Five Reasons Why To Stop Calling The Head of Security a 'Commander'

[Scheveningen]

This is such a stupid stigma that I hate with a burning passion and it is time I spoke out against it.

1.) The head of security is not a military officer.

The head of security is the foremost dignitary and authority in relation to handling things that resemble protecting the company agenda, company assets and company personnel. In that particular order, generally. The head of security, however, is still a civilian such as the captain is. Such as "Captain" is merely only a title (with considerable distinction, however), as is "Head of Security." If your character has any respect for actual military, however, they will refrain from referring to the head of security as a misnomer title that does not accurately represent what the head of security actually does.

A naval commander has much differing responsibilities than what a chief of security does in the military. Often the CoS in the navy may be a mid-grade officer, and thus may be called Commander on occasion, but this is not the corporate fleet, this is the Internal Security Division, not part of the NT Fleet Security Force. FSF is far beyond ISD as well, your character sounds not only uneducated and ignorant when they call a ISD HoS "Commander" but they are also being disrespectful to the rank held by those in the FSF and other actual naval forces.

You would get seriously NJPed for failing to respect the rank by being unaware of such things and referring to a superior's rank incorrectly in the actual military. That is something you can and will be sentenced to scrub toilets for a week for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_(United_States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_(Royal_Navy) <-- More apt equivalent since even the Bay Naval ranks are for some reason based on the Royal Navy.

2.) The security department stigma will never resemble anything close to a military force.

Stop trying. The Internal Security Division may not pay amazingly, but it has different responsibilities than what MPs would do. ISD has more of an overarching duty to protect things belonging to NanoTrasen in terms of intrinsic property of right of contract. Security officers should take their job seriously, yes, and hold themselves to a high standard as people expect them to be, but do not mistake them as anything close to military. I don't care if your security officer is a military veteran. Your character is trained specifically to conduct themselves in a manner resembling civilian private security. Previous military experience is not erased by being a security officer, true, and they can put combat experience into practice for certain situations, but it is highly unlikely that NT would give someone an immediate pass if they weren't sure that a candidate that was mentally or socially stable to be a protector of people and company assets. If you don't pass employment requirements, YOU DON'T GET THE JOB.

Best case scenario, you're a security guard on private property. Worst case scenario, you are a corporate thug if the situation calls for you to be one. Sometimes the job is more important than upholding a personal sense of ethics and morals, but unlike the military this is not strictly enforced to the point where you can be executed for treason on the field for refusing an order. Granted, I'm being funny here as that's a violation of the Geneva Convention, no thanks to the Russians and Germans.

3.) There is a huge difference between a security guard and a military grunt/officer.

That aside, less than 10% of military veterans actually see combat modern-day. That number would not change much RPly as there has not been a major war since before 2300 during the First Interstellar War. Nobody RPly is alive to see that, not even the Skrell who were not discovered yet. Piracy is an issue on the frontier yes but the Alliance and Ceti Republic do not mount huge campaigns against it. In addition, the stigma between what a military veteran would learn versus what a security guard would learn through years of employment are two almost giant things. The military learns how to eliminate the enemy for God, King and Country and how best to also survive so they can continue doing so. Security protects the security interests of the corporation, as well as their business interests or personal ones if they actually arise. A combat vet is gonna need to go through a ton of courses that everyone else does to adjust well to internal security, but it's variably harder because such courses do not drill security candidates as hard as military grunts are straight into boot camp. Many concepts will be missed when attempting to be taught, because of the raw conditioning military vets went through. This is largely one of the main reasons why they're actually pretty hard to adjust back into society nowadays in terms of combat veterans.

4. You sound pompous and actually not-smart calling the HoS that.

Just because you think calling a HoS a "hoss" is unprofessional doesn't mean calling them commander makes it any better. It is actually less cultured and informed to call them that because you have actually no idea who or what you're talking about when you call them that. It is a misuse of the title and the station. It is poor use of available language, and internal security is meant to be more relaxed on purpose, it is a civilian job first and foremost. Nobody is stopping you from making a military vet security, but expect to be called ridiculous for calling the HoS that. This is covered earlier anyway but I still need to reiterate this.

5.) 'Chief', 'security chief', 'HoS', 'Security head', or even 'Head of security' still all work out well.

If you can't take the time to type out 'head of security' I don't get how you're able to call them "commander." It is a convoluted and also absolutely incorrect title. It is lazy to not type out their actual job title or equivalent. "Commander" relates to security in an ABSOLUTELY ZIP capacity. If you're a security officer you can even call them "Boss" for that cool Metal Gear Solid soft-reference. Do that. Anything but Commander, please. It is so stupid that people are still falling for this meme. If the Head of Security was meant to be called Commander we would have code change for that by now. Stop this trend, "security chief" sounds way better than """"commander"""".

Burn in heck if you don't change your ways smh

[Butterrobber202]

The HoS Commands his pawns.

Thus he is 'One who Commands' aka, a Commander.

[Scheveningen]

No. I sentence you to burn in heck.

[Mcspizzy]

Yes, ma'am.

[MoondancerPony]

Sure thing, Commander.

[Scheveningen]

Loh has offered solutions.

 

/mob/living/carbon/human/say(things)
   . = ..()
   if (findtext(things, "commander"))
       gib()

 

If we want to discriminate:

 

/mob/living/carbon/human/say(things)
   . = ..()
   if (findtext(things, "commander") && (job in list("Security Officer", "Detective", "Warden")))
       gib()

[Diggey]

Yo,if my assistant wants to be ignorant he shouldn't be gibbed

it's fine if this issue is with the higher ups and the security staff,but it should still be a misnomer allowed to be used by snarky insulated glove weaing Assistants

[Guest Complete Garbage]

If I am this guy, am I allowed to be called commander?

[JKJudgeX]

1) I always thought of it as being like a police/watch commander, which is the rank/role in many countries, including sometimes used in the USA.

2) I agree here, but, this security force does have swat gear and some pretty high tech weaponry, so, I understand the desire to behave like more than corporate security, albeit misplaced and often resulting in some serious garbage behavior.

3) My captain character is a military vet with combat experience and I try to play him realistically as one, trying to adjust to civilian corporate service often by over-exaggerating his casualness because I get this point and appreciate that you made it, because rambo is bad.

4) The commander title is very, very common in SS13 for the HoS. I don't mind it so much because see #1.

5) I reserve "chief" for the Chief Engineer unless I am in security, and then I use HoS or sometimes Commander. I will de-emphasize commander based on your post here because in general I agree with what you've said, although I think the "police commander" title is more where it comes from than a naval XO (British Navy).

Good post. I'd like to see these kinds of things more formally handled by Lore and admin staff on the wiki and such, as well as more prominent interpretations of SoP and Corp Regs as per our lengthy discussion about Corp Regs in OOC today (talking about whether security should be detaining and searching anyone found without an ID, considering wizzy staff a weapon, etc, as this is really not clear in corp regs at all).

[NoahKirchner]

I call them commander because they command internal security, because it is brief but gets the point across, and because I wanna stick it to the man, man

[UnknownMurder]

I don't really have a problem with people calling Head of Security as Commander. He's really your boss and Commander. Though as according to Wikipedia from which you pulled the source from, "Commander is a common naval and air force officer rank. Commander is also used as a rank or title in other formal organisations, including several police forces." This means, it's not just limited to military officer. Lastly, wrong sub-forum topic to put this into. Aurora Station SS13 lore is in 2459, and we're in 2017, there could have been a drastic change after 4 centuries. One lore dev can say that unathis decided to call their boss "Commander" and other species somehow adopts the trend of doing the same thing. I call them by "Head of Security, "Boss", and "Commander". If you hate it that much, you can tell people to stop calling you Commander and have them strictly call you "Head of Security". Again, I don't really have a problem, if the people wants to call them by that, then they can just call them by that. It doesn't really change anything. This is probably best in suggestion/general sub-topic if you want to make a strong change in influencing people's RP and gameplay.

"Commander" sounds better than "Security Chief"

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

My Head of Security, which is just Triaka now, was formerly a Commander before becoming HoS, so it's doubly incorrect for her because it's literally NOT what she is anymore. She just corrects the officer and asks them to call her something else, such as Triaka, HoS, Boss, or Head. If they keep doing it she just ignores it, because she's not petty.

That is a decent way of handling it. Don't gib them or demote them or whatever, just ask them to stop, and ignore them if they don't. This doesn't need to be a big deal.

[Scheveningen]

Re #1: I tend to see head of security as it's seen in the second series of Deus Ex with Adam Jensen, wherein Jensen himself is a head of security at Sarif Industries. If you talk with the SI Security NPC employees you can kind of see how slightly laid back some of the beat patrol guards are yet still respectful and professional in front of their boss, using simple terms such as "chief," "boss", et cetera. Despite that the entire background of Deus Ex is pretty ridiculous to begin with as it's dark conspiratorial cyberpunk, There are some parallels that can be drawn a bit evenly between SISD and NTISD. At least in terms of how slightly laid back I think it *should* be.

That aside, I don't like particularly like the stigma that the HoS is equated to a police commander. It's not quite close, as the relationship between the HoS and the crew really varies based on who is the HoS, and the HoS is largely an operating figure of the company's interests. I've been called upon to do kidnappings before as the HoS even if it wasn't strictly legal yet also not illegal, if it was ordered by CCIAA, I'd grab the tranq rifle, sneak around maintenance and use my laptop to track down a specific someone through suit sensors, then nab them and tag them. Very Deus Ex-ish.

Anyway, dunno. Security seems both a far cry away from police work and even military work given the corporate element. It's a thematic of its own accord rather than of another.

[nodnodnod]

This is such a stupid stigma that I hate with a burning passion and it is time I spoke out against it.

1.) The head of security is not a military officer.

The head of security is the foremost dignitary and authority in relation to handling things that resemble protecting the company agenda, company assets and company personnel. In that particular order, generally. The head of security, however, is still a civilian such as the captain is. Such as "Captain" is merely only a title (with considerable distinction, however), as is "Head of Security." If your character has any respect for actual military, however, they will refrain from referring to the head of security as a misnomer title that does not accurately represent what the head of security actually does.

A naval commander has much differing responsibilities than what a chief of security does in the military. Often the CoS in the navy may be a mid-grade officer, and thus may be called Commander on occasion, but this is not the corporate fleet, this is the Internal Security Division, not part of the NT Fleet Security Force. FSF is far beyond ISD as well, your character sounds not only uneducated and ignorant when they call a ISD HoS "Commander" but they are also being disrespectful to the rank held by those in the FSF and other actual naval forces.

You would get seriously NJPed for failing to respect the rank by being unaware of such things and referring to a superior's rank incorrectly in the actual military. That is something you can and will be sentenced to scrub toilets for a week for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_(United_States)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_(Royal_Navy) <-- More apt equivalent since even the Bay Naval ranks are for some reason based on the Royal Navy.

2.) The security department stigma will never resemble anything close to a military force.

Stop trying. The Internal Security Division may not pay amazingly, but it has different responsibilities than what MPs would do. ISD has more of an overarching duty to protect things belonging to NanoTrasen in terms of intrinsic property of right of contract. Security officers should take their job seriously, yes, and hold themselves to a high standard as people expect them to be, but do not mistake them as anything close to military. I don't care if your security officer is a military veteran. Your character is trained specifically to conduct themselves in a manner resembling civilian private security. Previous military experience is not erased by being a security officer, true, and they can put combat experience into practice for certain situations, but it is highly unlikely that NT would give someone an immediate pass if they weren't sure that a candidate that was mentally or socially stable to be a protector of people and company assets. If you don't pass employment requirements, YOU DON'T GET THE JOB.

Best case scenario, you're a security guard on private property. Worst case scenario, you are a corporate thug if the situation calls for you to be one. Sometimes the job is more important than upholding a personal sense of ethics and morals, but unlike the military this is not strictly enforced to the point where you can be executed for treason on the field for refusing an order. Granted, I'm being funny here as that's a violation of the Geneva Convention, no thanks to the Russians and Germans.

3.) There is a huge difference between a security guard and a military grunt/officer.

That aside, less than 10% of military veterans actually see combat modern-day. That number would not change much RPly as there has not been a major war since before 2300 during the First Interstellar War. Nobody RPly is alive to see that, not even the Skrell who were not discovered yet. Piracy is an issue on the frontier yes but the Alliance and Ceti Republic do not mount huge campaigns against it. In addition, the stigma between what a military veteran would learn versus what a security guard would learn through years of employment are two almost giant things. The military learns how to eliminate the enemy for God, King and Country and how best to also survive so they can continue doing so. Security protects the security interests of the corporation, as well as their business interests or personal ones if they actually arise. A combat vet is gonna need to go through a ton of courses that everyone else does to adjust well to internal security, but it's variably harder because such courses do not drill security candidates as hard as military grunts are straight into boot camp. Many concepts will be missed when attempting to be taught, because of the raw conditioning military vets went through. This is largely one of the main reasons why they're actually pretty hard to adjust back into society nowadays in terms of combat veterans.

4. You sound pompous and actually not-smart calling the HoS that.

Just because you think calling a HoS a "hoss" is unprofessional doesn't mean calling them commander makes it any better. It is actually less cultured and informed to call them that because you have actually no idea who or what you're talking about when you call them that. It is a misuse of the title and the station. It is poor use of available language, and internal security is meant to be more relaxed on purpose, it is a civilian job first and foremost. Nobody is stopping you from making a military vet security, but expect to be called ridiculous for calling the HoS that. This is covered earlier anyway but I still need to reiterate this.

5.) 'Chief', 'security chief', 'HoS', 'Security head', or even 'Head of security' still all work out well.

If you can't take the time to type out 'head of security' I don't get how you're able to call them "commander." It is a convoluted and also absolutely incorrect title. It is lazy to not type out their actual job title or equivalent. "Commander" relates to security in an ABSOLUTELY ZIP capacity. If you're a security officer you can even call them "Boss" for that cool Metal Gear Solid soft-reference. Do that. Anything but Commander, please. It is so stupid that people are still falling for this meme. If the Head of Security was meant to be called Commander we would have code change for that by now. Stop this trend, "security chief" sounds way better than """"commander"""".

Burn in heck if you don't change your ways smh

 

He is literally in command of the ISD.

As far as your points, let's hit 'em one-by-one.

Point 1: You are correct. He is not a military officer. He is simply in command of the ISD on the station. Ohshit, I said command.

Point 2: I'm not really sure what point this point is trying to make, actually. Nobody of note has ever called the ISD a military. You might get away with calling it paramilitary, but that's stretching it.

Point 3: You're right. There is a difference. However, you've refuted part of your own point by explaining your point. Nobody should have seen any real conflict if they have a military background in the current timeline, to be completely honest. Which means that, despite having been conditioned to be military-minded, they can (and will) transition fairly easily into a civilian workforce. They are disciplined individuals for the most part, and just because training from the ISD is likely to not be as 'hard' as the military's basic training does not mean that people will fail to learn regulations and proper uses of force. Soldiers are actively informed of proper use of force and rules of engagement as well as minimizing collateral damage in today's military theaters.

Point 4: This is 100% opinion. I'm not going to even attack this point, as there's no purpose.

Point 5: This is your point 4 going into overdrive. Stop.

Burn in heck if you can accept four other titles other than commander when he is literally in command of the ISD on the station.

[Scheveningen]

This is a commander.

 

.

 

Head of security, left.

 

.

 

Note the difference?

Why don't we call the Research Director a Research Commander, if they command the research department? Why don't we call the CMO a Medical Commander, if they command Medical? How about Personnel Commander, or Engineer Commander? I like the ring of Captain Commander better, that sounds hilariously respectful and someone should make it their gimmick just to call every head of staff a variation of "Commander" to piss people off.

Internal Affairs Commander, no longer shall they be disenfranchised for wielding pen and paper to resolve the clerical oversights of the station, for they are reborn anew with purpose. I could go on but snark is only funny to read the first time.

Attaching these arbitrary and also incorrect labels that are non-specific and vague do no credit to the head of security being called that. It is improper terminology, disrespectful and unappreciative to what the Head of Security does. Image is a lot, people say it's meaningless but it is quite the opposite.

The post was to ensure people understand that the term is incorrect and that they should not use it to refer to the head of security. It is a terrible habit that Baystation up and produced one day and made it a terrible habit. I'm not threatening anyone, as that'd be unprofessional. "Commander" is simply not the way to refer to the head of security.

[nodnodnod]

Invoking the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, or reduction to absurdity, does not credit your case. I would advise you to attempt to put forth a better reasoning if you want to convince me that Commander is a bad name for the person in command of security on the station.

On that note, I'll go ahead and respond to your absurdity: the Head of Security can command his guards where to go and patrol. The Chief Medical Officer cannot command his surgeons to do anything to the same degree that the HoS can command his men, nor can the Research Director. The only ones that can plausibly get away with that other than the HoS are the Captain, since the Captain is the final authority on the station and his word is, for all intents and purposes, law - even if it means telling a scientist to work on something he's not quite qualified to do or to stop work entirely, and the Chief Engineer, since he may wish to direct engineers in a crisis (not unlike the HoS) or to establish patrols to keep up maintenance (which, while unorthodox, isn't entirely unreasonable.)

[Scheveningen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy It is not a faulty in logic to discredit a point you made, do not act like you did not just do it in your initial post by presenting your points in a belittling manner. It is a faulty sense of logic to assume that another person has a weak argument because they presented forward your own words in a way that you did not like. There is no reason why a HoS should be called Commander, a Head of Security is called the Head of Security as per the manifest. The current security culture is adjusted to act like cardboard cut-out milsim characters rather than fairly believable security characters who have their own goals, hopes and dreams that don't include adhering to an unnecessary degree of discipline that often devalues what makes a good character.

 

The Chief Medical Officer cannot command his surgeons to do anything to the same degree that the HoS can command his men, nor can the Research Director.

 

Yes, they can. If they refuse to they can be arrested for failing to execute an order and neglect of duty, such as officers can if they refuse orders. You are implying the other heads of staff have no more powerful over their department and the staff in it than the head of security is, and that is incorrect.

That aside, I don't appreciate your rudeness.

[Ornias]

*Clears throat*

IC Issue

 

So, IC solution.

Have CCIA issue a death warrant against anyone that says 'Commander'.

[nodnodnod]

No. They can't, to the same degree that the Head of Security can. They cannot tell a surgeon to go patrol the halls. Well- they can, but they should be able to defend their action when it gets challenged and brought up to the Captain that the CMO told one of his surgeons to go patrol the surface instead of be ready in medical. It's apples and oranges to compare the HoS and any other department head. I'm not implying other department heads don't have power, but I'm saying that they don't have nearly as much command over the individuals within to do things. Security is across the station. Research is generally in research, medical is generally in medical, et cetera.

Calling my pointing out of taking something to an absurd level a fallacy is silly. Stop. You were 100% being absurd and you admitted it yourself. You're doing an even worse job of convincing now. This was never about other departments, nor about the hilarious title of Captain-Commander that you're, seemingly, fond of.

That aside, I'm not being rude - this isn't me being rude in the slightest - it's me trying to help you formulate an argument on something other than mostly opinion and hyperbole.

If I hurt your feels, I apologize. But my point has been made and I'm done with this thread. People may draw their conclusions from what I've refuted about the original points.

[Ornias]

No. They can't, to the same degree that the Head of Security can. They cannot tell a surgeon to go patrol the halls. Well- they can, but they should be able to defend their action when it gets challenged and brought up to the Captain that the CMO told one of his surgeons to go patrol the surface instead of be ready in medical. It's apples and oranges to compare the HoS and any other department head. I'm not implying other department heads don't have power, but I'm saying that they don't have nearly as much command over the individuals within to do things. Security is across the station. Research is generally in research, medical is generally in medical, et cetera.

 

"A CMO can't order their surgeons to do stupid shit, but a HoS can order them to do stuff relevant to their job. The HoS is the only head of staff with any power."

[nodnodnod]

No. They can't, to the same degree that the Head of Security can. They cannot tell a surgeon to go patrol the halls. Well- they can, but they should be able to defend their action when it gets challenged and brought up to the Captain that the CMO told one of his surgeons to go patrol the surface instead of be ready in medical. It's apples and oranges to compare the HoS and any other department head. I'm not implying other department heads don't have power, but I'm saying that they don't have nearly as much command over the individuals within to do things. Security is across the station. Research is generally in research, medical is generally in medical, et cetera.

 

"A CMO can't order their surgeons to do stupid shit, but a HoS can order them to do stuff relevant to their job. The HoS is the only head of staff with any power."

 

I guess I'm not done here. Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not sure how to respond to your, what I assume to be, attempt at paraphrasing what I wrote.

[Ornias]

I meant of course a CMO isn't going to order a surgeon to patrol the halls because it isn't at all related to their job.

But of course a HoS is going to order an officer to patrol the halls because that's part of their job.

All heads of staff have complete power over their departments. They can 'command' them so long as they obey the captain, directives, and regulations.

A HoS has command over security. A CMO has command over medical. An RD has command over research. If you think they don't have complete power over the department, then you've misunderstood the purpose of a head. They're not the arbitrary 'mad skillz department master'. They're in charge, they call the shots.

[nodnodnod]

But if they start making commands that result in loss of productivity, they should have a good explanation for why to the Captain (or someone even higher up). This may not be reflected in-game, per se, but it is entirely logical to assume that they would eventually be called on to explain why they told their surgeon to stand at arrivals when his work area in in an operating room.

[ForgottenTraveller]

I think one of the main reasons it kicked off so much was Head of staff HoS and Head of security HoS. If we start going for Head of deptartment or HoD for heads in general it may help the 3 letter acronym come back easier. An it always seemed less military too me and more role recognition.

[Skull132]

1.) The head of security is not a military officer.

 

Okay and? It's a colloquial term in the context of the station, that's it. Its meaning elsewhere is irrelevant, as it's a part of the station subculture.

 

2.) The security department stigma will never resemble anything close to a military force.

 

Irrelevant due to my rebuttal of point one.

 

3.) There is a huge difference between a security guard and a military grunt/officer.

 

Mostly irrelevant but note: if it has a positive effect on morale, discipline, or what have you of the subordinates, then why not keep using it?

 

4.) You sound pompous and actually not-smart calling the HoS that.

 

To each their own. If your character doesn't want to be addressed as commander, then correct that situation. Though note that this thread sounds as pompous if not more pompous.

 

5.) 'Chief', 'security chief', 'HoS', 'Security head', or even 'Head of security' still all work out well.

 

Chief absoloutely does not work for most people, due to the fact that there are two ranks which have that word in their title. Security chief is also lame, completely and utterly lame. Ew. And you missed "Hoss". How dare you.

All-in-all. Subculture is subculture will be subculture.