engulfed in bureaucracy that is not suitable for a roleplaying 2D social game.

One could easily argue that the bar set for command should be higher than the one set for security, though. By the logic you're describing, I'd be jobbanned from sec for making light of a game bug.

[Killerhurtz]

There's also the issue of having 'security' experts. Mods and admins take care of command whitelists because most of them are whitelisted, and command whitelistees are (in my eyes, at least) the lowest rung of server moderation. Lorewriters take care of race applications because they know it and wrote a good bunch of it. Who would pick up the mantle of security applications?

[Jboy2000000]

I think Meow made a good point that some people have missed. Antags get coddled to the max here, so much so that the map is built to cater to them, and like Meow said, even security doing the logical thing and stopping them, no matter how they do it, will end up with complaints, whether its in LOOC, OOC, ahelp, the forums, and the security officer/s are almost always the bad guy. Security can't be good a lot of the time, because then people will dogpile them for ruining their antag round or something.

[Frances]

I think Meow made a good point that some people have missed. Antags get coddled to the max here, so much so that the map is built to cater to them, and like Meow said, even security doing the logical thing and stopping them, no matter how they do it, will end up with complaints, whether its in LOOC, OOC, ahelp, the forums, and the security officer/s are almost always the bad guy. Security can't be good a lot of the time, because then people will dogpile them for ruining their antag round or something.

Not really. If security gets bitched at for arresting someone, can you imagine how much complaining antags encounter for killing them?

Both roles require a thick skin, and the hate they get isn't necessarily proportional to the actual performance of their players.

[Guest]

I have two questions.

One: what would this solve, that actually reporting cruddy officers and getting them jobbanned doesn't?

Two: do you understand the amount of effort and personnel it would take to actually have a functioning application process on this scale? And no, you cannot compare this to the Head of Staff and species whitelisting on this count, as the scale is potentially a lot greater. From personal experience, it takes roughly half a week to a week to properly process an application, with actual active back-and-forth, and a focus on standards. Further more, said standards need to exist, the creation of which will take time. And how do you plan on tackling these issues? Basically, what's your actual gameplan?

 

1.) As stated before, IC reports do absolutely nothing to curb player behavior, and I have not actually heard of consistent job-bans being handed out. Making OOC reports about crap officers typically only gives them a warning by the administration, and said officers proceed to meet a shitcurity quota rather than deciding to improve.

2.) As Jackboot already stated, it would be multiplicatively more ideal to include the authority roles into one singular whitelist. Less Byzantine, more Roman.

Also. Regarding the creation of said standards, I think a little pop quiz on what is and what isn't acceptable conduct as security will work out just fine. Drafting one up does not sound particularly difficult, in my mind.

As someone had earlier mentioned, whitelists only seem to be a mere test in literacy and political correctness. Passing both is not difficult if you're at least half decent at sugar-coating and avoiding negative language. I personally think the whitelist standards need to be stepped up a bit so that people know what they're getting into when they're applying for a whitelist.

 

For now, though, I'll leave you all with this: Can we provide incentive, positive or negative, for security to do its job properly?

 

Yes, but here's the problem, as Skull had made a point about earlier. Unless you had a security team that was proactively encouraging officers for doing a good job and not escalating the situation to a ridiculous level, this is another thing that is more trouble than it is worth to take part in alone.

That, and one question that appears in my mind is, "How can we incentivize security for doing its job properly without giving them ridiculous rewards that other people would bitch and complain about?" The major thing that keeps me rolling in security is self-gratification, or at least knowing that I'm doing a good job and not screwing up horribly. Because of how... unsatisfying that can often be, it's not going to appeal to everyone else.

Security is honestly a double-edged sword. On one hand, if you're trying to be good, you're going to suffer in the fun department. On the other hand, if you're being crap, then others are going to suffer. This is not a job for everyone.

 

I mean, there's two kinds of sec players I see people finding issue with.

There's sec players who are fucking retards. Which can probably be handled with a single adminhelp and sequence of admin-PMs.

Then there's sec players who make shady decisions and "bad" judgement calls (according to some people's very subjective standards, which already makes "solving" this issue quite a mess.) Those wouldn't really have any trouble passing a whitelist, as all that's required to do so is to basically display you're literate (and meet a few other arbitrary requirements such as admins not disliking you too much lately).

Whitelisting sec would achieve little besides making Aurora look even more autistic as we keep enforcing increasingly insane and obtuse requirements and guidelines (although, do you guys want to?)

 

I'm not going to point you out as wrong or right here, but what I see is a blurred line. Lately it's come to the point where, unless those sec players are outright griefing, they can be easily distinguished (and often confused) as those who make subjectively "bad" judgement calls and be corruptsec.

There is no white or black here, things are different now. It's this morally gray area that's a problem, and I don't think the staff is confident enough to catch flak for trying to deal with this. I feel the only way to really deal with this is to start restricting standards on who can play as security.

Since I'm curious, Frances, as you were the previous official head admin, what would you do about the current problem(s) with security, assuming you were in that position again? Legitimate question here, just want some more insight on how we/I/shwe can make this work.

 

That's when you hop on sec yourself and try to help these guys get better ingame or through LOOC. In my experience, most players who do a "kinda shitty" job are plain new and looking to learn the game, because most come from LRP backgrounds and probably aren't too sure how to handle security well. So you teach them!

Not a sec player? I can see how it would kinda suck, though LOOC is still open for communication. But most of the players I see complain about sec are sec players themselves (not saying everyone finding issues with security is in it, but those that aren't tend to be a lot less vocal and mostly prefer to do their own thing anyway.)

 

I've tried. Believe me, I've tried so hard to give people a chance and not be crap. The very obviously new faces/names that I see in security are almost never a problem, about 60% of them legitimately want to play and have fun. They almost never validhunt if they can help it. I would name names right off the bat of the ones who do, but that would be witchhunting, and I'd get another forum warning for doing that.

Interesting thought on the whole 'people who complain about security are usually security', but I think that's because everyone wants to be the exception to the whole expectation of the shitcurity stereotype.

 

There's also the issue of having 'security' experts. Mods and admins take care of command whitelists because most of them are whitelisted, and command whitelistees are (in my eyes, at least) the lowest rung of server moderation. Lorewriters take care of race applications because they know it and wrote a good bunch of it. Who would pick up the mantle of security applications?

 

I'd volunteer, but I think everyone would absolutely hate that premise. I'm not really going anywhere (have you seen my last 3 'i'm leaving' posts?), so foreseeably it wouldn't be a problem if I were to handle them, though. I'd just like to see if this would work or not. If not... Oh well, at least we tried?

[the_furry]

Um yes can we make this a thing? Of all departments security are the ones that have the most ability to make a round very bad for any other player. Although calling security shit because they are doing their job is a problem, a lot of the problem also stems from when security just stun cuffs and does whatever the fuck they want. Whitelists will help insure at least half the problem is resolved.

[Frances]

Since I'm curious, Frances, as you were the previous official head admin, what would you do about the current problem(s) with security, assuming you were in that position again? Legitimate question here, just want some more insight on how we/I/shwe can make this work.

Hard to say, as I don't come on the server much anymore and get to see little of security's day-to-day activities. So I'll speak generally.

Imo, work needs to be put in on both the security and complainants' fronts.

In security, the only way to solve "badsec" problems is to change the culture internal to the department. If you set clear guidelines on what is and isn't expected of officers, the whole department should eventually end up following through popular example. The way to do this isn't by whitelisting - the few people I've actually seen be problematic could easily pass a head whitelist for the most part. Rather, I encourage anyone interested by this issue to take up a job within security or command (HoS/Captain), and task themselves with setting the right example, while properly addressing the issues they find problematic members to cause.

For the complainants themselves, I think it's important to realize that not everything security does is out of maliciousness or incompetence, and to carefully examine the events they encounter before filing them away as problematic issues. Once you fall into the mindset that security on Aurora is bad, it's easy to tell yourself that any situation you encounter is the result of bad security. This doesn't necessarily make it so, and it's a lot more effective (and a lot less frustrating!) to try to look at everything from the most neutral perspective possible rather than assume the possible worst out of everybody. Basically, don't look at everything in black and white, and the points you actually choose to bring up will resound even more

[Frances]

Security is honestly a double-edged sword. On one hand, if you're trying to be good, you're going to suffer in the fun department. On the other hand, if you're being crap, then others are going to suffer. This is not a job for everyone.

This is something that rather perplexes me, so I figured I'd make a separate post to call it out.

What exactly makes it so that being "good" sec = no fun? Being reasonable, kind, polite, and trying your best to avoid and defuse bad situations (and often being thanked for being the sole sane person in a conflict) definitely comes with its own reward, no?

[Guest]

You often have to deal with toxic individuals/crew members, often get singled out and lumped along with the rest of the security force if they're acting poorly. Whether you're the coolest, chill dude on the station or not typically doesn't matter to people who have a great distrust towards security in general.

Being security is a thankless job, but someone has to do it otherwise the crew are going to assemble their own militia and occasionally escalate things improperly.

[Killerhurtz]

Know what? Starting tonight I'm taking my cadet out of the mothballs and I'm going the BEST GODDAMN SECURITY OFFICER THERE WILL EVER HAVE BEEN

[Frances]

You often have to deal with toxic individuals/crew members, often get singled out and lumped along with the rest of the security force if they're acting poorly. Whether you're the coolest, chill dude on the station or not typically doesn't matter to people who have a great distrust towards security in general.

Being security is a thankless job, but someone has to do it otherwise the crew are going to assemble their own militia and occasionally escalate things improperly.

Huh. Most of the time when I did my best to listen to people's problems and solve disputes without making arrests people were genuinely thankful. The only complaints I encountered were from people literally screaming "shitcurity" and doing their best to be disruptive, which, tbh, is hard to take personally. But it might just be my own experience.

[Guest]

You often have to deal with toxic individuals/crew members, often get singled out and lumped along with the rest of the security force if they're acting poorly. Whether you're the coolest, chill dude on the station or not typically doesn't matter to people who have a great distrust towards security in general.

Being security is a thankless job, but someone has to do it otherwise the crew are going to assemble their own militia and occasionally escalate things improperly.

Huh. Most of the time when I did my best to listen to people's problems and solve disputes without making arrests people were genuinely thankful. The only complaints I encountered were from people literally screaming "shitcurity" and doing their best to be disruptive, which, tbh, is hard to take personally. But it might just be my own experience.

 

It gets demoralizing after awhile.