Stricter Security Requirements

[LordBalkara]

Make it so that, in order to play Security, you have to have a certain amount of playtime as Cadet registered.

3 rounds was suggested, and sounds fine to me.

Pros:

- Higher quality Security officers

- Less chances of new players trying to jump in as important Security roles without understanding it, since they can very easily come here once, leave for a week, then pop back in in time to play as Security

- Less people who've played security on other servers assuming they will know how to play it here and joining as Officer immediately

- Due to Less security, Security may be more likely to look to Research for improved equipment, leading to more interdepartmental interaction

Cons:

- Less Security

- Cadet will be a much harder role to obtain

- Some people may feel put off by the difficulty in accessing Security

- Due to the smaller amount of Security, more other departments may attempt to Validhunt

Edited February 5, 2018 by Guest

[BurgerBB]

I'm fine with the playtime suggestion. Possibly play 3 rounds as cadet seems fair. An outright whitelist will severely limit the amount of security officers playing at one time, especially during dead hour.

[Bauser]

I make no judgment on the idea as a whole, but I refute the argument that a whitelist will necessarily result in higher-quality players. Even if it has that effect initially (since players would broadly need to demonstrate proper behavior in order to get accepted), the whitelist risks fostering a sort of elitism that I think could be damaging in the case of security roles. And, in that case, it might have the long-term effect of furthering the divide between security and the rest of the crew. As if, you know, "there's this one group of players who gets to interact with the antagonists each round, and everyone else can take it or leave it."

Keep in mind that a whitelist, even if it's not an extremely strict one, can be a massive barrier to entry for new players. Most people already aren't going to want to play a hard-RP server (this is the group we're glad to filter out), but then, some won't want to sign up on the forums, some won't want to stick to a single character for long enough, some won't bother trying if they think they won't make it - and if the extra hassle ends up limiting the pool of security players, that would create a serious problem. You'd have shortages of security players during certain time periods (according to players' time zones, etc.), and of course it would raise the pressure on playing security - which could exacerbate problems we already see with powergaming and such.

I guess it's just a question of the ratio of good security players to bad ones, as to whether our approach should be to only exclude bad ones (like it is now, as bad players are manually removed from the role) or to only include good ones (as with a whitelist).

[LordBalkara]

I guess it's just a question of the ratio of good security players to bad ones, as to whether our approach should be to only exclude bad ones (like it is now, as bad players are manually removed from the role) or to only include good ones (as with a whitelist).

Perhaps an example of an experience I had when I played Cadet might sway your opinion:

I once had a warden who ordered me to file the paperwork for a warrant. They then tried to create an incident report for incarcerating someone manually, and was unsure where processing even was. As Warden.

This is ridiculous, and could be prevented by a stronger filter than just a week long wait time from the very first moment you log on.

[Snakebittenn]

I'd rather 1 decent sec officer than four gorillas with pistols. +1, it's worth a try.

[NoahKirchner]

If I could -1 this post more than once, I would do it without a shadow of a doubt. White-lists for roles that are both necessary for game progression and are integral to the SS13 experience are unnecessary, actively detrimental to both the game-play and culture of the server, and serve no purpose but to turn departments into metacliques and elitist clubs, never giving the semi-regularly Aurora player who does not have enough playtime as their security character to be recognized and can, by extension, not become whitelisted.

Security is not an important department. It is a cog in the machine, and is no important to game progression than Engineering or Medical. Higher quality officers are not required for the security department because, in the case of security, "Higher quality" is directly equivalent to two things: A more thorough knowledge of the regulations, which I will touch upon later, and the knowledge of game mechanics used to disable or take down antagonists. One could also argue that there would be a higher quality of roleplay among white-listed officers, but roleplay poor enough to be considered detrimental to the functioning of a department also is able to be handled by moderation or, failing that, CCIA. Playing a cadet does not remove the ability for one who is roleplaying poorly in security to be be less harmful to the department, because if your goal is to make the round hell for your department, you can easily find other ways to do that. Adding a whitelist for the purpose of roleplay quality or department quality simply leads to the same old, boring and stale officers playing every round, dismissing any applications presented to them by less popular players for reasons that can be summed up as "Well I don't see their name on the manifest enough so they clearly don't know as much about security as I do."

Requiring people to play cadet for any amount of time does not fix the issue of regulation knowledge, security knowledge or roleplay quality. Cadet, in it's current form, is a very neutered role. More often than not, cadets retire to the bar, man the cameras or checkpoint, or do menial tasks for the department at large. This is a good way to learn the game, this is not a good way to learn how to play security. To properly apply the IC regulations requires a working knowledge of them, something that can not be gained from a role that is purposefully designed to be unable to make arrests efficiently. There is only so much the wiki can tell you about what constitutes the breaking of what regulations, and the only way to learn that is to be forced to make decisions on your own as a security officer, or to be involved in investigations and processing beyond the scope of your average cadet. Adding this whitelist or timer will simply have people joining the role of cadet, not learning how regulations work because nobody has the time or wants to teach them, and then immediately having to learn from scratch upon their application being accepted or their playtime being above the thresh-hold.

An argument I commonly see in support of this suggestion is two-fold, one being that cadets will learn to play security if the role is whitelisted because security will then have the responsibility to help them to become security, and so will teach them. This presents two major issues. The first being that, on any round where the antagonist is worth their salt, or where a security officer does not wish to give the same schpeel over and over again, cadets will simply be left out to dry as they are now, ignored by everyone but the HoS and the Warden who order them to patrol or go to the checkpoint and then disregard them the second that any threat to the station becomes realized. The other issue is that of metacliques. If your goal is to have your whitelist for security accepted by people who are commonly working with you, and you play enough to be taught by the same people, it is only natural that you are going to become IC and potentially OOC friends with them. There is no issue with friendship, but there is an issue of inherent biases brought out when voting on the application process. You are far more likely to +1 an application with somebody who is your friend than with somebody who is not your friend, and this leads to people who are friends of prominent or active security members having a far easier time getting into the department than your average Joe Blow, who works during the week and only has time to play on the weekends for a single round, now unable to play the GAME that he loves and a department which he finds interesting because he has yet to fraternize with the common security players.

The other argument I see in support of this suggestion is that security is one of, if not the most important department because they are directly interacting with the antagonist. This is the weaker of the two arguments, since whitelisting security would actively detract from the experience of the antagonist on an OOC level, would result in a smaller overall department size because of the increased unlikelihood for people to attempt to play security because of the effort and time involved, and because the argument is fundamentally incorrect in it's premise. Security is no more important than medical, engineering or cargo. Should this suggestion be accepted, and I hope to God that it's not, the same few people would be the ones interacting with antagonists. These people have clearly defined characters, morals and playstyles, meaning that the antagonists will receive the same response from the security crew every time they attempt a gimmick. If you take mid 2017 security, for example, which was largely ATLAS, every pro-xeno Rev round would immediately be shut down by security because there are no fresh faces. This ruins antagonists. Two address my second point, which is already largely self explanatory, people are far less likely to put in the effort and time to watch the forums and await feedback or to play a severely neutered role in order to play one of the basic station roles, limiting security's size and resulting in validhunting of other departments or ERTs to be called 20 minutes into the round. As far as the last point is concerned, security is not more important than the other departments oocly because defeating antags is not an objectively required event. The engine remaining powered, for example, is objectively necessary for the smooth operation of the station, mining gathering materials for research and development is an integral part of an entire department. Defeating the antagonists is not, it is simply one of many outcomes possible when confronted with an antagonist, and so while important for the IC running of the station, the antagonists being handled less effectively is not detrimental to the station on an OOC level unless specifically intended by the antagonists.

In conclusion, none of the presented solutions to the issue of occasionally disappointing security officers are effective or necessary and are actively detrimental to the culture of the server, the effectiveness of the security department as a whole, and only serve to shut down antagonists and perpetuate a sense of elitism throughout the department. I do not think it is reasonable to have a person play 3 rounds as a cadet, a total of at least six hours in a neutered and unimportant role, to play a role in a game which they may very well thoroughly understand only to have to learn how to properly apply regulations after they have been granted access by the hard limit or have been allowed into the hivemind by their peers. This suggestion is one that I cannot more fervently disagree with on a fundamental basis, that being that SS13 is a game made to have fun, and that this whitelist only serves to prevent people from enjoying it.

[UnknownMurder]

White-lists for roles that are both necessary for game progression and are integral to the SS13 experience are unnecessary actively detrimental to both the game-play and culture of the server...

I don't think I understand what you mean, either you typed it up at night or I read this and replied at night. Roles that are both necessary and are integral to SS13 experience are unnecessary. Are you considering necessary game progression and integral to SS13 experience to be unnecessary? If so, that's a contradiction. You seem opposed to white list that are necessary for game progression and integral to SS13 experience. If this is your opinion. How do you feel about a new player taking Captain position with no understanding of this concept? How do you feel about new players taking all Command positions that are both necessary game progression and integral to SS13 experience? If we were to apply your current opinion on this. Go ahead, make a suggestion to abolish Command Whitelist. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

 

...serve no purpose but to turn departments into metacliques and elitist clubs, never giving the semi-regularly Aurora player who does not have enough playtime as their security character to be recognized and can, by extension, not become whitelisted.

 

---

---

It's only for three rounds. Is that not enough playtime? This suggestion only asks for about 5-7 hours of your time and this is too much for them to be recognized? You can't speak for the Semi-Aurorians players. Also, no. It will not turn departments into metacliques and elitist clubs. We have more players than you think we do.

 

Security is not an important department.

I object to this statement. Security is more of an important department than any other departments. Sure, the power can go out and no one will mind crowbaring and doing everything old fashioned. Sure, some people can live with an arm broken. What is the first issue that will rise and create action? Criminals will be the first to rise and face their first obstacle, security department. Otherwise, they'll go on a killing spree because there is no one with equal amount of power to stop the criminal.

 

A more thorough knowledge of the regulations, which I will touch upon later, and the knowledge of game mechanics used to disable or take down antagonists. One could also argue that there would be a higher quality of roleplay among white-listed officers, but roleplay poor enough to be considered detrimental to the functioning of a department also is able to be handled by moderation or, failing that, CCIA.

So, instead of whitelisting... We should push more work on Moderation Team/CCIAA as it always has been? Cool.

 

Adding a whitelist for the purpose of roleplay quality or department quality simply leads to the same old, boring and stale officers playing every round, dismissing any applications presented to them by less popular players for reasons that can be summed up as "Well I don't see their name on the manifest enough so they clearly don't know as much about security as I do."

Each time you utter application. I'm going to say Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

Requiring people to play cadet for any amount of time does not fix the issue of regulation knowledge, security knowledge or roleplay quality. Cadet, in it's current form, is a very neutered role. More often than not, cadets retire to the bar, man the cameras or checkpoint, or do menial tasks for the department at large. This is a good way to learn the game, this is not a good way to learn how to play security. To properly apply the IC regulations requires a working knowledge of them, something that can not be gained from a role that is purposefully designed to be unable to make arrests efficiently.

Good heavens me! It's not a good way to learn Security? I wonder whose fault it is. We're all hypocrites.

 

There is only so much the wiki can tell you about what constitutes the breaking of what regulations, and the only way to learn that is to be forced to make decisions on your own as a security officer, or to be involved in investigations and processing beyond the scope of your average cadet. Adding this whitelist or timer will simply have people joining the role of cadet, not learning how regulations work because nobody has the time or wants to teach them, and then immediately having to learn from scratch upon their application being accepted or their playtime being above the thresh-hold.

Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

An argument I commonly see in support of this suggestion is two-fold, one being that cadets will learn to play security if the role is whitelisted because security will then have the responsibility to help them to become security, and so will teach them. This presents two major issues. The first being that, on any round where the antagonist is worth their salt, or where a security officer does not wish to give the same schpeel over and over again, cadets will simply be left out to dry as they are now, ignored by everyone but the HoS and the Warden who order them to patrol or go to the checkpoint and then disregard them the second that any threat to the station becomes realized. The other issue is that of metacliques. If your goal is to have your whitelist for security accepted by people who are commonly working with you, and you play enough to be taught by the same people, it is only natural that you are going to become IC and potentially OOC friends with them. There is no issue with friendship, but there is an issue of inherent biases brought out when voting on the application process.

This wall of text just goes on a wild ride of "too much metafriends / must reduce metafriends".

 

You are far more likely to +1 an application with somebody who is your friend than with somebody who is not your friend, and this leads to people who are friends of prominent or active security members having a far easier time getting into the department than your average Joe Blow, who works during the week and only has time to play on the weekends for a single round, now unable to play the GAME that he loves and a department which he finds interesting because he has yet to fraternize with the common security players.

Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

The other argument I see in support of this suggestion is that security is one of, if not the most important department because they are directly interacting with the antagonist. This is the weaker of the two arguments, since whitelisting security would actively detract from the experience of the antagonist on an OOC level, would result in a smaller overall department size because of the increased unlikelihood for people to attempt to play security because of the effort and time involved, and because the argument is fundamentally incorrect in it's premise. Security is no more important than medical, engineering or cargo.

It's literally for only three rounds. You're exaggerating more than it should have been stated. See my previous criticism regarding importance of Security vs other individual departments.

 

Should this suggestion be accepted, and I hope to God that it's not, the same few people would be the ones interacting with antagonists. These people have clearly defined characters, morals and playstyles, meaning that the antagonists will receive the same response from the security crew every time they attempt a gimmick. If you take mid 2017 security, for example, which was largely ATLAS, every pro-xeno Rev round would immediately be shut down by security because there are no fresh faces. This ruins antagonists.

The security department in which ruins antagonists' attempt to drive the round will be very likely be spoken and receive a smack on the hand. They ruin antagonists? They can just have their whitelist revoked or jobbanned. Either ways, purpose is to increase potential security members in knowing not what they can do but what they should do.

 

Two address my second point, which is already largely self explanatory, people are far less likely to put in the effort and time to watch the forums and await feedback or to play a severely neutered role

Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

As far as the last point is concerned, security is not more important than the other departments oocly because defeating antags is not an objectively required event. The engine remaining powered, for example, is objectively necessary for the smooth operation of the station, mining gathering materials for research and development is an integral part of an entire department. Defeating the antagonists is not, it is simply one of many outcomes possible when confronted with an antagonist, and so while important for the IC running of the station, the antagonists being handled less effectively is not detrimental to the station on an OOC level unless specifically intended by the antagonists.

You're right! The operation of the station is objectively necessary, however what department ensures that the operation is ongoing smooth as you say? What department protects the operations? Whose responsibility is to ensure that the station's crew and property are safe? The answer is in the OOC Rules. You probably know OOC rules, right?

 

In conclusion, none of the presented solutions to the issue of occasionally disappointing security officers are effective or necessary and are actively detrimental to the culture of the server, the effectiveness of the security department as a whole, and only serve to shut down antagonists and perpetuate a sense of elitism throughout the department. I do not think it is reasonable to have a person play 3 rounds as a cadet, a total of at least six hours in a neutered and unimportant role, to play a role in a game which they may very well thoroughly understand only to have to learn how to properly apply regulations after they have been granted access by the hard limit or have been allowed into the hivemind by their peers. This suggestion is one that I cannot more fervently disagree with on a fundamental basis, that being that SS13 is a game made to have fun, and that this whitelist only serves to prevent people from enjoying it.

And three rounds is too much?

As far as I can summarize, you are basing your arguments on the insufficient time that many people does not have a lot of time to enjoy this game. Everyone has enough time in their week to play at least 3 rounds. There's really no harm and only takes small effort to play as a security cadet. Your second argument of circlejerkers with applications has been repetitively, completely rebutted by Exclusionary Rule. This tells me that you did not completely read and understood the suggestion's message and drawing conclusions. If there were whitelist application for security, I will indeed oppose it. As said, this only takes 5-7 hours of your life to play as a cadet. It won't kill you and only requires small horsepower.

[Scheveningen]

No. Security is not a job that requires competent people for in-game progression. Command requires far more in-game and social knowledge to appropriately play, especially considering it is a high-responsibility leadership role, whereas security holds only as much authority as command staff are willing to grant them.

Having a baton doesn't make you God. It really doesn't.

[NoahKirchner]

White-lists for roles that are both necessary for game progression and are integral to the SS13 experience are unnecessary actively detrimental to both the game-play and culture of the server...

I don't think I understand what you mean, either you typed it up at night or I read this and replied at night. Roles that are both necessary and are integral to SS13 experience are unnecessary. Are you considering necessary game progression and integral to SS13 experience to be unnecessary? If so, that's a contradiction. You seem opposed to white list that are necessary for game progression and integral to SS13 experience. If this is your opinion. How do you feel about a new player taking Captain position with no understanding of this concept? How do you feel about new players taking all Command positions that are both necessary game progression and integral to SS13 experience? If we were to apply your current opinion on this. Go ahead, make a suggestion to abolish Command Whitelist. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

 

Security is necessary for gameplay progression and integral to the SS13 experience because they are the only ones armed at roundstart. Adding a whitelist to this means that a department necessary for round progression now has a higher bar for entry. I think the command whitelist is useful because it's not strictly necessary for round progression and rounds can and often do progress fine without command.

...serve no purpose but to turn departments into metacliques and elitist clubs, never giving the semi-regularly Aurora player who does not have enough playtime as their security character to be recognized and can, by extension, not become whitelisted.

 

 

---

---

It's only for three rounds. Is that not enough playtime? This suggestion only asks for about 5-7 hours of your time and this is too much for them to be recognized? You can't speak for the Semi-Aurorians players. Also, no. It will not turn departments into metacliques and elitist clubs. We have more players than you think we do.

 

Admittedly, the cadet playtime is the lesser of the two evils here. However, security already is a metaclique to some degree. I routinely see the department dominated by the same few notable names in my standard playtime, with the difference made up by random characters who I've never seen before. It may change based on hour, since my primetime is the server's primetime, and if need be I could name the security that I see consistently within this timeframe.

 

Security is not an important department.

I object to this statement. Security is more of an important department than any other departments. Sure, the power can go out and no one will mind crowbaring and doing everything old fashioned. Sure, some people can live with an arm broken. What is the first issue that will rise and create action? Criminals will be the first to rise and face their first obstacle, security department. Otherwise, they'll go on a killing spree because there is no one with equal amount of power to stop the criminal.

Security is important, it might be the writing this at night or something but that was poor wording, regardless, onto the message.

The majority of the departments onboard the station cannot operate without power at full capacity. R&D is useless, cargo is useless, the civilian department is largely useless, et cetera. Security being disabled impacts station functions, sure, but it is not a certainty. Criminals rising up is the equivalent to the supermatter exploding due to engineering negligence or medical being unable to treat people because they used all of their chem charges to make space drugs or something.

 

A more thorough knowledge of the regulations, which I will touch upon later, and the knowledge of game mechanics used to disable or take down antagonists. One could also argue that there would be a higher quality of roleplay among white-listed officers, but roleplay poor enough to be considered detrimental to the functioning of a department also is able to be handled by moderation or, failing that, CCIA.

So, instead of whitelisting... We should push more work on Moderation Team/CCIAA as it always has been? Cool.

 

If someone is blatantly attempting to ruin their round, they can do that whether or not they're a cadet. Whitelisting simply moves the problem. If someone is simply an ineffective security officer, they'll just move to another job and be ineffective at that other job. Ineffective players are an inevitability and security is not above it's poor players.

 

Adding a whitelist for the purpose of roleplay quality or department quality simply leads to the same old, boring and stale officers playing every round, dismissing any applications presented to them by less popular players for reasons that can be summed up as "Well I don't see their name on the manifest enough so they clearly don't know as much about security as I do."

Each time you utter application. I'm going to say Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

Whtielists assume applications, no?

 

Requiring people to play cadet for any amount of time does not fix the issue of regulation knowledge, security knowledge or roleplay quality. Cadet, in it's current form, is a very neutered role. More often than not, cadets retire to the bar, man the cameras or checkpoint, or do menial tasks for the department at large. This is a good way to learn the game, this is not a good way to learn how to play security. To properly apply the IC regulations requires a working knowledge of them, something that can not be gained from a role that is purposefully designed to be unable to make arrests efficiently.

Good heavens me! It's not a good way to learn Security? I wonder whose fault it is. We're all hypocrites.

 

This point is addressed later to some degree, but is it really right to put the burden of teaching onto players who are otherwise busy? While it would be great for every engineer to happily step aside and teach the intern how to do wiring, or for every security officer to give security cadets a working knowledge of regulations, how many times can you do that before you just pretend to not see them asking for help? It's not realistic to push the burden of teaching that far because not everyone is willing to teach.

 

There is only so much the wiki can tell you about what constitutes the breaking of what regulations, and the only way to learn that is to be forced to make decisions on your own as a security officer, or to be involved in investigations and processing beyond the scope of your average cadet. Adding this whitelist or timer will simply have people joining the role of cadet, not learning how regulations work because nobody has the time or wants to teach them, and then immediately having to learn from scratch upon their application being accepted or their playtime being above the thresh-hold.

Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

I disagree. The whitelisting of security or requring playtime as a cadet would push more people into the cadet role, therefore making it more popular and magnifying the issues already present in the role. I am not offering solutions to these issues, simply commenting that the suggestion does not resolve the issues that it was created to solve, that being poor quality security officers.

 

An argument I commonly see in support of this suggestion is two-fold, one being that cadets will learn to play security if the role is whitelisted because security will then have the responsibility to help them to become security, and so will teach them. This presents two major issues. The first being that, on any round where the antagonist is worth their salt, or where a security officer does not wish to give the same schpeel over and over again, cadets will simply be left out to dry as they are now, ignored by everyone but the HoS and the Warden who order them to patrol or go to the checkpoint and then disregard them the second that any threat to the station becomes realized. The other issue is that of metacliques. If your goal is to have your whitelist for security accepted by people who are commonly working with you, and you play enough to be taught by the same people, it is only natural that you are going to become IC and potentially OOC friends with them. There is no issue with friendship, but there is an issue of inherent biases brought out when voting on the application process.

This wall of text just goes on a wild ride of "too much metafriends / must reduce metafriends".

Yes. Metacliques are bad, making them larger is also bad. They breed poor roleplay.

 

You are far more likely to +1 an application with somebody who is your friend than with somebody who is not your friend, and this leads to people who are friends of prominent or active security members having a far easier time getting into the department than your average Joe Blow, who works during the week and only has time to play on the weekends for a single round, now unable to play the GAME that he loves and a department which he finds interesting because he has yet to fraternize with the common security players.

Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

It is very closely related to what we are talking about, presuming a whitelist. I make comments to both solutions, the cadetship requirement and the whitelist requirement, and this one was directed at the whitelist. This is a problem inherent in community based voting and, since this suggestion is proposing the implementation of a community based voting system (at least one of the two solutions), any issues with whitelists in general should be fair play.

 

The other argument I see in support of this suggestion is that security is one of, if not the most important department because they are directly interacting with the antagonist. This is the weaker of the two arguments, since whitelisting security would actively detract from the experience of the antagonist on an OOC level, would result in a smaller overall department size because of the increased unlikelihood for people to attempt to play security because of the effort and time involved, and because the argument is fundamentally incorrect in it's premise. Security is no more important than medical, engineering or cargo.

It's literally for only three rounds. You're exaggerating more than it should have been stated. See my previous criticism regarding importance of Security vs other individual departments.

 

Admittedly, three rounds is not the worst, but it's still not necessary.

 

Should this suggestion be accepted, and I hope to God that it's not, the same few people would be the ones interacting with antagonists. These people have clearly defined characters, morals and playstyles, meaning that the antagonists will receive the same response from the security crew every time they attempt a gimmick. If you take mid 2017 security, for example, which was largely ATLAS, every pro-xeno Rev round would immediately be shut down by security because there are no fresh faces. This ruins antagonists.

The security department in which ruins antagonists' attempt to drive the round will be very likely be spoken and receive a smack on the hand. They ruin antagonists? They can just have their whitelist revoked or jobbanned. Either ways, purpose is to increase potential security members in knowing not what they can do but what they should do.

 

While perhaps a poor way to convey the message, this was essentially a message of stale RP with the same people rotating in and out which has been addressed elsewhere.

 

Two address my second point, which is already largely self explanatory, people are far less likely to put in the effort and time to watch the forums and await feedback or to play a severely neutered role

Exclusionary Rule: This does not contribute to this suggestion and cannot be used against the suggestion because it is not what we're talking about."

 

Again, specifically addressing the downside of using a whitelist based system. Whitelists require time and effort, and it doesn't require much searching around to find people in discord or in ooc abstaining from making whitelists because it requires a time commitment.

 

As far as the last point is concerned, security is not more important than the other departments oocly because defeating antags is not an objectively required event. The engine remaining powered, for example, is objectively necessary for the smooth operation of the station, mining gathering materials for research and development is an integral part of an entire department. Defeating the antagonists is not, it is simply one of many outcomes possible when confronted with an antagonist, and so while important for the IC running of the station, the antagonists being handled less effectively is not detrimental to the station on an OOC level unless specifically intended by the antagonists.

You're right! The operation of the station is objectively necessary, however what department ensures that the operation is ongoing smooth as you say? What department protects the operations? Whose responsibility is to ensure that the station's crew and property are safe? The answer is in the OOC Rules. You probably know OOC rules, right?

 

I am not saying that security is unnecessary, but it is not important enough to require it's own vetting standards.

 

In conclusion, none of the presented solutions to the issue of occasionally disappointing security officers are effective or necessary and are actively detrimental to the culture of the server, the effectiveness of the security department as a whole, and only serve to shut down antagonists and perpetuate a sense of elitism throughout the department. I do not think it is reasonable to have a person play 3 rounds as a cadet, a total of at least six hours in a neutered and unimportant role, to play a role in a game which they may very well thoroughly understand only to have to learn how to properly apply regulations after they have been granted access by the hard limit or have been allowed into the hivemind by their peers. This suggestion is one that I cannot more fervently disagree with on a fundamental basis, that being that SS13 is a game made to have fun, and that this whitelist only serves to prevent people from enjoying it.

And three rounds is too much?

As far as I can summarize, you are basing your arguments on the insufficient time that many people does not have a lot of time to enjoy this game. Everyone has enough time in their week to play at least 3 rounds. There's really no harm and only takes small effort to play as a security cadet. Your second argument of circlejerkers with applications has been repetitively, completely rebutted by Exclusionary Rule. This tells me that you did not completely read and understood the suggestion's message and drawing conclusions. If there were whitelist application for security, I will indeed oppose it. As said, this only takes 5-7 hours of your life to play as a cadet. It won't kill you and only requires small horsepower.

 

As I said up above, yes, the 3 rounds as a cadet is the lesser of two evils, but cadet isn't a good role for learning security in the first place beyond the absolute basics of Aurora.

[Shrektastic]

If we're going to go this route, why not just white list everything. Than only the cool kids can play, I mean fuck anyone who isn't as elite as me right?.

Joking aside I really hate this idea. White listing itself is flawed, people are more likely to accept those they like. You can have the perfect character application, but if everyone hate's you they'll be prone to reject you. Seriously who would you rather pick?, your friend with a application, or someone you don't even know with a application. This is not a Exclusionary Rule, if it is, than you're refusing to provide any evidence as to why I'm wrong.

[Exia]

If we're talking about a straight-up security whitelist that you need to apply for on the forums here, it's a -2 from me. However, if it is a playtime thing, I'm okay with that, although this comes with inherent issues.

Funnelling all the newer players into security cadet may sound fine and dandy, but that makes getting the playtime necessary painfully slow. There are limited security cadet slots, and if the server is at high pop, it would be nay impossible to get the cadet role just because so many others are vying for it. You'll also have players who can already play security, but would rather play cadet because it is part of their character. This adds additional bloat and also greatly deters anyone from having a cadet character and also makes it such that the security cadet is the 'noob' role of security. I'm not disputing that it is a role that allows one to easily learn how security functions, but making it a necessity to play cadet just gives the idea that all cadets are newbies and don't know how to do anything whatsoever, which I believe shouldn't be a thing.

Another thing is that, while I acknowledge security is very easy to abuse, there isn't much reason, in my mind to timelock this if we aren't going to timelock other, more 'dangerous' departments. Inexperienced engineers can literally end a round because they fail to set up the SM correctly, medical doctors and surgeons not using our wiki can very easily kill several characters, taking them out of the round at worst, and inconveniencing them at best. The problem we're trying to fight here is incompetence, and it feels almost insignificant when compared to the departments just stated.

[Arrow768]

A security whitelist, that you need to apply for on the forums is a definitive no.

We have had this discussion many times before and it has always been dismissed.

However, a playtime requirement (as cadet) would be something that is possible and could be pursued.

[mention]LordBalkara[/mention] if you would like this being talked about, then I suggest you update the title / main post accordingly (to avoid confusion)

[LordBalkara]

@LordBalkara if you would like this being talked about, then I suggest you update the title / main post accordingly (to avoid confusion)

Done

[AmoryBlaine]

Longer playtime requirement I'm 100% for. Whitelist less so.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

Having a mechanical restriction that requires you to have 2 weeks of cadetship before being an officer is already pretty heavyhanded. I know personally that if I were just playing on Aurora I probably would not bother. But it is a far better alternative to every other suggestion presented. That is to say, it is the least worst of the bunch, but it is still pretty bad. Just ahelp them. There is a consistent problem where people just "tsk tsk" when experiencing bad security play and sending PM's to people going on about the horror of it all, but there are rarely any ahelps. When you see player complaints about bad security play more often than not the admins respond in all caps "WHY DID YOU NOT AHELP THIS WE WOULD HAVE HANDLED IT RIGHT THEN AND THERE"

[Faris]

Everyone is required to demonstrate a certain level of competency when playing. If a Warden doesn't know how security work, we'll deal with it like a Surgeon that doesn't know surgery. Shoot us an ahelp, we'll deal with it.

There's this culture of "I don't snitch" that I find to be misplaced. People should ahelp rule violations and issues to the round. There's only so much we can catch or do proactively. A staff member being on doesn't mean they're all on and watching everything that's happening.

Revoking dismissal for the time being.

[LordBalkara]

Everyone is required to demonstrate a certain level of competency when playing. If a Warden doesn't know how security work, we'll deal with it like a Surgeon that doesn't know surgery. Shoot us an ahelp, we'll deal with it.

Thing is, I've often ahelped something only to be ignored, because there wasn't many staff on, and they were occupied with something else.

Sometimes they'll even just ask that I deal with it ICly since, after all, incompetence is often more of an IC issue than an OOC one.

But dealing with something like that ICly is best done with an IAA, or a Captain, or a HoS, which aren't always on, and that they not be too busy to deal with it.

I could try making an Incident Report later, but often the people who would be gotten after have long since left, or moved on to other things.

We already have a minimum server age to play security, so I vote for dismissal. -1

There's a difference between something that allows someone to log on once, never log on again for a week, and then log on and immediately go Warden. And something that requires you play 3 rounds of Cadet before you play any other Security role. Even the wiki page for Security Officer says that you should have served a cadetship (Or have 2+ years in some other law inforcement).

Having a mechanical restriction that requires you to have 2 weeks of cadetship before being an officer is already pretty heavyhanded.

Its not 2 weeks. Its just playing 3 rounds of a less intense Security Role so you can learn the ropes before you decide its reasonable to ask someone to stop and then taser them when they don't, simply because you've played sec before on other servers, and that was fine there.

Hell, I'm not even going to die on the hill of 3 rounds. Even if it was just 1 round. I just want more of an obstacle to people who would otherwise pop in as any role they like because a week ago they logged in once, got bored, and logged out to play somewhere else.

I use that example of logging out and logging back in because its something I myself did when I was still new, and it annoyed everyone around me.

If I'd had to play Cadet before hopping in an integral role, I might've decided to keep playing Cadet, and thus learn how Security actually works, before playing Warden and getting yelled at by Rifler because I didn't know I was meant to do an inventory.

[Faris]

[mention]LordBalkara[/mention] completely my fault. I spoke with Arrow and we've got a proposal going. Will keep you up to date. Revoking my dismissal for the time being.