Start whitelisting security.

[Killerhurtz]

For the record, 1138 - if you're willing to pick up security whitelists, I'm approving this idea. You're more than a capable person for this.

[Xelnagahunter]

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

 

I'm gonna have to get out of my bind and give sec another try with my cadet too. Maybe I can learn to actually be slightly robust, or I'll have to turn to life as a warden or CSI to make up for it. But I can be involved.

[Guest]

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

 

I'm gonna have to get out of my bind and give sec another try with my cadet too. Maybe I can learn to actually be slightly robust, or I'll have to turn to life as a warden or CSI to make up for it. But I can be involved.

 

Really appreciate it, guys.

[Gollee]

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

 

I'm gonna have to get out of my bind and give sec another try with my cadet too. Maybe I can learn to actually be slightly robust, or I'll have to turn to life as a warden or CSI to make up for it. But I can be involved.

 

Really appreciate it, guys.

 

You'll also notice that Inis and Varan are back in action.

[Taffytaffer]

Again, I can't stress this enough. If there is a bad security officer, report them. Why is this such a problem to do? If you can't fill out a player complaint/incident report, then how can you expect people to fill out an application?

[TechnoKat]

Again, I can't stress this enough. If there is a bad security officer, report them. Why is this such a problem to do? If you can't fill out a player complaint/incident report, then how can you expect people to fill out an application?

 

Because if you'd use your common sense for a minute, whitelisting security would help A LOT when dealing with rule breaking officers. I wouldn't bother making reports about shitton of bad security players whom' probably already left Aurora after a bad round. Neither will they bother filling for the whitelist.

[Nogo3]

Again, I can't stress this enough. If there is a bad security officer, report them. Why is this such a problem to do? If you can't fill out a player complaint/incident report, then how can you expect people to fill out an application?

 

Because if you'd use your common sense for a minute, whitelisting security would help A LOT when dealing with rule breaking officers. I wouldn't bother making reports about shitton of bad security players whom' probably already left Aurora after a bad round. Neither will they bother filling for the whitelist.

 

But an issue with that is all the red tape that is set up for those who genuinely look to play some of these roles and may actually be good security players. It's not only a restriction on keeping out people who are poor officers, but also those that aren't. Gives more hurdles to jump over for your casual player who might be looking to just play a server for a bit. For the newer players to the server, the week restriction does a pretty good job of keeping people out of security who are just looking for trouble, but I feel like pushing even more restrictions would just be a detriment.

EDIT: Blah blah blah, additions and such.

So, sure, while you gain something in not having to deal with such players as often and cut some reports out of the deal you'll also have to deal with people losing an interest in that of security. Where some work is cut out for one person, it's just added onto another person.

EDIT 2:

Neither will they bother filling for the whitelist.

 

Never underestimate the commitment of some people to be shitcurity.

[Xelnagahunter]

Really appreciate it, guys.

 

Don't thank me yet. You're gonna be part of my training. =P Thank me when I'm a good officer.

[Frances]

I wouldn't bother making reports about shitton of bad security players whom' probably already left Aurora after a bad round. Neither will they bother filling for the whitelist.

Except there's already a 10 day requirement on sec jobs, so isn't that already accomplishing the function you're describing?

[EvilBrage]

If there is a bad security officer, report them. Why is this such a problem to do? If you can't fill out a player complaint/incident report, then how can you expect people to fill out an application?

Because when you report a bad security officer, nothing of substance happens - and you don't have to fill out a whitelist every time you want to play a security officer, but that's beside the point.

 

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.

I've always seen the rule interpreted backwards - that is, an event is non canon unless agreed upon by both parties. Please confer with your fellow moderators and administrators to come to a decision on that, because honestly if you refuse to rewrite the rules and then say something is "generally accepted" when issuing a warning, that's a recipe for a huge amount of confusion. In light of this quote, however, I will now prioritize bad security when I go on antag killing sprees. Let the rivers run red.

 

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.

This is another point I'm trying to make - for all their bluster and announcement capabilities, the duty officers are ineffective as a whole.

After some brainstorming, I've come to the conclusion that the most effective solution to this problem is for our administrators to start taking complaints against security more seriously, especially those with repeated problems in which the individual is utterly unrepentant. I'd be completely fine with a more liberal approach to security job bans, both permanent and temporary, because there's honestly no shortage of security players. I can't think of any other measure that doesn't harm good security players as well, and I prefer not to do that.

[Lady_of_Ravens]

I'd be completely fine with a more liberal approach to security job bans, both permanent and temporary, because there's honestly no shortage of security players. I can't think of any other measure that doesn't harm good security players as well, and I prefer not to do that.

 

This, please.

[Nik]

I swear to the blood god, every time I come and heck the forums, there's a new one of these. I think I've seen more of these threads then I've seen threads for getting rid of chemistry.

I get the point, I do. In a theoretical world, this would be perfect, and Security would all be peaches and cream and smiles, and we'd never get some dipshit claiming he is the law.

But a whitelist just means less people want to to security, and that means that we COULD just have the same few people every round, with no one new trying for security,

But the more important point, is that I know what will happen. The moment you do anything slightly controversial or anything anyone doesn't agree with, they start screaming for you to get a job ban, and it will cause players to avoid doing what their characters would so they can avoid the storm of dildo's and barely veiled insults that is a complaint on this station.

It would kill security, and make whoever is left never try and do anything ever because SOMEONE will yell "SHITCURITY HE DIDNT DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED HIM TO" or some variation of it.

I get it, I get why people keep posting these. It won't work. It will never work. It's a giant risk just so you can avoid dealing with a sec player that is bad.

[Jboy2000000]

I have to agree with Nik, people are just ticked that nothings getting done, and nothings getting better. If DO's would do anything beside temporary demotions, no-contact orders, or completely arbitrary punishments, these threads might slow down, but I highly doubt they'll ever stop. But that depends on the DO's picking up the big boy pants, and well, they said publicly they didn't bother punishing Stamos for a long time because Mirk said he would just change the character's name and keep on playing as they pleased.

[Frances]

they said publicly they didn't bother punishing Stamos for a long time because Mirk said he would just change the character's name and keep on playing as they pleased.

That was a concern they've had, though I don't think anyone could actually "defeat" the DOs. If Mirk made an expy to circumvent character restrictions he'd probably run into OOC trouble.

Anyway, while on the topic of DOs, one suggestion I have for them is greater OOC involvement. It's becoming clear that the people ranting about sec aren't having fun from an OOC standpoint (and some of their complaints do seem justified), so at some point a dialogue needs to be established with "problem" players to figure out exactly what's going on, and how we can encourage them to play sec characters that don't cause issues (are they caused on purpose? Is it just a desire to spark conflict? Could things be done in a way that's more fun for the other parties involved?)

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

After reading more debate on this matter and thinking over on it, I changed my stance on the white-list. I don't think it's necessary when a large part of the current problem is lack of admin cohesion and willingness to enforce standards, expecting it all to fall back on the DO Division.

[Nik]

After reading more debate on this matter and thinking over on it, I changed my stance on the white-list. I don't think it's necessary when a large part of the current problem is lack of admin cohesion and willingness to enforce standards, expecting it all to fall back on the DO Division.

 

That's most likely the actual best way to ever handle this issue, which is almost sad in a way, that Security needs to be babysit by admins to not be a bunch of diddling idiots.

[Guest]

I'm trying this "logical rebuttal/response" thing, I think it's working out alright. Feel free to call me out immediately if I construct a fallacy.

 

Again, I can't stress this enough. If there is a bad security officer, report them. Why is this such a problem to do? If you can't fill out a player complaint/incident report, then how can you expect people to fill out an application?

 

If you had read page one to two, we've covered this part already. I believe we have established the cause, zero-to-little effect symptom we seem to have when it comes to filing reports. It doesn't matter if it's either Sir Butt Quartermaster who likes to ram pretty cargo techettes into their own desk without the shades even being closed, or if it's Mister Scientist who sneezed into the incorrect bin. Both will get, at most, a warning.

The Duty Officers cannot really expected to do much, as none of them are actual server administration with the power to enforce the IC stuff they put into place either ICly or OOCly. As I experienced myself during my tenure as a Duty Officer, I noticed we were either unwilling to do anything because said targets of certain complaints would attempt to burn the whole fucking server down if their character got permafired, or the line was so utterly blurred that the two administrator-liasons said "No, you can't really do anything right now because what they did wasn't that shit", so everybody's hands were tied.

I think the Corps at the time was very much willing to permafire several characters getting into trouble at the time. But, you know. When someone is very likely to go ahead and set the forums ablaze with lemons just because of video games, you probably think it's better off to save yourselves the drama and just slap their wrist again. It's shitty, yes, but it makes sense to not want a PR nightmare.

 

Because if you'd use your common sense for a minute, whitelisting security would help A LOT when dealing with rule breaking officers. I wouldn't bother making reports about shitton of bad security players whom' probably already left Aurora after a bad round. Neither will they bother filling for the whitelist.

 

Yes, and, no, regarding whether this would deal with bad officers. The thing is, whitelisting has never been autonomous. SOMEONE has to manage it. Someone needs to be the one keeping track of active whitelistees as well as taking/processing complaints about the whitelistees that either are or aren't causing trouble. Said person needs to ask applicants their set of entry questions, decide whether or not they should be accepted or denied. Said person needs to consider additional testimonies from other players who are presenting feedback. Said person needs to go and investigate whenever they do get a complaint, acquire server logs that allegedly incriminate the whitelistee for crap conduct, and then issue disciplinary measures as a result.

Yes, it's a fair deal of effort to do (I also don't think I covered everything in the mix of all that). For those that enjoy having their ducks in a row, it's a little bit more complex from there. It is not easy, it is tedious once you do it after awhile, and in some occasions the whitelist handler's senses will get dulled and they will perhaps accept a couple people who weren't quite ready yet or openly acknowledged as reasonably competent and fun to play with by the community.

So what's the point? It's this: If the administration is too busy deal with whitelisting, why not let community members manage it themselves? The lore team already does this to a satisfactory degree. I've seen some pretty bad applications that their handlers caught onto and shut down before they could even manage to light a single spark of hope for themselves.

You at least now have a dynamic to be proud of, that being the community volunteering to take up tasks nobody else wants to do.

If someone is offering to help... Why deny them?

 

But an issue with that is all the red tape that is set up for those who genuinely look to play some of these roles and may actually be good security players. It's not only a restriction on keeping out people who are poor officers, but also those that aren't. Gives more hurdles to jump over for your casual player who might be looking to just play a server for a bit. For the newer players to the server, the week restriction does a pretty good job of keeping people out of security who are just looking for trouble, but I feel like pushing even more restrictions would just be a detriment.

 

You are making the presumption that good officers will not want to file out a rather simple application so they can play a role, on the basis that there are more hoops to jump through. As if these supposed 'good officers' will be put off by a server that has applications for certain roles.

Isn't this sort of how it works? You can't just expect authority to be given to you just because. You have to make an effort in order to show that you want the role you have in your sights, and then do enough good to say to these people, 'Hey! I deserve this, because I've been good.'

Would any of you have it any other way?

 

Never underestimate the commitment of some people to be shitcurity.

 

Presuming. It sounds like you're presuming that shitcurity will get their whitelist anyway just on commitment alone.

You are vastly overestimating their will.

 

Except there's already a 10 day requirement on sec jobs, so isn't that already accomplishing the function you're describing?

 

I won't presume here, as what I will say has a reasonable likelihood to actually occur.

If you're asking a rhetorical question, then forgive me for answering. The function in mind was set for the purpose to time-gate and thus stall the flood of red-tide that had often occurred on the weekend or during the afternoon of summer.

It does not directly 'cure' shitcurity. It merely condenses the range and scale of it occurring. It's a treatment to an issue, that being completely new players from here and yonder hopping into security as a bald and going to town with beatings and lynchings all around.

Still, 10 days isn't long.

 

After some brainstorming, I've come to the conclusion that the most effective solution to this problem is for our administrators to start taking complaints against security more seriously, especially those with repeated problems in which the individual is utterly unrepentant. I'd be completely fine with a more liberal approach to security job bans, both permanent and temporary, because there's honestly no shortage of security players. I can't think of any other measure that doesn't harm good security players as well, and I prefer not to do that.

 

Wouldn't really call this an unpopular opinion, more of that this hasn't ever been said.

In case I didn't read that correctly, you're saying that the administrators should do their job and stretch their power more often, correct? At the very least, in the case of doling out secbans.

 

I swear to the blood god, every time I come and heck the forums, there's a new one of these. I think I've seen more of these threads then I've seen threads for getting rid of chemistry.

I get the point, I do. In a theoretical world, this would be perfect, and Security would all be peaches and cream and smiles, and we'd never get some dipshit claiming he is the law.

But a whitelist just means less people want to to security, and that means that we COULD just have the same few people every round, with no one new trying for security,

But the more important point, is that I know what will happen. The moment you do anything slightly controversial or anything anyone doesn't agree with, they start screaming for you to get a job ban, and it will cause players to avoid doing what their characters would so they can avoid the storm of dildo's and barely veiled insults that is a complaint on this station.

It would kill security, and make whoever is left never try and do anything ever because SOMEONE will yell "SHITCURITY HE DIDNT DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED HIM TO" or some variation of it.

I get it, I get why people keep posting these. It won't work. It will never work. It's a giant risk just so you can avoid dealing with a sec player that is bad.

 

Presuming people who scream shitcurity loud enough will get a security officer job-banned. Presuming this idea would have security become a dead department. Presuming that an idea is a giant risk when said idea for all intents and purposes is actually focused towards reducing risk.

You want less shit aliens? We'll make them whitelisted with heavy lore guidelines and standards. You want less comdoms? We'll make them whitelisted with an SOP of their own focused on what to do and what NOT to do, with an entire DO corps watching like a raven over anyone who spits in the wrong bin.

You want less shitcurity, the number one thing people complain about for every single server above all other problems?

We'll timegate it and hope the SQL levy holds past the redtide. And if it doesn't, well, shit.

I would not deal in such presumptions, however, especially if said presumptions do not have a valid basis to be executed upon. I, for one, in the history of ever, have never seen someone get job-banned for a shitty reason without the staff member who handed it out receiving a reprimand in front of the entire staff team.

It is very embarrassing to make mistakes or bad decisions when your superior is watching, by the way.

 

After reading more debate on this matter and thinking over on it, I changed my stance on the white-list. I don't think it's necessary when a large part of the current problem is lack of admin cohesion and willingness to enforce standards, expecting it all to fall back on the DO Division.

 

That's most likely the actual best way to ever handle this issue, which is almost sad in a way, that Security needs to be babysit by admins to not be a bunch of diddling idiots.

 

Well, now here's my question.

Do you have faith that they (the admins) will do their part as server administrators and theoretical community managers, try and fix the problem with team cohesion and step up administration standards and communicate better with the DO Division, so that we don't need to theoretically revisit this ever again?

If the answer is anything other than 'yes', then we might have bigger problems.

[Nik]

You know, I tried to relay that I was stating an opinion, by repeatedly starting sentences with things like "I think" and "maybe" for a reason, cause it's all up in the air. There's a minute chance that it could not turn that way, and that's true. But I doubt that.

As well, the GET BETTER ALIENS WITH WHITELIST thing is irrelevant, aliens are bad for another reason. You want to remove the ability for players to just join as security, while we have constant antagonist rounds. If we didn't have antagonists, then it would maybe be reasonable, since you wouldn't constantly need a horde of idiots with stun guns to oppose the antagonists.

You don't seem to grasp what I was saying. I agree with you. I want what you are putting down. I want a tight-nit group of Security that are constantly trustworthy, online all the time and have deep and interesting characters while not just being UM DA LAW. I don't like having six dipshits screaming and eating their own farts while arresting people for pointless bullshit or ignoring the friendly Antag.

I don't see that happening. I see us having one of those at any time if we are lucky (probably up a bit during peak hours, obviously) and entire rounds of Heads vs Antag while the rest of the crew sits in the bar drinking.

That's what I think, but the issue is that I don't think I have much room to be wrong. Sure, we could have a bunch of amazing security, or we could just dress up five goats in Security uniforms and make them constantly target anyone whose settings isn't "crew" under factions, because I don't think it will be reliable enough.

As well, it removes some of the heavier community from the pool of Non-Sec, as they'll feel obliged to join as Sec so we have one or two (I've been there before.)

In theory, I would like to see this, but on a server that's smaller and can incorporate only needing two or three Sec who are well armed and essentially both the HOS, and would need to be well versed in the game and our rules. Unrelated to my chaotic point above, but that would be interesting.

[Nogo3]

I'll try to cover just the bits that were sent back at me, because...My god. That wall though.

 

But an issue with that is all the red tape that is set up for those who genuinely look to play some of these roles and may actually be good security players. It's not only a restriction on keeping out people who are poor officers, but also those that aren't. Gives more hurdles to jump over for your casual player who might be looking to just play a server for a bit. For the newer players to the server, the week restriction does a pretty good job of keeping people out of security who are just looking for trouble, but I feel like pushing even more restrictions would just be a detriment.

 

You are making the presumption that good officers will not want to file out a rather simple application so they can play a role, on the basis that there are more hoops to jump through. As if these supposed 'good officers' will be put off by a server that has applications for certain roles.

Isn't this sort of how it works? You can't just expect authority to be given to you just because. You have to make an effort in order to show that you want the role you have in your sights, and then do enough good to say to these people, 'Hey! I deserve this, because I've been good.'

Would any of you have it any other way?

 

The main issue I have with this is that this is in fact a thing. Are people who are good roleplayers put off by places that have their applications whitelisted? Absolutely. Nobody wants to write an essay on why it is they'd like to play a video game that they enjoy, and whitelist only serve to restrict that immediate role freedom to fit into the shoes of their characters. Even with that aside, a major issue along with it is just the premise of it. There's already a week restriction for newer players to integrate a bit more into the server before moving onto a more important role. Is there a need to make it more restricted? It's simple paperwork, but it's simple paperwork that some people might not even want to do. Looking back even further on some of the points made by others on the fact that this server has antagonist, there is also a need for swaths of security lest the department become underpopulated as a result.

My point (Holy god, that's a lot of points. Don't write in the early hours, kids. ) is that it's ultimately a bad call. You're restricting something that really doesn't need to be restricted. It's a preventative measure that weeds out those that might be harmful, but ultimately would harm the department and all other players as well. To be perfectly honest, when I first started into SS13 HRP, this was an essential part of my search criteria. If a place had a role that I really wanted to do whitelisted, I ended up going to another server. It's something that drives people away. And...Good god, can I extend this any longer? Wrap it up Nogo.

A white-list is a wall. You're putting up a wall for people to climb over. No matter how simple it is, there will always be 'good' people who don't see it worth it to climb your wall. Like was quoted by the great Oscar Wilde, "Walls keep people out." and "Why am I here again?"

So yeah. Blah, blah, blah. Why do we need more paperwork, blah blah blah, enough as is, blah blah blah, this is a 2D space man game.

I'd have it plenty of other ways. I just don't like this way, because the precedent is just so alien.

 

Never underestimate the commitment of some people to be shitcurity.

 

Presuming. It sounds like you're presuming that shitcurity will get their whitelist anyway just on commitment alone.

You are vastly overestimating their will.

 

 

Never question the lengths people will go through to spread their wrath. SALT is a hell of a drug.

 

EDIT: In retrospect, I should try to figure out what the hell it is I'm trying to say. Me and words are not inclined to agree, and it makes the whole thing look a bit loony. I'm sure I'd find the right words to say if I were actually speaking but-...Well, might as well leave this like it is. Have fun rifling through this chaotic post, you guys. It feels impossible to get the point I'm trying to reach into the right words.

[Skull132]

I'd be completely fine with a more liberal approach to security job bans, both permanent and temporary, because there's honestly no shortage of security players. I can't think of any other measure that doesn't harm good security players as well, and I prefer not to do that.

 

This, please.

 

Just a quick note, the amount of times bad security officers were reported to me ingame, back when I still had admin privileges, was surprisingly low. Either we didn't have bad officers (doubtful), or they weren't reported (more likely). There were the huge cases of nuke ops v sec officers, where both sides gank and cry to mommy, but the consistent shits seemed to fly under the radar somehow. I'm unsure how much player complaints were utilized to this end, I remember the cases about Sue, but that's about it. The rest I had delegated.

Also, another bit of clarity to add. If you're looking at DOs to deal with this problem, as I perceived from a few gripes posted here, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Shit sec officers, who are shit on an OOC level, are not the concern of the DOs. They're the concern of the admins.

[Tainavaa]

Shit sec officers, who are shit on an OOC level, are not the concern of the DOs. They're the concern of the admins.

 

This is something I've tried to explain to people before, but they don't seem to get it. There's shitcurity IC where it's fully an IC problem. The players know what's happening, they know how it's wrong and they understand (and usually expect) some sort of reprimand if found to be doing it. These are IC issues. Then there's the shitcurity where they believe they're doing the right thing. They're being upstanding, they're being a good officer. THESE players are the issues of the admins, not duty officers. If a player believes it's okay to tase passive people, they believe it's okay on an OOC level to have reason to believe someone is a terrorist because they wants their privacy. So the officer immediately beat them down, and search them and their work place because someone told them "No." Because that's their job.

Also today I learned just how easy it is to almost edit someone else's post.

[EvilBrage]

Thing is, I reported someone who did the exact thing stated above and nothing came of it. Moreover, I reported it literally in the middle of their doing it, and was told that nothing could be done about it, ergo my earlier statement that the job bans are not applied as liberally as they should be.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Thing is, I reported someone who did the exact thing stated above and nothing came of it. Moreover, I reported it literally in the middle of their doing it, and was told that nothing could be done about it, ergo my earlier statement that the job bans are not applied as liberally as they should be.

 

This is my point. I don't know exactly when it happened, but administration has become very, very lax with IC conduct. It has benefits and drawbacks.

One example is that way back, as the CE during deadhour, I "broke" into the kitchen to make fried eggs for a couple that was on a date or whatever it was. Officer Hisslizard, who was played by an admin, spotted me, and after unsuccessfully trying to reason that it wasn't even that big of a deal and I'm the only active head anyway, I got BWOINK'd and it was put in my notes. Imagine that happening now. There are staff complaints over informal warnings.

The philosophy of "it's an IC issue" has been taken to a rather far extreme. That in itself may not be a bad thing, but once again, it's wildly inconsistent.

[Killerhurtz]

Wait wait. Jackboot.

You got a SERVER WARNING. For breaking into what is exactly the least secure area of the station. As a Head of Staff.

What.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Wait wait. Jackboot.

You got a SERVER WARNING. For breaking into what is exactly the least secure area of the station. As a Head of Staff.

What.

 

I was mistaken, I got job banned.

"Banned from Captain, Head of Personnel, Head of Security, Chief Engineer, Research Director, Chief Medical Officer - Final incident - broke into the kitchen as CE to make eggs, evaded security when questioned about it, tried to grab the spare ID to give himself access/make himself acting captain so he could make his eggs and circumvent security. Due to all of the previous incidents, whitelist stripped."

I've been whitelist stripped like, two or three times.

Now I'm a Head Staff Member.

Suckers.