+- Goonstation Forums (https://forum.ss13.co)
+-- Forum: Discussion (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Ideas & Suggestions (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Insecurity Officers (/showthread.php?tid=8673)
RE: Insecurity Officers - atamusvaleo - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 02:41 AM)Sundance Wrote: I like Frank Steins approach of the auto-population and I would not be too against it from that perspective but I must raise the query:
What do you want from security?
Is it just good enough having a shit officer? Is that as good as existance?
I'm getting conflicting information from this thead and the other thread that was necro'd, that you want a more "strict" security that follows "laws" and then this thread where any oaf will do once he's in uniform.
Concise Response
I would like to see Security autopopulated to ensure there is at least one person on station whose actual job is catching criminals. Whether or not they are efficient at that job is on them at that point and I won't tell anyone how to play the role; however, if they chose to act as a "proper" officer having a consistent set of laws and punishments to base their sentencing on would go a long way.
Elaborating
So often, I'll arrest people and brig them for whatever crime and I'll get longwinded complaints about how there's no law against that, how can you punish me, why, why, why!? Having that set of space laws to refer to would be quite the boon. Especially when I can literally throw the book at them.
As of now the most one can do is slap a 5 minute brig sentencing or beat someone to near death: the latter of which usually causes the other player to form a vendetta against you. If someone is continually griefing but not truly being antagonistic, a longer brig sentence is a nice way of punishing them without having to go through the mess of delimbing/whatever other methods someone is going to inevitably bring up.
Question to Derail Current Discussion
Should security really be cutting people's limbs off anyway?
(05-16-2017, 03:00 AM)misto Wrote: security is kind of like the ai, a mildly unpleasant position. much as ppl would complain at the ai for being a "supercop", its also easy for security boys to get unpopular and in turn make their play experience unfun.
what if roundstart security officers had their identities scrubbed and replaced with numbered callsigns like nukeops are? then you can be more of an asshole cop and youd only get blowback if you really stepped out of line and got the admins on your ass
I would be opposed to it mainly for the reason that if someone is typically a shit sec I would like the heads up of seeing their name and knowing, "oh, no here comes Johnny Mcbuttnugget to ruin my day again."
Also, I've had days where I'm playing only Security and antags started fearing me to the point that I became their first target each round so they could get me out of the way. Good times. I wish I could always be that robust.
RE: Insecurity Officers - Ed Venture - 05-16-2017
It's common sense on what is a crime and what is not a crime. If you arrest someone and they keep complaining as you process them, tell them to adminhelp you and ignore them. You really have nothing to prove to criminals. Also we do already have guidelines and space law pages on the wiki. But they are guidelines on how to play the role. Not set in stone rules. I like security because I'm free to serve out Justice in harsh but fair ways if I am within the rules that we all have to follow. Making space law the rules for the role would take a huge chunk of what fun is left in Security.
Space law's wiki page.
Space Law
Thread about Space Law and Admins being lenient towards Security Officers.
Security Update
EDIT: Please note that MollyMillions was a Admin at the making of that thread.
RE: Insecurity Officers - amaranthineApocalypse - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 10:48 AM)Ed Venture Wrote: EDIT: Please note that MollyMillions was a Admin at the making of that thread.
And technically still is iirc, they're just called Souricelle now
RE: Insecurity Officers - Vitatroll - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 02:41 AM)Sundance Wrote: What do you want from security?
Is it just good enough having a shit officer? Is that as good as existance?
I'm getting conflicting information from this thead and the other thread that was necro'd, that you want a more "strict" security that follows "laws" and then this thread where any oaf will do once he's in uniform.
On my end, I'd like concrete laws that sec could follow. Right now there's a set of unwritten rules that serve as a barrier for new sec players. I also think sec shouldn't need permission to execute or to extended brig times passed 5 minutes for truly heinous crimes. Maybe this would change if we actually had sec teams again, but for now antags have every advantage.
You could still let that gimmick-murderer off lightly. You could still ignore botany and their flagrant disregard for weed law. You could still ignore your job; just like every other non-silicon. I'd just like to give secoffs more agency to operate as they will.
RE: Insecurity Officers - Ed Venture - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 02:41 AM)Sundance Wrote: What do you want from security?
Is it just good enough having a shit officer? Is that as good as existance?
I'm getting conflicting information from this thead and the other thread that was necro'd, that you want a more "strict" security that follows "laws" and then this thread where any oaf will do once he's in uniform.
I want more people playing the role. I'm taking a long break from Security because I am sick of playing the role by myself 90% of the time and trying to manage 30 players at one time. It's too much and it's not really worth it anymore. After more then three years of playing the role almost nonstop it stopped being fun and just became busywork where everyone you talk to is going to make your round awful.
I'd like more tools and leeway on being lethal. I really don't like following the "three chances" guideline that I've been asked to follow by admins. It's sometimes pretty clear when someone is going to mess with Security all round to no end and I got to waste time sometimes up to 30 minutes given them all the chances in the world before I think it's safe to take them out of the round. While dealing with said assholes so much stuff could've happen to the station and since I will most likely be the only Security officer that wasted time caused players to die when I could have saved them and damage to the station I may have been able to prevent.
Now on the topic of not killing antags that killed but locking them up instead.
Why would you just lock them up? A antag that has killed and you caught them I feel they should be killed. For punishment for being caught and for killing others. Antags should always be punished severely for getting caught. I only make a exception if I find a antag in the first five minutes when they have not even had a chance to do anything yet, I'll leave them be and wait for them to commit a crime before taking action (I mean it's a game after all and Antag rounds are rare so I think they should get the chance to do something). You are within the rules for doing so and I can tell you from experience a Murderous Antag will always kill again if given the chance.
RE: Insecurity Officers - Frank_Stein - 05-16-2017
Honestly, I'd like a book in game that I can pull up. Gives you something concrete to point to when you're arguing with someone about how what they're doing is something you shouldn't arrest them for.
Which doesn't mean you should arrest people for every incident you see, necessarily. But if you do want to nab someone, they can't argue against what's in the book.
Ed, sometimes I think you think that the antagonists are actual bad people that need to be punished and not just other people playing the game and doing what they are supposed to be doing as an antagonist.
If you can clone or borg their victims, a brigging is a proportional response, since both players are going to have to wait until they can jump back in. Taking out the antagonist completely leaves you with a boring round, for yourself as Security, and for everyone else who no longer has a challenge they have to overcome
RE: Insecurity Officers - Ed Venture - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 11:42 AM)Frank_Stein Wrote: Honestly, I'd like a book in game that I can pull up. Gives you something concrete to point to when you're arguing with someone about how what they're doing is something you shouldn't arrest them for.
Which doesn't mean you should arrest people for every incident you see, necessarily. But if you do want to nab someone, they can't argue against what's in the book.
I believe the space law book is already in the game. I've seen people in this thread or the "What do other stations have that we don't" thread say it was in the game just not up to date with the wiki version of Space Law. As long as they stay guidelines and not rules for the role then I am fine with it. Space law was only added to help new security players get some sort of idea of how they should get acquitted with the role.
RE: Insecurity Officers - amaranthineApocalypse - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 11:45 AM)Ed Venture Wrote:(05-16-2017, 11:42 AM)Frank_Stein Wrote: Honestly, I'd like a book in game that I can pull up. Gives you something concrete to point to when you're arguing with someone about how what they're doing is something you shouldn't arrest them for.
Which doesn't mean you should arrest people for every incident you see, necessarily. But if you do want to nab someone, they can't argue against what's in the book.
I believe the space law book is already in the game. I've seen people in this thread or the "What do other stations have that we don't" thread say it was in the game just not up to date with the wiki version of Space Law. As long as they stay guidelines and not rules for the role then I am fine with it. Space law was only added to help new security players get some sort of idea of how they should get acquitted with the role.
There's one on LLJK1, at the very least
RE: Insecurity Officers - Frank_Stein - 05-16-2017
I also wouldn't mind a section of the law going over prisoners rights that let's them know what they should expect treatment wise from security. Things like they are entitled to a radio, shoes, clothes, and bag of some kind and will receive their possessions again on release barring what they shouldn't have or is dangerous to let them keep.
And more importantly, actions they shouldn't do like attempting escape that void those rights.
The code of conduct Sec should follow should be dependent on the conduct of the suspect, so that an officer isn't working with their hands behind their back
RE: Insecurity Officers - Vitatroll - 05-16-2017
Wasn't removing radios once against server rules? Barring extenuating circumstances, of course, like spam-grief. Considering how social-based this game is, I consider it a punishment akin to execution. I rarely ever see it, and it's usually for good reason or summarily rectified, thank goodness.
Of course that doesn't stop jackasses from uploading 'You can't communicate with the crew' laws. Probably the shittiest laws ever. Gladly, they're usually fixed by non-crewmembers or some other loophole, but damn.
RE: Insecurity Officers - Ed Venture - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 01:06 PM)Vitatroll Wrote: Wasn't removing radios once against server rules?
No idea about that but there are only two reasons for why I would remove headset/radios from people.
1. They are a antag. Don't really need to explain why it's not bad to do this to a antag. They are a antag.
2.The person I am trying to brig is guilty of a crime and they constantly call for help by telling lies that can and have in past lead to a few people running into Security and "saving" the person from the officers. So if they are trying to start a riot I take their headset away. They get it back once they are released.
RE: Insecurity Officers - Technature - 05-16-2017
If there's a law book on Server 2, I would appreciate if it was easier to find.
I wanna throw it at crimers.
RE: Insecurity Officers - babayetu83 - 05-16-2017
(05-16-2017, 02:41 AM)Sundance Wrote: I like Frank Steins approach of the auto-population and I would not be too against it from that perspective but I must raise the query:
What do you want from security?
Is it just good enough having a shit officer? Is that as good as existance?
I'm getting conflicting information from this thead and the other thread that was necro'd, that you want a more "strict" security that follows "laws" and then this thread where any oaf will do once he's in uniform.
i think sec would be more fun if it had as much responsibility as it did years ago or as much as the captain or head of personnel do
RE: Insecurity Officers - Sundance - 05-17-2017
So from the previous posts I get the following:
- Autopop security, 0 sec required with a pop under 10, but cap loses his right to be traitor. 10-20 = 1 security officer. 20-30 = 2 security officers. Should just stop there IMO
- Space Law on LLJK 2 to reference (with ability to deviate if possible) so prisoners can be quit being salty shits when given an appropriate sentence.
- Ability to give a higher time on a jail sentence. Sometimes 5 minutes isn't exactly enough for crime commited. Maybe boost up to 10 minutes?
- More punishments in general, preferably not grody torture.
- Space law giving the prisoners some rights (with certain clauses of course). This would give way to interesting scenarios.
RE: Insecurity Officers - Frank_Stein - 05-17-2017
Another idea regarding the law book and timers:
Have the infractions be listed as minor, major, and severe, and give then give those categories a suggested brig time
Minor=10 seconds
Major=30 Seconds
Severe= 1 minute
Then add a thing on the timer where you list how many of each of those they broke, and it generates a time for you.
Again, all a suggestion that the officer doesn't have to follow exactly, but they can if they don't feel like having to make a judgement call