Whitelist Security

[Bedshaped]

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.

 

The HoP usually doesn't seem to do a huge amount of assignments or reassignments nowadays. Nothing stopping him from letting people who want it to become Cadets have a reassignment is there?

[UnknownMurder]

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.

 

The HoP usually doesn't seem to do a huge amount of assignments or reassignments nowadays. Nothing stopping him from letting people who want it to become Cadets have a reassignment is there?

 

Isn't the Head of Security stopping the Head of Personnel because 'We have too many Security. Stap. Stap. Don't do it again without talking to me.'.

[Mofo1995]

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.

 

The HoP usually doesn't seem to do a huge amount of assignments or reassignments nowadays. Nothing stopping him from letting people who want it to become Cadets have a reassignment is there?

 

Isn't the Head of Security stopping the Head of Personnel because 'We have too many Security. Stap. Stap. Don't do it again without talking to me.'.

 

Possibly. As I'm sure every HoP knows, reassignment forms need the gaining head of staff's signature.

Increasing cadet slots might shift he balance against antagonists, but I'm sure we could come up with somethi g to counteract this.

[TrickingTrapster]

I like the idea of weeding out griefers as much as the next guy, but wouldn't the whole cadets-gonna-get-whitelisted thing pose a lore problem as well, next to the other problems? As far as I know, cadets are supposed to have a /year/ of cadetship, not a week. (Or seven shifts.) And I honestly doubt the practical part only lasts for a week. Plus, from what I've seen, especially since security is such a regularly played department nowadays, regulars take up the slots first. Most ahelps and combat logs that I get and are griefer-related usually point to an assistant as a griefer. I have seen some newer players come on, that broke minor rules like IC emojis, but none that actually grief as much, especially in the security department.

On to the suggestion itself, Nanako, what if there is no HoS present? Cadets can do fuckall and get no recognition for it, only eyewitness accounts from mostly other cadets and maybe an officer or two. Can other heads of staff access it? Can the warden access it? The idea, at least to me, sounds like a glorified infinite guest pass that becomes permanent in future shifts. Besides that, what about infiltrator antag actions, like changelings? One absorbed cadet can fuck up the entire system, by the looks of it. Or an identity-changed wizard. This system would only work on extended, where people have the time to show they can handle the job instead of dealing with threats where people only focus on the threat instead of the cadet's performance.

The idea is in the right place, but the execution seems quite sloppy.

[Guest Menown]

I like the idea of weeding out griefers as much as the next guy, but wouldn't the whole cadets-gonna-get-whitelisted thing pose a lore problem as well, next to the other problems? As far as I know, cadets are supposed to have a /year/ of cadetship, not a week. (Or seven shifts.)

On to the suggestion itself, Nanako, what if there is no HoS present? Cadets can do fuckall and get no recognition for it, only eyewitness accounts from mostly other cadets and maybe an officer or two.

 

Cadetship was lowered to a week for security experienced cadets and a month for those without experience.

As for the second, yes a lot of cadets are ignored, but myself and several others officers have tried to change that. Due to the fact that we usually have some form of antag fucking things over, no actual training is given apart from verbal explanation. It's hard to teach somebody how to do something when we're being shot at or cut apart or blown up and shit.

[TrickingTrapster]

@Menown Yes, that's exactly my point. The system Nanako provided won't change a thing. It would only work on extended rounds, and then only without griefers doing who knows what.

[Redfield5]

So, we set up a white-list, but you leave that baby to me. What I need are three other veteran Security players and an admin, so that we can provide a committee to evaluate said apps. I won't reveal everything about this system yet, given that I am on a phone. However, to our anti-whitelist folks, I have to see it to believe it.

[UnknownMurder]

So, we set up a white-list, but you leave that baby to me. What I need are three other veteran Security players and an admin, so that we can provide a committee to evaluate said apps. I won't reveal everything about this system yet, given that I am on a phone. However, to our anti-whitelist folks, I have to see it to believe it.

 

I would love to test his plan and see if it works out.

[Redfield5]

Ok, I am on a computer. Lemme break down my proposal.

We set up the whitelist along the lines as the other whitelists, however we have a specific application template that applicants must follow, along with whatever the mandatory Security waiting period is. Now, you might ask me:

 

How do you intend to get people to agree to following this format? No one will want to do anything too strenuous to play the game.

 

The Army had a similar problem after 'Nam, because after watching US troops napalming the jungle and dragging their buddies away from the Cong, everyone suddenly lost their patriotism. With the ISD, we need to become a force of distinction; one that takes its duties seriously, but gives members something to be proud of. Hell, think of Security as in-game mods, standing as the thin blue line between the crew and the IC criminals. Not just Changelings, but Security is more often than not our first response towards griefers. C'mon, you've seen someone go on a rampage or try to break into secure areas without a decent IC reason, and who often gets there first? Give people a reason to take pride in the job and distinguish themselves (maybe with some award scheme for well-performing members of the departments; not just Security). You've gotta make it distinct and attractive, and trust me, they'll buy into the whitelist.

As for the app itself, we include your typical "why do you think you deserve this role" questions, but we include practical scenarios, like asking them to give us an example of how they would go about an arrest, questions about any punitive actions that IC/OOC moderating staff have taken against them, questions about their perceptions of other species, and any other questions that we can think of.

So, you come to the forums (which we need to constantly broadcast and tell people to sign up for, as part of a much more immersive Aurora experience), fill out the app, and then what? Do we do the whole "Upvote/Downvote" thing and let every Joe-Shmo decide on the force? Fuck that; we do what real police departments do and set up a review board. I'm thinking of a 5-person board, with four veteran Security/IA players and a single member of the adminstrative staff; basically, a Supreme Court-style deal where the board will discuss applications and vote upon who gets in or not, with the composition of the board allowing for a simple majority to decide the fate of said applications.

Say what you want; it's not completely refined, but it's a start.

[Skull132]

Delayed response to redfield's opening:

4 people is too little. A method similar to command whitelisting will be too sluggish and will either have no tangible effect due to the standard for entry being too low, have an effect similar to what a cadet-timed whitelist or simply a server-timed whitelist would have (best case scenario), or literally kill security.

The only way actively whitelisting security would work to the degree advertised is by rapid indoctrination and actual processing of applicants. This requires way more logistics than 3 players + 1 admin. Any other result is more easily and more safely attained through a passive whitelist and actually adminhelping bad security midround. I'll do some checks with staff about sec being adminhelped, but that can be discussed in another thread.

I'd like someone who's a proponent of the active whitelist to actually explain to me how they plan on making an efficient system that establishes a standard, and why that same standard cannot be established in a manner requiring less resources.

Response to redfield's plan:

Too slow and inefficient, Redfield. Too reliant on applicants motivating themselves, there's nothing to push them. It's easier to give up and back off at that point. Plus, it's reliant on back-up enforcement which should already be in full swing (reference adminhelping above) . What'll end up happening is someone gets approved for nice words, fails to hold up their word, and then fuck-all happens because no actual communication about the issue.

[Butterrobber202]

I dunno, the line between Spess Law and the OOC rules have always been somewhat blurred. I sometimes make a thief character that would 'slip' things off the station to sell later. But admins would bwoink me because that was a antagonist-like thing to do, when my character was just greedy. ( I was stealing tools and the occasional weapon.) so having Sec as Mini-Mods doesn't sound like a great idea to me.