Security loadout limits

[AmoryBlaine]

Due to what I consider a heinous infraction on the part of a number of Officers and Cadets- I'd like to see the Security role deny the player any loadout uniforms that aren't of the security variant. This would remove Tacticool Officers, and Suit Officers- both of which I view as lowering the image of Security being a straight laced professional corporate security team.

Allowing Officers to dress as they please does two things. First it makes them harder for personnel to identify when things are going at a rapid pace, secondly it breaks the sense of unity that should exist within Security. It's a team, and it relies on that sense of teamwork and communication for things to go well. You may notice the most "Cowboy" or "Shit" Officers are the ones who break the standard uniform code. I'd really prefer we cut out the possibility of them thinking they can dress in a manner that sets them apart from everyone else and by extension ACT like they're apart from the rest of Security.

Not sure how this would be accomplished but I assume similarly to how other roles prohibit the spawning of Security specific equipment while not in a Security role.

[sdtwbaj]

-1

tbh just complain to the captain or HoS, uniform laws fall under neglect of duty and they could get slapped.

[AmoryBlaine]

-1

tbh just complain to the captain or HoS, uniform laws fall under neglect of duty and they could get slapped.

 

This removes that middle man for the most part. Hence, I made the suggestion. I'm well aware of my ability to cry to the HoS or Captain. This just works to remove that necessity.

[Pacmandevil]

Honestly Dress code on the station is a major issue, either due to snowflakes wearing a dress while mining or something retarded like that, or Urist McTacticool wearing a turtleneck while in sec.

Both of which are memes, and both of which should be heavily discouraged imo if we want the setting to maintain any sense of professionalism.

[Alberyk]

Mostly an ic issue.

But if any loadout restriction is being put on the jobs, it would not be only for security.

[AmoryBlaine]

Mostly an ic issue.

But if any loadout restriction is being put on the jobs, it would not be only for security.

 

I can support that too.

[Conspiir]

I feel like this should be dealt with ICly. The announcements already have a reference to rolled-down jumpsuits; it would not be a stretch to add a policy for wearing identifiable and safe attire for one's workplace.

[LordBalkara]

I also feel like this should be dealt with ICly. I think a regulation maybe specifically for "Not wearing the appropriate uniform" for roles where it's essential could work to deter it, and would feel less restrictive. After all, the tacticool turtleneck may look nice, but no one's going to touch it if it means your fellow officers will have to brig you/report you to a head.

also I think it'd be funny to have an excuse to nail gary stus who wear it because they think it looks cool, sort of like the old boot knife that was a handy excuse to nail powergamers who didn't realize it sucked

[Pacmandevil]

saying "it should be delt with ICly" just means that in most cases, it won't be delt with, as the behaviour is common place. and very few people give a shit.

if it was against regulations, it'd open up the possibility for IRs and Fines, which people'll bitch about. but they'll eventually figure it out.

[Kaed]

Eh. I don't really give a shit that much myself. As long as they're wearing basic uniform things like a security hat, security belt, badge, HUDglasses, something that identifies them as a security member, I don't think it's that much of a big deal.

People are capable of making rational observations based on points of visual information without needing the entirety of a department to dress in a strict uniform. There's already like, what. Two? (Three? More?) different 'security uniforms', more if you include the cadet and warden and commander variants, and not all of them look that much alike, other than 'there's some blue on them.'

I would probably take umbridge if one of my officers ran around in a hot pink uniform or something directly unprofessional, like a wedding dress, but frankly, other than that, I don't see what the reason is to be so uptight and demand a strict dress code for security. Deal with it IC, not in the loadout mechanics. If you want to enforce something that strict, play the Security Commander.

I can assure you when I do, I don't hassle people about not wearing one of the designated uniforms unless they're being ridiculous, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate someone else's OOC viewpoints on workplace attire being forced on me and my staff.

[AmoryBlaine]

Eh. I don't really give a shit that much myself. As long as they're wearing basic uniform things like a security hat, security belt, badge, HUDglasses, something that identifies them as a security member, I don't think it's that much of a big deal.

People are capable of making rational observations based on points of visual information without needing the entirety of a department to dress in a strict uniform. There's already like, what. Two? (Three? More?) different 'security uniforms', more if you include the cadet and warden and commander variants, and not all of them look that much alike, other than 'there's some blue on them.'

I would probably take umbridge if one of my officers ran around in a hot pink uniform or something directly unprofessional, like a wedding dress, but frankly, other than that, I don't see what the reason is to be so uptight and demand a strict dress code for security. Deal with it IC, not in the loadout mechanics. If you want to enforce something that strict, play the Security Commander.

I can assure you when I do, I don't hassle people about not wearing one of the designated uniforms unless they're being ridiculous, and I certainly wouldn't appreciate someone else's OOC viewpoints on workplace attire being forced on me and my staff.

 

It's a professional corporate environement on an HRP server. It makes no sense to lop it on "deal with it ICly" when ICly you have no reason to come to work in a tactical turtleneck or suit and expect to be able to keep it when you have a specific uniform to wear- In this case we have three uniforms, two of which are widely used. Full Black and Standard.

[Conspiir]

It's a professional corporate environement on an HRP server. It makes no sense to lop it on "deal with it ICly" when ICly you have no reason to come to work in a tactical turtleneck or suit and expect to be able to keep it when you have a specific uniform to wear- In this case we have three uniforms, two of which are widely used. Full Black and Standard.

 

This is exactly what makes it an IC problem in my eyes. Couldn't have stated it better. And I do mean a severe IC problem. As in add it to CCIA Notices, IC problem, not just leave it as-is. Make it something actually tangibly punishable. But I think adding a restriction mechanic here is not the way to go. It's possible to wear whatever you like to work, and then change at the locker. That's perfectly viable.

[Kaed]

It's a professional corporate environement on an HRP server. It makes no sense to lop it on "deal with it ICly" when ICly you have no reason to come to work in a tactical turtleneck or suit and expect to be able to keep it when you have a specific uniform to wear- In this case we have three uniforms, two of which are widely used. Full Black and Standard.

 

It's also a game where people come to have fun. What you are suggesting here is enforcing your standards on someone else forcibly, OOC. You can't apply this viewpoint out of character to game mechanics. My idea of a 'professional corporate environment' is clearly different from yours. Does that mean what I think doesn't matter, and I should just conform to the way you feel things should be?

If you want to suggest policy changes, you're free to, but that's still an IC thing, not revising loadout permissions. Like Conspir said, it's perfectly logical to bring clothes to work and change if you need/want to.

[AmoryBlaine]

It's a professional corporate environement on an HRP server. It makes no sense to lop it on "deal with it ICly" when ICly you have no reason to come to work in a tactical turtleneck or suit and expect to be able to keep it when you have a specific uniform to wear- In this case we have three uniforms, two of which are widely used. Full Black and Standard.

 

This is exactly what makes it an IC problem in my eyes. Couldn't have stated it better. And I do mean a severe IC problem. As in add it to CCIA Notices, IC problem, not just leave it as-is. Make it something actually tangibly punishable. But I think adding a restriction mechanic here is not the way to go. It's possible to wear whatever you like to work, and then change at the locker. That's perfectly viable.

 

This works too.

[AmoryBlaine]

It's also a game where people come to have fun. What you are suggesting here is enforcing your standards on someone else forcibly, OOC. You can't apply this viewpoint out of character to game mechanics. My idea of a 'professional corporate environment' is clearly different from yours. Does that mean what I think doesn't matter, and I should just conform to the way you feel things should be?

You started with, "Eh. I don't really give a shit myself." So, no. I don't really think what you are saying matters. I much prefer the alternate suggestions from people with some interest in the topic.

[NoahKirchner]

-1

tbh just complain to the captain or HoS, uniform laws fall under neglect of duty and they could get slapped.

 

This removes that middle man for the most part. Hence, I made the suggestion. I'm well aware of my ability to cry to the HoS or Captain. This just works to remove that necessity.

 

By this logic, banning anybody for breaking corporate law would be "Removing the middle man." Dealing with minor breaches like that are all the HoS and Captain have to do on extended rounds anyways.

[AmoryBlaine]

-1

tbh just complain to the captain or HoS, uniform laws fall under neglect of duty and they could get slapped.

 

This removes that middle man for the most part. Hence, I made the suggestion. I'm well aware of my ability to cry to the HoS or Captain. This just works to remove that necessity.

 

By this logic, banning anybody for breaking corporate law would be "Removing the middle man." Dealing with minor breaches like that are all the HoS and Captain have to do on extended rounds anyways.

 

You choose to apply it broader than I have suggested it. This thread is concerned specifically with uniform violations, as you may have noticed by the title. As for these "minor breaches" being "all the HoS and Captain have to do on extended rounds" I cannot confirm nor deny this as I play neither. Maybe someone who mains Head could weigh in on that.

[Faris]

As far as I'm aware, failure to abide with uniform can result in a neglect of duty charge applied by the command member responsible or Captain.

[mention]whiterabit[/mention] can confirm.

[whiterabit]

Correct.

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=95&t=5539#p55288

[Kaed]

It's also a game where people come to have fun. What you are suggesting here is enforcing your standards on someone else forcibly, OOC. You can't apply this viewpoint out of character to game mechanics. My idea of a 'professional corporate environment' is clearly different from yours. Does that mean what I think doesn't matter, and I should just conform to the way you feel things should be?

You started with, "Eh. I don't really give a shit myself." So, no. I don't really think what you are saying matters. I much prefer the alternate suggestions from people with some interest in the topic.

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear in my earlier comments, and that's my bad. When I said 'I don't really give a shit', I was referring to the uniform regulations.

However, I have an interest in this topic, and that is that I am interested in this not happening. I'm certain you would prefer that people only reply who agree with you, but that isn't how it works. The suggestion threads are not intended to be echo chambers.

I'll say it again for emphasis. I do not think there is any reason to place start of round uniform load-out restrictions on anyone (beyond preventing them from getting uniform variants belonging to other departments, which already exist). Preventing people from coming to work not dressed in their work uniform does not stop them from being a shitty security officer, nor does it do anything to stop people from later choosing to wear inappropriate attire after they arrive. All it does is impose an artificial limitation on character creation in an attempt to fulfill a complaint you have (valid or not regardless here) about people's IC behavior.

Problems involving not following uniform regulations belong in character, not in the character design or loadout section. People have the right to choose to come to work wearing a hot pink jumpsuit or wedding dress to be laughed at over, then be punished for it if they don't change before starting their security duties. Nanotrasen does not restrict your off-work activities or clothing choices.

[Scheveningen]

I'm sorry, I don't think I was clear in my earlier comments, and that's my bad. When I said 'I don't really give a shit', I was referring to the uniform regulations.

 

Don't post/participate if you're going to come into threads like this, then.

 

However, I have an interest in this topic, and that is that I am interested in this not happening. I'm certain you would prefer that people only reply who agree with you, but that isn't how it works. The suggestion threads are not intended to be echo chambers.

 

Okay, great! Everyone else in this thread is waiting for you to add something of notable value to the discussion because honestly your attitude is way out of line in what is reasonable in a civil discussion, because you've not really done much to argue the case that security officers/engineers/etc should be like Sterling Archer and dress in tactical turtleneck knock-offs because they want to look special and cool, and have only levied passive-aggressive insults towards the other thread participants which is very uncool-beans of you. Maybe check yourself and don't post if you feel the need to act like a dick to other people?

There are many ways to ensure one's character looks very particularly identifiable for their role and for their character, but being able to somehow walk past the CentComm clothing portal in anything other than your standard uniform just seems very inconsistent with the IC rules that CentComm has put forward in enforcing uniform regulation. If it wasn't an issue then heads of staff could never enforce it in the first place, which is the opposite of what Whiterabit has confirmed in the thread here.

Personally I think a very large reduction in the amount of Sterling Archers we get onboard the station would be a very welcome change in terms of the server climate.

 

.

It's time for the meme to die.

[Kaed]

Okay, great! Everyone else in this thread is waiting for you to add something of notable value to the discussion because honestly your attitude is way out of line in what is reasonable in a civil discussion, because you've not really done much to argue the case that security officers/engineers/etc should be like Sterling Archer and dress in tactical turtleneck knock-offs because they want to look special and cool, and have only levied passive-aggressive insults towards the other thread participants which is very uncool-beans of you. Maybe check yourself and don't post if you feel the need to act like a dick to other people?

There are many ways to ensure one's character looks very particularly identifiable for their role and for their character, but being able to somehow walk past the CentComm clothing portal in anything other than your standard uniform just seems very inconsistent with the IC rules that CentComm has put forward in enforcing uniform regulation. If it wasn't an issue then heads of staff could never enforce it in the first place, which is the opposite of what Whiterabit has confirmed in the thread here.

Personally I think a very large reduction in the amount of Sterling Archers we get onboard the station would be a very welcome change in terms of the server climate.

It's time for the meme to die.

 

What? Disagreeing with an idea being implemented is a passive aggressive insult now? I'm confused.

Nothing of what I said anywhere was a directed insult at anyone, and I pretty clearly stated my opinions on why we shouldn't do this. I am not required to submit a statement on how to further improve a suggestion to make it of 'notable value' if I don't think it's a good idea in the first place. I think I went rather above and beyond giving a bland +1 or -1 comment.

Nor at any point did I endorse 'Sterling Archer' characters to be acceptable in security. What I actually said was.

 

Preventing people from coming to work not dressed in their work uniform does not stop them from being a shitty security officer, nor does it do anything to stop people from later choosing to wear inappropriate attire after they arrive. All it does is impose an artificial limitation on character creation in an attempt to fulfill a complaint you have (valid or not regardless here) about people's IC behavior.

Problems involving not following uniform regulations belong in character, not in the character design or loadout section. People have the right to choose to come to work wearing a hot pink jumpsuit or wedding dress to be laughed at over, then be punished for it if they don't change before starting their security duties. Nanotrasen does not restrict your off-work activities or clothing choices.

 

This thread is not about people getting to pretend to be Sterling Archer at work. This is about people being allowed to wear what they like when they walk into work, before they are officially on duty. This is about the loadout screen, not clothing regulations.

Further, the clothing portal you mention doesn't delete what you're wearing, it just puts (or is supposed to put, but sometimes is a little inconsistant) the nonregulation clothing in a box for you. but you still have it.

[Hackie]

frankly just add to the regulations if it's such a brutal misconduct such a group of people need to face genuine mechanical limitations. we had dealt with the same shit like engineering taj just casually walking around with double d tits and jumpsuit rolled down by spanking them in a not-good way. on the other hand, every time i see a fucking lesbian qt 3.14 shell officer with dyed hair and skirt i am driven closer to suicide so i understand why.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

"Hey, go change."

This is an extraordinarily easy thing to deal with. It will not do anything to deal with the behavior because maintenance is already flooded with unique clothes and tactical turtlenecks. It is very easy to dress out of uniform and irregardless of my job I can run around out-of-uniform in 5.2 seconds after boarding the station.

I would be extremely patronized if this change went through because it assumes I need my hand held as a Command staff in just telling my staff to change.

[AmoryBlaine]

"Hey, go change."

 

The usual reply to that is, "Shut the fuck up. You're not the Commander." Followed by non-complaince with my Officer for the rest of the shift because they feel as though asking them that, challenges their manhood.

I may then choose to inform the HoS, which I do regularily. This rarely works as they are busy- Not to mention there are HoS like Kaed who do not abide by it anyways and shrug it off. I just want more uniformity, and an easier way to police it. If it was a written IN-GAME that they can't wear whatever, and I wasn't required to ask the HoS and then the Captain to tell the offender to not offend it on penalty of neglect of duty, I wouldn't have made this suggestion. As it is, the current way it's set up relies on one or two individuals who may or may not be present and may give a conflicting order.

I'm also just glad that this brought it all into the light again.