Jump to content

Whitelist Security


Recommended Posts

You know we need it.


This proposal is a simple one:

1. Increase the number of cadet slots, 4-6

2. Make all security roles above cadet, whitelisted on a new, seperate security whitelist. This includes officer, warden, detective and forensic tech (head of security is already on a different whitelist)


In order to get on the security whitelist, you must be vouched-for by at least one player on the head of staff whitelist (who ideally, has seen you in action while they were head of security) and at least one officer. Ideally you will have served some amount of time as a cadet, maybe a couple weeks to a month of realtime


Assuming these requirements are met, the sec whitelist request could be approved without farther consideration.


To reduce workload on the aurora staff, these whitelists could even be done through a seperate subforum on which command-whitelisted players have moderation powers, and a web tool to do their approval


Possible problems?

Will this lead to a lack of security? Unlikely, those unknown people who would have jumped straight to officer will now pick cadet instead. While the actual officer slots will be reserved for those who are trusted. You'll still have all the warm bodies around, and a warden can still issue them with weapons if they feel it appropriate. Wardens and commanders already do issue gear to cadets they feel are trustworthy


Will it lead to a lot of empty officer slots? Also unlikely. Security is, by a very large margin, the most-played department on the server, its usually full. it will just mean that only known and trusted players can be officers, and there's plenty of them around to do so


Why only security?

Because this would cripple the playercount in any other department, medical engineering and science are complex enough to put most people off. Security is, at least at first appearance, the simplest, and also the most desired. It will always have an endless demand of people wanting to play it, nothing can take that away.


Won't this put people off wanting to play security?

For every person discouraged by this barrier to entry, there's another two waiting for their slot. infinite demand

Link to comment

Yes. +1 For the reasons stated by 'FIREAXE AAAHHHH :O' Nanako. At least trial it for a month and see what happens.


One question: Will current sec players have to apply for a whitelist now or will they be auto-whitelisted?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment

I disagree. On Athena and Minerva, we dabbled with this concept. We had the same population as Aurora, and the same amount of security players. Security became a ghost town, barren and unplayed. You can not rely on your regulars to play security every round, most of them have multiple characters and play security to scratch that itch. Yeah, you'll have a bunch of cadets, that's great and all... But for regular officers, you'll see less and less. And for detectives? You'll never see any again.


Whitelisting security is a bad idea, that's why we monitor security. That's also why most servers have a timer for new players to play anything above assistant/civilian level. Giving something else, like the timer, is a much better plan.


-1

Link to comment
I disagree. On Athena and Minerva, we dabbled with this concept. We had the same population as Aurora, and the same amount of security players. Security became a ghost town, barren and unplayed. You can not rely on your regulars to play security every round, most of them have multiple characters and play security to scratch that itch. Yeah, you'll have a bunch of cadets, that's great and all... But for regular officers, you'll see less and less. And for detectives? You'll never see any again.


Whitelisting security is a bad idea, that's why we monitor security. That's also why most servers have a timer for new players to play anything above assistant/civilian level. Giving something else, like the timer, is a much better plan.


-1

 

Still say trial it for a month and see what happens.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
-snip-

 

So let's keep on witch-hunting, huh? Apparently, that's had a lasting, beneficial impact on Security.


What we need to be able to do is sell the whitelist, like we sold species. We emphasize the importance of the job heavily, and we give it distinction. You've gotta be able to give people a reason to hop out of bed and apply for the whitelist.

Link to comment
I disagree. On Athena and Minerva, we dabbled with this concept. We had the same population as Aurora, and the same amount of security players. Security became a ghost town, barren and unplayed. You can not rely on your regulars to play security every round, most of them have multiple characters and play security to scratch that itch. Yeah, you'll have a bunch of cadets, that's great and all... But for regular officers, you'll see less and less. And for detectives? You'll never see any again.

 

This sounds like a problem with the whitelisting procedure, if that were an issue, we could find ways to make it easier to apply. For example, an ingame terminal that allows a command player to approve someone for the whitelist, without needing any involvement at all from aurora staff

The requirements don't need to be high, its not a deep test of roleplaying ability. more a cursory 'are you a griefer' check, and to make sure you have at least a working knowledge of corporate regulations.

Link to comment
This sounds like a problem with the whitelisting procedure, if that were an issue, we could find ways to make it easier to apply. For example, an ingame terminal that allows a command player to approve someone for the whitelist, without needing any involvement at all from aurora staff

The requirements don't need to be high, its not a deep test of roleplaying ability. more a cursory 'are you a griefer' check, and to make sure you have at least a working knowledge of corporate regulations.

 

This seems unfit for purpose. It'll allow too many people through, or end up under used. If you make the bar for entry that low, you may as well just have a day whitelist.


The thing is, there are two types of whitelisting processes: those that check for quality, and those that check for persistence/commitment.


Staff applications check for quality. They have a trial period and an evaluation cycle. While it could also be argued that head of staff and alien whitelists want to be whitelists running off of quality, they are actually the second kind.


Whitelists that check for commitment rely on making the end goal difficult enough to reach to where you won't bother if you just want to fuck around with it. Provided you're a normal human, anyways.


What you want, is a quality based whitelist for a role which is in high demand. We do not have the staff to run such a system effectively, first and foremost. Secondly, the bar for entry is low enough that applying the manpower, even if you permit players to be involved in this, is pointless. People will either forget, and the system will stagnate, or the end result will be the same as it is now. The same result, without the potential for failure, can be achieved by a simple day based passive whitelist, or with the system proposed by Arrow.


Both present a simple commitment wall that must be scaled. If an individual is looking to fuck around, they won't bother. And those who want to bother, legitimately, won't be hampered too badly.

Link to comment

This seems unfit for purpose. It'll allow too many people through, or end up under used. If you make the bar for entry that low, you may as well just have a day whitelist.

 

I think you're missing something though

 

Staff applications check for quality. They have a trial period and an evaluation cycle. While it could also be argued that head of staff and alien whitelists want to be whitelists running off of quality, they are actually the second kind.

 

This.

If the people doing the approving are already, themselves, approved by a quality-based process then you have a quality based application.


Whitelisted players have to go through the crucible to get where they are, and they already, as is stated and established, have higher expectations and responsibilities on them. If they choose to participate by allowing the promotion of a cadet, it's on them to be a reasonable judge of character


The thing is, there are two types of whitelisting processes: those that check for quality, and those that check for persistence/commitment.

 

People will either forget, and the system will stagnate,

People won't forget because they'll have the cadets under them regularly begging for promotion.

 

or the end result will be the same as it is now. The same result, without the potential for failure, can be achieved by a simple day based passive whitelist, or with the system proposed by Arrow.

 

as you said yourself, a commitment based whitelist is different from a quality based one.

Having a strictly time based automated system might mean good and reasonable players, who'd be fine for the role, are still locked out for a long time. Allowing our heads of staff (who are already approved on a quality-based whitelist) to handle the approval, would imo yield better results, quicker. While also bringing about more interesting RP and communication between command and their subordinates.

Link to comment

this would ruin a lot of rounds really quickly. presuming that the shifts afterwards would have no security at all.

Whitelisting security would be a mistake anyways. if a new person who is good at security and experienced with HRP comes on , they'll leave as soon as they see the whitelist

Link to comment

The key is, Nanako, you don't make the timer too stupidly long.


7 days was fine in practice. 7 or so rounds as cadet also sounds fine, as the amount of time would be similar to 7 days. And even faster, technically.


Plus, player economies can be unreliable, and I am not really willing to put my trust into them for something as vital as whitelisting an entire department. Specially when they've gone untested here.

Link to comment

The security whitelist, oh boy.


Yes, I've seen this debate come along quite some times on OOC. The idea of a security whitelist is...Well, I get the concept. We get Baldie McRobust to join as Security Officer, he says nothing over the radio, /maybe/ throws one "hello" over the COMMON radio and few minutes later is found beating up somebody with his stun baton and gets tased while screaming "no pls" and gets bwoinked.


This illustration I mentioned above is probably ONE of the many reasons why the idea of the Whitelist came to be. But something I didn't notice is what about officers we already trust with their position? Are their characters forced to go through the cadet process all over again to get to the Sec position? Because it sounds like a chore to figure out which ckey/character has already proven itself to be worthy of the Officer/Warden/etc position and restore them at once.

 

People won't forget because they'll have the cadets under them regularly begging for promotion.

Yes, and HoS will end being constantly spammed by cadets requesting for a sec app. Not to mention these HoS have a social life and won't be always on to pay attention to this since that's not their first priority when they start up SS13 and join the server.

 

Why only security?

Because this would cripple the playercount in any other department, medical engineering and science are complex enough to put most people off. Security is, at least at first appearance, the simplest, and also the most desired. It will always have an endless demand of people wanting to play it, nothing can take that away.

Yes, why only security? Medical has shown some increasing playercounts lately, should it get regulated too knowing Chemistry and virology carries alot of risks? Playing the Devil's Advocate here, I'm just trying to show this reason can be applied to other departments too, even Engineering. And finally the amount of growth Security has been quite positive. The new names appearing in Sec have proven themselves to be quite competent. It would be a shame to have them go through the whitelist routine just now that they got to the position and showing they can do it.

 

To reduce workload on the aurora staff, these whitelists could even be done through a seperate subforum on which command-whitelisted players have moderation powers, and a web tool to do their approval

 

That doesn't entirely bad, but let's be honest. Whitelisted players have proven to be capable RPers who know how to supervise their department. But can they remain objective as possible and base their reviews on players to determine they won't fuck up the server? Moderation and whitelist accepting is something I believe should be kept in the hands of Aurora staff ONLY. They are the people entrusted with the capable of good decision making and what's best for the server.


Finally, I don't feel like giving this a +1 but I'm leaning closer to a -1 yet I don't want to give it. We're going to find empty Sec teams or teams full of Cadets demanding sec officer equiment and later found as glorified cadets who are pretty much just officers.

Link to comment

Also, for using command whitelisted players. There's a trail of like, 3-5 initiatives which have failed, because we could not mobilize the command whitelisted players to the degrees required. Nothing against them, but literally history proves that they're unreliable.


As for the concern of, "What of players already qualified?" This is a technical aspect that can be squared in very simple ways. So I wouldn't worry about that.

Link to comment

I do so love the idea of a whitelist, but not managed by anyone other than staff(With some very important exceptions in those staff who are renowned for powergaming and poor security play)as I wouldn't even trust the command-whitelisted players to successfully tie their own shoes.


I wouldn't be worried about a 'lack' of Security, either, considering as it's already the most popular department on the server. Applications will flood in from people who believe themselves capable of writing more than 5 sentences and can be filtered through quite cleanly, though I would recommend the manager of said whitelists to be someone rather active on the forums. The big issue that might arise is a lack of proper quality control in application approvals, which would only come due to a lazy/favouritism-prone whitelist handler.

 

this would ruin a lot of rounds really quickly. presuming that the shifts afterwards would have no security at all.

Whitelisting security would be a mistake anyways. if a new person who is good at security and experienced with HRP comes on , they'll leave as soon as they see the whitelist

I'm just going to say, anyone who comes on with "HRP experience" and immediately leaves because a role is whitelisted is a fucking dumbass.


Heads are already whitelisted, which by your example would drive away people who are good at/enjoy playing head roles, no?

Link to comment

This illustration I mentioned above is probably ONE of the many reasons why the idea of the Whitelist came to be. But something I didn't notice is what about officers we already trust with their position? Are their characters forced to go through the cadet process all over again to get to the Sec position? Because it sounds like a chore to figure out which ckey/character has already proven itself to be worthy of the Officer/Warden/etc position and restore them at once.

 

Whitelisted players could simply promote en-masse those they know to be already worthy, it might take a couple of days, maybe a week or two, to get regular players processed, and then problem solved

 

Yes, and HoS will end being constantly spammed by cadets requesting for a sec app. Not to mention these HoS have a social life and won't be always on to pay attention to this since that's not their first priority when they start up SS13 and join the server.

 

Managing and training cadets is already part of their job. I've seen plenty of good security heads assigning cadets to shadow an officer, pairing them up, or asking officers to train them. As well as allowing proper equipment to those cadets who have a record of training in their employment records. this would add a small extra element to something they already do.


And heads already have the power to promote, demote and suspend people within their own department.

 

Yes, why only security? Medical has shown some increasing playercounts lately, should it get regulated too knowing Chemistry and virology carries alot of risks?

medical in general doesn't have enough players, lessened demand is my argument for that. And sure chemistry is a risk and a huge griefer magnet, but its also right next to reception. chemistry players are the most likely to be caught griefing, not just because they grief, but because they're in plain sight.

 

And finally the amount of growth Security has been quite positive. The new names appearing in Sec have proven themselves to be quite competent. It would be a shame to have them go through the whitelist routine just now that they got to the position and showing they can do it.

Seems like you know a lot, and you're whitelisted yourself. i'm sure you have a nice list of names you could rapidly approve!


 

Moderation and whitelist accepting is something I believe should be kept in the hands of Aurora staff ONLY. They are the people entrusted with the capable of good decision making and what's best for the server.

 

Applications do gather feedback from the community, which is a large factor in deciding their approval.


This is a lower whitelist, with a lower barrier of entry. it's meant to establish a baseline of decent conduct, and keep blatant griefers out. If we trust heads with the authority to be heads, i don't think this is too much to add.

Link to comment

I do so love the idea of a whitelist, but not managed by anyone other than staff(With some very important exceptions in those staff who are renowned for powergaming and poor security play)as I wouldn't even trust the command-whitelisted players to successfully tie their own shoes.

 

Ouch.


Anywho, I recall bringing this up as a topic of debate before and people were fairly split on the matter. That, and it was the era of SoundScopes being the head developer, so things were quite different back in the heyday.


We ended up "fixing" it by implementing the blacklist that wore off after a player spent enough time on the server, thus stemming greytide from ever creeping into security. Anybody else that was just genuinely bad was quickly weeded out by myself and other security regulars at the time. And it actually worked, like, really well. I say bring it back, seriously.


I say we just reimplement the blacklists, check out the data after a month and see where to go from there.

Link to comment

I heavily prefer Arrow's blacklist idea. I think the wall of time and experience is a much more telling and reliable wall than one of vouching. And, self-loathing though it may be, I don't trust the average of our current crop of active command staff, myself included, to be able to vet each security officer appropriately. That isn't to say that I think it wouldn't work, I think it's an alternative method of quality control in our security department,but I believe thre blacklist idea to be a more optimal path.

Link to comment
Guest Marlon Phoenix

Is the blacklist gone?


We had a blacklist where you could only join security after playing Aurora for X amount of time.


If we have to make an entirely separate whitelist for it then it would be a dead role, because I for one wouldn't apply for it and I know most everyone else I know wouldn't either. This is far too heavy handed to fix an issue that can be resolved with less obtuse means, such as the blacklist, which could be either actual playing time or time spent playing a cadet.

Link to comment
Is the blacklist gone?


We had a blacklist where you could only join security after playing Aurora for X amount of time.

 

Just did a check and yes it does appear to be gone. An account I just made is able to be security officer/warden/detective.

Link to comment

Well thanks for the answers Nanako. I think the idea of the whitelist seems to be growning more on to me--

 

We ended up "fixing" it by implementing the blacklist that wore off after a player spent enough time on the server, thus stemming greytide from ever creeping into security. Anybody else that was just genuinely bad was quickly weeded out by myself and other security regulars at the time. And it actually worked, like, really well. I say bring it back, seriously.

 

Wow, wow, wow a blacklist?

 

FR0E3aF.gif?noredirect

Link to comment
Well thanks for the answers Nanako. I think the idea of the whitelist seems to be growning more on to me--

 

We ended up "fixing" it by implementing the blacklist that wore off after a player spent enough time on the server, thus stemming greytide from ever creeping into security. Anybody else that was just genuinely bad was quickly weeded out by myself and other security regulars at the time. And it actually worked, like, really well. I say bring it back, seriously.

 

Wow, wow, wow a blacklist?

 

FR0E3aF.gif?noredirect

 

Literally, as has been said.


We had a security 7 day whitelist. It worked just fine. I see no reason to stray from this tested and proven mentality, in favour of a system that requires way more effort than it would really be worth, at the end. And if shitters still end up on the lists, adminhelp them. The amount of adminhelps or complaints I see against sec is surprisingly low.

Link to comment

I kinda want to give Arrow's idea a good thought, though.


Because, the one issue with the 7 day whitelist is. It does not measure engagement. A thing that happens relatively often is that people with accounts 100+ days old join, go sec, and end up being as green as a cadet. Why? Because they joined the server once back way way way long ago, played a round, left, and never came back until now. Arrow's proposal would stop that from happening, as it measures actual engagement.


Though, the issue with Arrow's proposal is that it may create a bottleneck in terms of cadet slots. If we have an average of 4 people per round trying to get their cadet on, with only 2 slots, it may get annoying to have to sit around. However, adding more cadet slots would start fucking over balance, in terms of sec count v antag count.


So you're either left with the peeve of not measuring engagement, or a potential bottleneck that might frustrate.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...