Chain of Command: Captain or HoS

[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.