Chain of Command: Captain or HoS

[UrsulaMejor]

I've just gotten into my umpteenth argument on this subject and i think it's time I stop having this argument in private and lay it all out there for others to vote on.

If the Captain gives an order that annoying, but is non-traitorous, such as "make a ridiculous amount of pizeel walls in the hallway", does the Head of Security have the authority to arrest the Captain and the people working for him?

If the Captain declares weed legal, does the Head of Security have the authority to arrest pot smokers because the "Space Law" Handbook says it's criminal?

Does the Head of Security have the authority to demote the Captain to Staff Assistant if the Captain is being annoying?


In my opinion, no. The Head of Security is the Captain's subordinate, meaning that the Captain is free to give the Head of Security orders on any kind of inane bullshit he wants. Naturally, the Head of Security is not required to participate (Dereliction of duty is always an option), but he is not allowed to punish the Captain player by brigging him, taking his stuff, and locking up any other nerds that happen to be working for him on the project.

My justification is as follows:

First, Let's look at what we know about the relationship between the HoS and the Captain. Here's a collection of all the pieces i could find on the wiki regarding this relationship. In red, i have marked the information i believe to be important. In blue I have written my own commentary:

Spoiler!

In essence, I believe that these pieces reflect a picture where the HoS is the begrudging, but still subordinate, member of the Heads UNDER the Captain, and that the Captain, barring participation in legitimately harmful  or traitorous acts like blowing up the station or killing people, has free reign to do whatever shitty gimmick he wants to; including gimmicks that may seem annoying to the crew.

Now, do people actually have to participate in these shitty gimmicks? No. Do they have to like them? No!

In fact, I would actively encourage the non-security crew to form in-game mutinies when faced with incorrigible gimmicks.

But the HoS? No. The HoS, as evidenced by the fact we have to apply to become it, should be, and is, held to a higher standard of play than other players. It's not the role you take in order to flex your superiority muscles, but a mentorship role where your goal is guide the progress of the round from within and attempt to make the round interesting while reigning back the often totalitarian security forces.

I've had this argument too many times to count with my fellow HoS players. I don't think this is up to much interpretation; I think the guidelines are clear. However, I am posting this thread to open myself up to counter-arguments from those who disagree, and to see what the general consensus is.

Now that you've, presumably, read through the argument, please vote in the poll above.

TL;DR: Fuck you, I worked hard on this, go back and read it.

[Mageziya]

Lore wise, it'd be the Captain who has higher authority, but gameplay-wise, the HOS's are vetted unlike the captain and have higher trust among the players, making the HOS effectively higher authority. I'd personally always seen them as sorta equals that vary with context.

In more detail:

On Destiny and when relevant with RP, the Captain has higher authority due to the structure of NT, the Captain is the closest thing there to a direct representative of NT. The HOS however has the power to impeach (That is, arrest) the Captain for being a dumbshit or otherwise traitorous.

On the non-RP server, HOS is likely going to be more trustable and mature than the Captain and should probably be regarded as a higher authority. Alternatively, view them as equals that can null each other out, with exception to the HOS's supreme authority over security.

[Sundance]

Captain vetoes HoS unless it's a security matter.
The HoS will take orders from the captain (and unless asinine as hos I normally do)

What's a security matter? That's could be literally fucking anything and in most cases it is. Anything where the captain is stressed enough to bark an order often falls under security remit. Unfortunately for the captain, this is where his power wades.

It's an interesting topic nonetheless. I personally enjoy the power struggle.

[UrsulaMejor]

Captain vetoes HoS unless it's a security matter.

This is incredibly vague and, in my opinion, unsubstantiated. From the pieces i've shown, the ONLY explicit mention of any matter, let alone a security mattter, where the HoS has authority is in the unconventional sentencing of prisoners, i.e., permabrigging and executions.

I believe the situation is "Captain Unless", and the only "Unless" is that one specific circumstance.

[Frank_Stein]

Lore wise, it'd be the Captain who has higher authority, but gameplay-wise, the HOS's are vetted unlike the captain and have higher trust among the players, making the HOS effectively higher authority. I'd personally always seen them as sorta equals that vary with context.

In more detail:

On Destiny and when relevant with RP, the Captain has higher authority due to the structure of NT, the Captain is the closest thing there to a direct representative of NT. The HOS however has the power to impeach (That is, arrest) the Captain for being a dumbshit or otherwise traitorous.

On the non-RP server, HOS is likely going to be more trustable and mature than the Captain and should probably be regarded as a higher authority. Alternatively, view them as equals that can null each other out, with exception to the HOS's supreme authority over security.

That about nails it in my opinion.

Sometimes a HoS has to disobey their Captain to be loyal. Follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

[zibbazabba905]

I think if the captain wants to change the rules around and the HOS doesn't want to do that, they can either try to convince them otherwise, mutiny or remove captain from duty, or passive-aggressively "folow" orders, and enforce the rules when the captain isn't around. The captain has the authority, but the HOS is the one who enforces that authority

[UrsulaMejor]

FROM IRC:

[18:25:34] <ZeWaka> though honestly
[18:25:44] <ZeWaka> you can make anything a security manner like sundance said
[18:25:51] <ZeWaka> just say "its part of an investigation"
[18:28:02] <UrsulaMajor> zewaka, as i said in the thread, i think the "Security matter" thing isn't actually substantiated by any source
[18:28:13] <UrsulaMajor> it's just a thing people decided to believe, but not actually written down
[18:28:21] <UrsulaMajor> should it be written down? Maybe
[18:28:30] <UrsulaMajor> but i'd like to have the argument about what is before we settle on what should be

More from IRC:

[18:37:31] <EdVenture> I'll take a player trusted by the community over a run of the mill captain anyday
[18:38:53] <EdVenture> The HoS page on the wiki in the other duties part says the HoS is there to control and review security in a nutshell. The way you paint the HoS makes it seems like there is not point to them
[18:39:31] <UrsulaMajor> edventure, they basically have the same job description as Head of PErsonnel
[18:39:47] <UrsulaMajor> Head of Personnel handles day to day civvie stuff
[18:39:52] <UrsulaMajor> that's his department
[18:39:54] <EdVenture> Not true if you go by the wiki
[18:39:56] <UrsulaMajor> chef, barman, QM, etc.
[18:40:05] <UrsulaMajor> Head of Security has control over sec in the same vein
[18:40:27] <UrsulaMajor> Edventure, i encourage you to make your own post in the thread, citing your own sources to justify your argument
[18:40:33] <UrsulaMajor> in fact, that's really what i'd prefer

[looselystyled]

Personally, I feel like the most important thing is fun, right? It's a game, it's meant to be fun for everyone. If the Captain is engaging in some form of gimmick that is meant to be fun for at least SOME of the people involved, and not reducing the amount of fun for MOST of the people involved, who is the HoS to be a power-obsessed jerk and pop him in the brig?

Obviously, this is highly situational, since a gimmick that was meant to be a joke can just as easily turn into an obnoxious grief, and that seems like a good time for the HoS to step in and say "Enough." Another valid circumstance where the HoS might deem it appropriate to step in is if they thought by doing so they could create more fun and entertainment than would have otherwise occurred if they had left the Captain to his own devices.

[Zafhset]

I don't think it needs to be explicitly written down in the wiki - disagreements and conflicts within the power structure are part of the game, and in-game occurences are widely subjective to interpretation rather than textbook cases.

If you think a HoS is consistently overstepping their bounds by being a no-fun-allowed tyrant, adminhelp it for an admin's take on the situation.

[Ed Venture]

If the Captain tells you to execute someone and the Head of Security says no, listen to the Head of Security.

That's from the wiki and it pretty much tells me that if a captain tells a HoS or the Security Officers to do something that can harm a member of the crew or puts the station into danger they are not to be listen to. Also I'd listen to a HoS (A trusted person in the community) over a run of the mill Captain any day.

The HoS is supposed to be a beacon of light on a fart-filled station. He's supposed to keep officers in-line, and make sure that the station isn't held hostage by security with harm-batons.

This is also from the wiki page of the HoS under the "Other Duties" section and I only include it cause UrsulaMajor said in IRC that a HoS has as much say on Security and Security Officers as the HoP. Which is something I completely disagree with and is frankly wrong.

Widely considered to be the true leader of the station, with the captain, being a foolish figurehead.

Also from the wiki that's been there since I started playing and has never been changed.

And the most damning thing from the wiki that says the HoS has more power then the Captain on Security. This is from the security officers page.

A Security Officer does not have the authority to assign sentences any more severe than confiscation of stolen items and 5 minutes in the brig. Execution, permabrigging, poisoning with Discount Dan's, or anything, anything, ANYTHING else requires the okay of the Head in command. In order of preference, that is: the Head of Security, the Captain, and the Head of Personnel. If the Captain tells you to execute someone and the Head of Security says no, listen to the Head of Security.

Notice the chain of command order where it puts the Head of Security before the Captain. Which pretty much says if a Captain tries to order Security around and the HoS says no then that's that.

[Vitatroll]

Authority? The captain takes it except where it lessens the integrity of a department. A real captain can't legally order all of his or her medical staff to only operate with their feet, for instance. Well, they could, but they wouldn't be captain for long. It's vague, but that's because we don't have 1000 page protocols governing the actions of our fart-sim COs.

In the end, regardless of authority, the players are going to listen to who they benefit the most from and, if they don't benefit at all, they'll stand with who they fear and/or respect more -- in most cases this be the HoS.

[Ed Venture]

When viewing things a "Security Matter" I try and think of it as follows

1. Is it or is there some sort of immediate threat to the station or crew?

2. Is it worth the full attention of Security?

3. Is it about to lead to a do or die situation?

[UrsulaMejor]

Notice the chain of command order where it puts the Head of Security before the Captain. Which pretty much says if a Captain tries to order Security around and the HoS says no then that's that.

You're not looking at the chain of command.

Execution, permabrigging, poisoning with Discount Dan's, or anything, anything, ANYTHING else requires the okay of the Head in command. In order of preference, that is: the Head of Security, the Captain

You're looking at the "Chain of authorizing unconventional punishments, such as the above"


Your argument doesn't follow from that premise.

UrsulaMajor said in IRC that a HoS has as much say on Security and Security Officers as the HoP

No I didn't.

[18:39:31] <UrsulaMajor> edventure, they basically have the same job description as Head of PErsonnel
[18:39:47] <UrsulaMajor> Head of Personnel handles day to day civvie stuff
[18:39:52] <UrsulaMajor> that's his department
[18:39:54] <EdVenture> Not true if you go by the wiki
[18:39:56] <UrsulaMajor> chef, barman, QM, etc.
[18:40:05] <UrsulaMajor> Head of Security has control over sec in the same vein

See the bolded. I'll admit the first statement was phrased poorly, but you the following statements, I believe, adequately clarified the issue.

Widely considered to be the true leader of the station, with the captain, being a foolish figurehead.

Also from the wiki that's been there since I started playing and has never been changed.

This is in regard to something i already acknowledged in the first thread post. My response is the same: "Widely Considered to be the true leader" does not mean "Has command authority". As I said, there have been MANY stories of the morally just and charismatic leader who is subordinate to a foolish commanding officer.

EDIT:

When viewing things a "Security Matter" I try and think of it as follows

I find discussions on what constitutes "Security Matter" to be irrelevant unless one can also demonstrate that the Head of Security has power over the Captain on all security matters. It may be the case that that is how the playerbase seems to be leaning, in which case, i recommend we all come to a consensus that that is the case and edit the guidelines to reflect this.

---

I don't think it needs to be explicitly written down in the wiki - disagreements and conflicts within the power structure are part of the game, and in-game occurences are widely subjective to interpretation rather than textbook cases.

If you think a HoS is consistently overstepping their bounds by being a no-fun-allowed tyrant, adminhelp it for an admin's take on the situation.

I think that this is a situation where admins don't really set the guidelines, but rather it's sort of a think the community either would or would not accept. In this regard, the wiki should reflect what the community feels on the matter.

What I'm arguing for, here, is that I think it would be to the community's benefit for the HoS to take a more lax role on things; be more generally cooperative rather than authoritative.

[Grek]

I voted clown, but my actual opinion is Captain > HoS for non-sec crew, HoS > Captain if you're sec.

[Ed Venture]

I believe the HoS has more say then the captain because for one the players who are a Head of Security had to show that they could be trusted with the job and then be put in that position by the players around them and one of the things they are trusted with is vetoing a Captain's orders. While most of the time you see people constantly giving a captain scorn for getting in the way. That and I've even seen Admins in game straight up say to listen to the HoS over a Captain numerous times, I never had the hindsight to take screenshot of this cause it seemed that most players and admins agreed with that statement so take that with a gain of salt.

Though it seems people like the power struggle between the captain and HoS so maybe that's why it's always been vague or favored one or the other depending on your point of view.

I for one have had too many shit Captains try to order me around during dire moments in a round only to get super angry with me and attack me over and over again cause I would not help them track down the unknown who stole their hat while I was trying to investigate and stop Changelings, Traitors, Wizards and Nuke Ops from killing more members of the crew.

One thing I've seen admins and players say about the captain is "They are just Staff Assistants with a Gold ID with all access" and that statement is completely true.

I pretty much follow the Captain as a HoS till I think what he wants me to do is going to get me in trouble with Admins, Hurt crewmembers, distract me from other pressing matters on the station (AKA doing my Job). I'm all for Teamwork hell I made it my goal for years as a HoS to improve teamwork among Security and the Heads but experience has shown me that seven times out of ten even with the benefit of a doubt Captains are just going to fuck things up for everyone. Not saying I metagame captains but I give them the chance to do this and have played with Captains who understood what was more important for Security to do. Their orders have their place but if I feel they are not important enough I ignore them. These examples are completely situational mind you and most of the time a Captain comes in with a "Arrest so and so for having the dreaded Devil's Grass" the issue that comes up is that they have shit timing and get super upset (sometimes violent) when I say "No, that's a shit reason to arrest someone right now"