+- Goonstation Forums (https://forum.ss13.co)
+-- Forum: Discussion (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://forum.ss13.co/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS (/showthread.php?tid=4259)
The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Nitrous - 02-24-2015
Effortpost alert or something, ill do some TL;DR in the bottom or whatever, go read that if you're one of those people who don't want to read some a bunch of words written by a guy on the internet.
Today i played a round of SS13 in which i as the HoS took the decision to shoot, and kill 3 crewmembers who had all opened fire towards me ( actually one of them tried killing me with a fire-extinguisher cloak combo, but whatever) This ended up with quite a few complaints in deadchat, and resulted in Marquesas having to mute it (by the way I'd love to see the logs of it, but that's besides the point). I thought i'd write this post in order to clarify my personal position on this whole subject and give you some insight in as to why i choose to do things this way.
I remember goofing around as a traitor back in 2012, and it was some of the most fun i'd ever had. You see, back then every HoS was either corrupt as hell, or would snap your neck in a heartbeat, or most likely, both. This created a certain tension, not knowing if the HoS was secretly spying on you through the walls with his trusty Thermal Goggles, while you were mercilessly beating up poor Philip Farmer with that fire extinguisher you just found sitting on top of the corpse of another crewmember. You were genuinly afraid of them, you never knew what they'd to do you if you got caught, and so because i knew that my beaten up corpse would be flying out the airlock nearest to the brig, if i did not take care not to be found, i made SURE not to be found. I made sure to take every necessary step to make sure the HoS would not find me, i cut AI cameras, i welded doors, and i picked targets in places i knew i would be out of sight from the hallways. I played smarter.
Nowadays i don't even bother picking up a tool belt and fill up with the proper tools anymore, it's simply not worth it. I know that if i'm gonna be caught, the worst thing that'll ever actually happen to me will be a stern talk, two minutes in the brig, and the occasional fart in the head. The average Head of Security players these days aren't known for their robustness, their prying eye, their combat tactics nor for their willingness to get rid of anyone who stands in their way.
While i for the longest time enjoyed, and employed in my own play, the 'bubs* School of Thought' in HoS'ing in which you're expected to be as nice as possible at all times, goof around much more than you should all while giving traitors the ol' ~you tried~ pat on the back when caught with a .358 revolver halfway hanging out of their backpack. I at some point realized how boring this actually made traitor rounds for me. Gone was the excitement of having pulled off a good traitor gimmick, because at no point do you ever feel threatened by the security crew, because you know if shit hits the fan, you can always just sweettalk the HoS to let you go and bam, you've got yourself a free get out of jail card.
*i'm not trying to be mean to bubs or anything, he was simply one of the first to really do this. He's also a really great guy and more stuff should be named after him. (Australia, for example)
This is why i think having strict (but fair) HoS' players creates better rounds overall. It means that traitors have to think long and hard about how to realize their grand schemes, since they'll know that if they screw up, they won't just be given a new chance to start all over again. This means that traitors have to work quick, gathering supplies while also having to cover their tracks, making sure not to leave corpses riddled with your own fingerprints while also forgetting to was their victims blood off their clothes. This is what creates a great traitor round for me, knowing that at any point you could have been caught and having your traitor-position wasted, but instead you outsmarted your competition and as a result, prevailed. This is how it should be if you ask me.
The most prevalent argument seems to be the whole idea of 'fun'
Traitors should have fun, and when they have fun, they also end up creating more fun for the crew, and i totally agree!
Though where i definitely disagree with a lot of other players is on which parameters fun is calculated. Most people would say that being not dead, equals more fun, which isn't really very compatible with my HoS playstyle.
However i heavily treasure the idea of Risk-Reward - The more risk is involved, the bigger the reward, which in turn equals more fun. I'd much rather spend half a round pulling off this horribly complicated, massively time-consuming traitor gimmick, knowing that at any point the entire security team could barge in my lair, and destroy everything i worked on (including my glorious pink hair). This constant sense of danger, and pumping of adrenaline is what makes traitor rounds memorable and fun. However if i know that no one is gonna care that I'm building this great doomsday-machine, then all it'll do is give me 30 minutes of tedious walking-around fetching stuff followed by 30 seconds of fun when the 30x30 explosion goes off.
TL;DR: People think I'm a bad HoS for killing traitors who shoot at me, i think otherwise. Also whole paragraphs filled with Pathos, cool!
Anyway i'd very much like to discuss the different schools of thought on this subject, why do you other HoS'es/Security-Officer-Aficionados think its wrong to shoot traitors. And also, for the record; this isn't some post telling everyone to kill every traitor ever for doing anything at all (like in 2012) but i do think that players and Head of Security folks have gotten this impression that the HoS HAS to play like a gentleman who mustn't touch their egun at all, or else they'll have broken some unwritten rule. Just remember that it's a choice to be a nice HoS, and that's absolutely fine to do, but it is totally also within a his right to kill you if you decide to shoot at him.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Ed Venture - 02-24-2015
My only issue with you that round was I saved you from being shot down and was in the process of arresting the person who tried to kill. Which you then get up and laser him to death causing him to explode. When I confronted you on this saying along the lines that it's no fun for everyone if you kill traitors this early in the round and that I had it handle by arresting him. Now the man was already cuffed and stunned so he was not a threat to any of us and even if he did have a Freedom implant I have enough of a brain to keep stunning a traitor to the brig. Your logic to outright kill the person came off to me as "Arresting traitors is boring just outright kill them". From other players to the wiki itself it/they say it's best to use the right amount of force that is needed and if you can take someone in a non lethal way then do it. The other two antags you killed I saw no issue with that was in self- defense. But from my point of view you seem way to trigger happy and ready to kill someone at any moment. I don't think security should kill a cuffed person even if they tried to kill you. I do apologize for calling you a try hard but the way you defended yourself really came off like you were a fun hating nerd.
In short, you killed a traitor who was already taken care of and arrested. Which is not shitty at all but there was hardly any reason to kill him in cold blood.
I want to quote one of the most important guidelines from the wiki when it comes to being a security officer.
Quote:Detain the suspect with minimum force.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - DyssalC - 02-24-2015
This discussion has existed before, but again me thoughts: You're a HoS, you're meant to be a level more serious than other sec. A lazy traitor who flaunts their traitorness or doesn't cover their tracks and doesn't expect to get busted is a bad traitor. A traitor who gets mad when you kill them when they try to kill you is just mad their fun is over, but thems the breaks. They gambled and lost.
If the situation happened exactly like you said it, they opened fire, you shot to kill, they died, then that's a perfectly normal encounter with nothing really wrong there.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Marquesas - 02-24-2015
Security is not a pin cushion. I am more than fine with the HoS Sham Poo was that round and with the contents of this post.
I'd like to reiterate what I said in deadchat: I expect you not to complain if you try to take on the HoS and get killed in the process.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Ed Venture - 02-24-2015
Marquesas Wrote:Security is not a pin cushion. I am more than fine with the HoS Sham Poo was that round and with the contents of this post.
I'd like to reiterate what I said in deadchat: I expect you not to complain if you try to take on the HoS and get killed in the process.
I just want to go on record and say I agree with you. I just disagree with his methods. But just like how admins enforce the rules in their own ways the same can be said with how each HOS run security.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Sundance - 02-24-2015
Just for reference, I've been playing HoS roughly the same amount of time as you have Sham Poo (check the applications!). We are ancient in our ways.
I feel like, really, security back on Mushroom was at its best in terms of control, but also at its worst in terms of actual security etiquette .
The whole movement towards "be friendly, be fun" was entirely because when traitors when caught by security would straight up just suicide because they knew they'd be put that black box of no fun known as solitary, or thrown out of the nearest airlock as explained in your post. Trials were not heard of, and discount dan was used to full effect.
There was (and still is) a "valid" mindset, where once an antagonist was known, it was fair game. That's all fine and dandy if you're a civilian. But you're not a civilian. You're not just security either, you're the HoS. Killing a downed player is not a sign of robustness. Arresting a player and setting up a scheme that will dampen any plan B or C that player is in my eyes, robust. It means that you're one step ahead. It means you've used your brains. And you did it without sinking to the traitors level.
The whole thing about HoS is balance. In this instance, I would of not murdered the traitor as while yes, it is "valid" to kill them, I would've gotten a whole lot more pleasure out of arresting them, taking their shit and watching them squirm. If it was early in the round, hell I may even let them buy the gun back. On the other hand, there was an earlier round there where Grace Schiff was NI3 bombing the station, and I shot her to death on sight and spaced her. I wasn't going to give her a chance because she didn't deserve one.
This where our mindset seems to diverge. Are traitors allowed to be given a second chance? In my books, the answer is yes.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Nitrous - 02-24-2015
Ed Venture Wrote:My only issue with you that round was I saved you from being shot down and was in the process of arresting the person who tried to kill. Which you then get up and laser him to death causing him to explode. When I confronted you on this saying along the lines that it's no fun for everyone if you kill traitors this early in the round and that I had it handle by arresting him. Now the man was already cuffed and stunned so he was not a threat to any of us and even if he did have a Freedom implant I have enough of a brain to keep stunning a traitor to the brig. Your logic to outright kill the person came off to me as "Arresting traitors is boring just outright kill them". From other players to the wiki itself it/they say it's best to use the right amount of force that is needed and if you can take someone in a non lethal way then do it. The other two antags you killed I saw no issue with that was in self- defense. But from my point of view you seem way to trigger happy and ready to kill someone at any moment. I don't think security should kill a cuffed person even if they tried to kill you. I do apologize for calling you a try hard but the way you defended yourself really came off like you were a fun hating nerd.Honestly I don't really think the circumstances of this round are very important, it's simply what prompted me to write this and this whole thing is honestly part of a much larger problem that exists in the perception of how a HoS should operate.
In short, you killed a traitor who was already taken care of and arrested. Which is not shitty at all but there was hardly any reason to kill him in cold blood.
I want to quote one of the most important guidelines from the wiki when it comes to being a security officer.
Quote:Detain the suspect with minimum force.
My reasoning behind killing the first dude was quite simple. The whole thing started with him running down the hallway, riot shotgun out (which i had given out to the crew to show how much faith i had in them.), he instantly runs up next to me and shoots me once (or twixe, i forgot) times, runs out of my line of sight, where you shoot him with your taser, after which he just slidesback into my line of sight. Now i was fairly pissed not only about the bleeding damage, the blatant breach of trust, shooting me with a weapon i had given him, but that he'd also ruined my Head of Security jumpsuit by getting blood all over it.
This combined with my previous experience (read: 3 years of security tomfoolery) that has taught me that jailing traitors who are running around with guns in the hallway shooting around wildly, rarely ends well. And while he MAY not have had a freedom implant, a derringer hidden in his top hat, a secret cloaking, mindslaved accomplice just waiting to break him out, or even a timed bomb hidden in his backpack you just never know.I don't doubt that aren't a bad security officer nor do i think you're unrobust, but i generally don't trust officers to actually make any competent decisions. ever. Then there is of course also the matter of transportation. Hauling a traitor from just north of the escape wing, all the way to security has plenty of obstacles that could easily knock him out of your hold and let him escape. All this combined made me reach the conclusion that it would be a trillion times easier to make sure none of my officers (or tbh, most importantly, me) die, because something went wrong trying to arrest him.
Also note: the guidelines for Security officers are completely irrelevant when it comes to the Head of Security. He is supposed to be making split-second decisions, and he is trusted to know when killing someone is appropriate. I made such a decision, and concluded that it wasn't a good situation for arresting the dude.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Ed Venture - 02-24-2015
Sundance Wrote:There was (and still is) a "valid" mindset, where once an antagonist was known, it was fair game. That's all fine and dandy if you're a civilian. But you're not a civilian. You're not just security either, you're the HoS. Killing a downed player is not a sign of robustness. Arresting a player and setting up a scheme that will dampen any plan B or C that player is in my eyes, robust. It means that you're one step ahead. It means you've used your brains. And you did it without sinking to the traitors level.
The whole thing about HoS is balance. In this instance, I would of not murdered the traitor as while yes, it is "valid" to kill them, I would've gotten a whole lot more pleasure out of arresting them, taking their shit and watching them squirm.
I could not have said it better myself.
Quote:but i generally don't trust officers to actually make any competent decisions. ever.
This is a extremely bad habit that I use to have, that ended up backfire in my face in which someone (the person who said this is a HOS now as well) told me I need to try and trust my officers and assume right from the get go that they are shit. You need to learn to trust that your officers can help you and not think they are a nuisance, that part of your attitude needs to change.
Quote:All this combined made me reach the conclusion that it would be a trillion times easier to make sure none of my officers
Just because something seems easier does not make it the right course of action.
Quote:the guidelines for Security officers are completely irrelevant when it comes to the Head of Security.
I highly disagree in order to improve we need to be able to remember the fundamentals and not be a gun-ho security officer with shotguns.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - BaneOfGiygas - 02-24-2015
I might not have much authorization to talk, but as I see it, murder is as murder does. If someone has depopulated a good portion of the station, they need to go, no question about it. The more murderous the traitor and the longer they've been a threat to the station, the more plausible execuion ends up becoming.
Personally, on the off chance that I nab a traitor who hasn't done anything particularly heinous, the first action is to brig them and take all of their traitor gear. Sometimes I demote them or place other restrictions that let them continue play but make it much more difficult to do traitory things. Repeat offenses are met with much harsher punishment. Parole is a very underused tactic, and it makes for a lot of potentially interesting scenarios.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Nitrous - 02-24-2015
Sundance Wrote:Just for reference, I've been playing HoS roughly the same amount of time as you have Sham Poo (check the applications!). We are ancient in our ways.I think we were in the same batch of accepted applications actually!
Sundance Wrote:I feel like, really, security back on Mushroom was at its best in terms of control, but also at its worst in terms of actual security etiquette .I agree. People were definitely getting tired of getting chucked out the airlock all the time, which is what caused the hugbox-security we've got today. But the thing is, after people were done being grumpy at the HoS for not showing mercy, they learned to either to stop messing with security at all, or at least making sure that security couldn't catch them. And this was what made traitor rounds so interesting for me back then.
The whole movement towards "be friendly, be fun" was entirely because when traitors when caught by security would straight up just suicide because they knew they'd be put that black box of no fun known as solitary, or thrown out of the nearest airlock as explained in your post. Trials were not heard of, and discount dan was used to full effect.
Sundance Wrote:There was (and still is) a "valid" mindset, where once an antagonist was known, it was fair game. That's all fine and dandy if you're a civilian. But you're not a civilian. You're not just security either, you're the HoS. Killing a downed player is not a sign of robustness. Arresting a player and setting up a scheme that will dampen any plan B or C that player is in my eyes, robust. It means that you're one step ahead. It means you've used your brains. And you did it without sinking to the traitors level.I'm not saying that a HoS should go out of his way to kill people ALL the time, of course not! My point was that people have a very unhealthy expectation of a HoS player to always give out light punishments for their crimes, which is something i used to do for the longest time. But i've found myself coming to the conclusion that it just serves to make the rounds less fun for everyone involved. It decreases tension and it doesn't give traitors any incentive to not be caught.
Sundance Wrote:The whole thing about HoS is balance. In this instance, I would of not murdered the traitor as while yes, it is "valid" to kill them, I would've gotten a whole lot more pleasure out of arresting them, taking their shit and watching them squirm. If it was early in the round, hell I may even let them buy the gun back.i mostly explained this in the reply above, so i wont really say anything to this one.
Sundance Wrote:This where our mindset seems to diverge. Are traitors allowed to be given a second chance? In my books, the answer is yes.And you are of course allowed to have this opinion, and it's totally your prerogative to give traitors however many chances they deserve, and it's not like i employ a 1-strike-you're-out policy, in every possible situation.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Nitrous - 02-24-2015
Once again I'd rather this thread not be about what actually happened during that round, as i still perceive this as a much larger problem in the userbase in general.
Ed Venture Wrote:This is a extremely bad habit that I use to have, that ended up backfire in my face in which someone (the person who said this is a HOS now as well) told me I need to try and trust my officers and assume right from the get go that they are shit. You need to learn to trust that your officers can help you and not think they are a nuisance, that part of your attitude needs to change.The way i see it, it's the HoS' job to keep an eye out for how security act towards the crew. If every Security Officer had a complete grasp of all the rules, were all robust enough to a point where they know how to actually hit someone with a baton without stunning themselves and that they knew all the nuances of when to enforce a rule, and when not to, we wouldn't need to have a HoS to begin with. It's my job doubting their every decision, which means you have to take try and take an unbiased look at them, naturally the easiest way to do this is just to assume they are all equally shit.
Ed Venture Wrote:Just because something seems easier does not make it the right course of action.Sure, but you try making a bunch of split-second decisions and see if you get them all right.
Ed Venture Wrote:I highly disagree in order to improve we need to be able to remember the fundamentals and not be a gun-ho security officer with shotguns.Technically, he had the shotgun. And sure a HoS still needs to know how to use a flash properly, nor should he be a gun-ho security officer, and i think we can both agree that's not how i played in that round. I made a decision that it was too risky to actually get him to security without any mishaps happen, and as a result dealt with the problem on the spot. I achieved my goals of not dying. You are more than free to disagree with the decision i made on the spot, but i personally don't think it was the wrong one i chose.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Ed Venture - 02-24-2015
Quote:The way i see it, it's the HoS' job to keep an eye out for how security act towards the crew. If every Security Officer had a complete grasp of all the rules, were all robust enough to a point where they know how to actually hit someone with a baton without stunning themselves and that they knew all the nuances of when to enforce a rule, and when not to, we wouldn't need to have a HoS to begin with. It's my job doubting their every decision, which means you have to take try and take an unbiased look at them, naturally the easiest way to do this is just to assume they are all equally shit.
It is. But the way you make it sound is that you rather not work with them at all and be a one man army. The point of a HOS in my eyes is making sure your officers are not shit while teaching them the rope on how to be a good officer.
Quote:Sure, but you try making a bunch of split-second decisions and see if you get them all right.
I have many times, though none of them had me executing a handcuffed man. Depending on the threat level of course I take the necessary action and in this case the suspect was disarmed and cuffed, there was no threat.
My opinion of you is this. Your too rash, you don't see willing or able to use teamwork with your officer since you can't bring yourself to trust them, You yourself pretty much said this yourself. "Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups". Your attitude needs to change above all else cause you have a rotten view on things.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Nitrous - 02-24-2015
So this has turned into a discussion about the round in question, instead of the behavior of the crew, traitors and other HoS's in regards to treatment of caught traitors, which i explicitly stated i didn't want this to turn in to. I've explained my actions in that round, and if you don't agree that's once again, your prerogative. If this is really something you'd like to discuss further i'd prefer to do it either in another thread or a PM on the #goonstation IRC. Honestly the discussion is getting derailed by repeating the same points over and over.
Quote:My opinion of you is this. Your too rash, you don't see willing or able to use teamwork with your officer since you can't bring yourself to trust them.I dunno i personally think i was fairly level-headed considering the circumstances. Now i have zero clue where you get my lack of ability to work with officers, i simply stated that It's the HoS' job to be skeptical about the officers below you. That doesn't mean i don't actually work with them.
Quote:I take the necessary action and in this case the suspect was disarmed and cuffed, there was no threatI made an assessment and i found it to be a threat, maybe not while you were transporting him, but shit could definitely have happened in security.
Quote:You yourself pretty much said this yourself. "Assumptions are the mother of all fuck ups"uhh no I have never said that. I even made a bunch of assumptions about the circumstances writing the first reply to you.
Quote:Your attitude needs to change above all else cause you have a rotten view on things.I disagree.
Anyway, seriously. I'm actually gonna ask admins to delete replies that are off-topic from now on this is getting ridiculous. Feel free to take discussion of the round/other stuff either to a new thread or PM me about it and i'll happily reply
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - Conor12 - 02-24-2015
Seems like security has went from one extreme to another.
I approve of how Nitrous plays HoS personally. Strict but fair to the best of his abilities.
Traitors (and criminals) should probably always be aware of security, security should make an effort to arrest them.
Kill the attitude that doing your job and killing the worst of traitors is a bad thing.
Re: The Relationship Between Traitors and the HoS - BaneOfGiygas - 02-24-2015
Reciprocity is, if you ask of me my humble opinion, the key to effective security. You should be as harsh with your punishments as the crimes being perpetrated. Silent massacres should be met with a no-nonsense manhunt, but the same response is inappropriate if you get a traitor that's just throwing moustache grenades everywhere. Figuring out where to draw the line as far as how harmful traitor action can be is difficult, however, and different security members draw their line at different places.