Thread Rating:
  • 10 Vote(s) - 3.8 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Off-Duty Security
#16
I think this idea warrants a test at the very least.
Reply
#17
this brings to mind a similar thread i made

"3) give sec officers more leeway in how they deal with people, if they're being messed with then the person messing with them should expect to get beat up

i think these suggestions would be an improvement of the current security experience (run laps around the station waiting for things to happen, largely helpless to do anything against people who interfere with arrests and harass them for being security. after all, if the admins have to step in and deal with this behavior, what is the point of security when they do their jobs?"

i think this part right here would certainly help
Reply
#18
I think a fun thing would be for off-duty sec to be a miscreant job.

I.E

"You're here after working your first job as security on Space Station 8. Assist security as a civilian as much as you can."
Reply
#19
(03-11-2018, 11:44 PM)SRQ Wrote: I think a fun thing would be for off-duty sec to be a miscreant job.

I.E

"You're here after working your first job as security on Space Station 8. Assist security as a civilian as much as you can."

Though I do think this would be fun I would rather it be a separate thing
Reply
#20
Thus my thread :p
Reply
#21
Personally I am not convinced by the argument. Trying to solve the low pop sec problem by making people who didn't want to play sec opt into a lesser form of security bypasses the issue. If players did not care to play security before what would change?
Reply
#22
(03-12-2018, 09:50 AM)Tombi Wrote: Personally I am not convinced by the argument. Trying to solve the low pop sec problem by making people who didn't want to play sec opt into a lesser form of security  bypasses the issue. If players did not care to play security before what would change?

Because instead of the other solution of forcing them into the security officer job and going "fuck what you wanted to do you're sec now" we're doing "Hey there's not enough dedicated sec officers for this many people, so now you're a security officer on top of the job you already signed up for.

So now instead of Pubbie McGeneticist trying to play as his mutant recluse, getting forced into sec officer due to not enough, then going braindead in the hallway for a traitor to loot. He gets to be a security mutant, destroy his genetic code, and keep an eye/project a security presence over medbay with the tools and access to do so.

Not to mention you don't actively choose to be sec in this situation. You just end up with it on top of what you had before if there's not enough people who want to play dedicated sec.
Reply
#23
The argument concedes that people would rather be another job than security officer, then ignores it as an issue. I understand your position on it being a voluntary role, however I was disputing why people do not want to be security in the first place.
Reply
#24
(03-12-2018, 10:44 AM)Tombi Wrote: The argument concedes that people would rather be another job than security officer, then ignores it as an issue.

That's a very valid argument.

Also, in response to some other posts in this thread, I've seen a lot more sec players recently, (5/5 secoffcs, a HoS and a detective in multiple rounds!) which is super cool and hopefully means we're slowly wandering down the right track to making sec play more attractive and fun.

But I also wanted to add, to people saying security needs more leeway in dealing with antagonists and other players, I'm pretty sure they have that leeway these days. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a sec team member get yelled at for their conduct unless it was very clearly just greifing.

If what's keeping you from playing is fear of the admin staff, I don't think you need to be worrying about that any more! The most that happens is an admin will ask to hear what evidence you made your decision with, if you've got some, that's usually enough grounds to validate your actions.
Reply
#25
(03-12-2018, 10:44 AM)Tombi Wrote: The argument concedes that people would rather be another job than security officer, then ignores it as an issue. I understand your position on it being a voluntary role, however I was disputing why people do not want to be security in the first place.

There's already been a million threads/posts on the issue of why people do not want to play as security most of the time. Most of which go nowhere. That is why we are here. To address the issue by other means since making security more attractive to play fails consistently once people stop talking about how nobody is playing as sec.

We aren't ignoring the issue. This thread is a new approach to dealing with the issue by bypassing it as an issue. If we can't get enough people to voluntarily play a dedicated sec officer despite efforts, both long and short term, then try a solution that doesn't require players to actively pick the job. The goal here isn't to try to get more people to play as actual security officers. It's to make sure there's a at least minimal security presence compared to the often no presence whatsoever. So far, the best, most unobtrusive way to introduce this I can see is this idea, essentially making people their desired job + security on top if there isn't enough.
Reply
#26
(03-12-2018, 12:11 PM)Gannets Wrote:
(03-12-2018, 10:44 AM)Tombi Wrote: The argument concedes that people would rather be another job than security officer, then ignores it as an issue.

That's a very valid argument.

Also, in response to some other posts in this thread, I've seen a lot more sec players recently, (5/5 secoffcs, a HoS and a detective in multiple rounds!) which is super cool and hopefully means we're slowly wandering down the right track to making sec play more attractive and fun.

But I also wanted to add, to people saying security needs more leeway in dealing with antagonists and other players, I'm pretty sure they have that leeway these days. I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a sec team member get yelled at for their conduct unless it was very clearly just greifing.

If what's keeping you from playing is fear of the admin staff, I don't think you need to be worrying about that any more! The most that happens is an admin will ask to hear what evidence you made your decision with, if you've got some, that's usually enough grounds to validate your actions.

my issue is more admins abscond with bad people when that is security's job

i think it would be more fun if it had more of an arr pee element to it where griffers/people who break the rules excessively to warrant being banned had an apb on them on grounds of high treason and with security being tasked to take them in dead or alive (and then they get banned)
Reply
#27
(03-12-2018, 09:50 AM)Tombi Wrote: Personally I am not convinced by the argument. Trying to solve the low pop sec problem by making people who didn't want to play sec opt into a lesser form of security  bypasses the issue. If players did not care to play security before what would change?

This is really how I feel about it as well.

The problem to me seems to be: Most people don't want to play Sec but they do want
  • A role to protect them
  • The ability to protect themselves
This idea seems to try to be trying to give people what they want while forgetting that the problem is that there's people that don't want to play as Sec

Someone who didn't want to play as Sec isn't going to want to be an Off-Duty Sec either.
Reply
#28
(03-12-2018, 03:28 PM)babayetu83 Wrote:
(03-12-2018, 12:11 PM)Gannets Wrote:
(03-12-2018, 10:44 AM)Tombi Wrote: Valid Argument

That's a very valid argument.

my issue is more admins abscond with bad people when that is security's job

i think it would be more fun if it had more of an arr pee element to it where griffers/people who break the rules excessively to warrant being banned had an apb on them on grounds of high treason and with security being tasked to take them in dead or alive (and then they get banned)

While this meta marked-for-death minigame/ARG (???) thing? sounds fuckin NEATO, it's gonna be an issue. There seems to be a policy of making bans fairly quiet and private, as opposed to other servers that broadcast bans, the admins here keep it entirely hush hush, not even informing the person who reported (and it's better that way and here's a reason about that):
1. Murders a happenin'
2. Witness a Murderin' 
3. Ahelp the Murderin'
4. ( Murderer quietly goes away / APB released ! )
5. ( "maybe he got murdered?" / "oh he wasn't the antag, where's the real one?" )
oh no! information leaks! 
yes it's vindicating to be given carte blanche to validhunt someone who's actually wronged you, but it's still opening up more information than it should and can lead to more validhunting. and in the meantime Pubs McGriffer is still running around the station griffiing out of spite 'cause he knows he's already been banned.
Reply
#29
I like this idea for the sole fact that it promotes the crew to work with security then against it. Other people's issues are valid though and Frank is right someone who does not want to be Security would not want to be a off-duty officer. But at the same time this would be a great way to ease people who normally don't play security into the role.
Reply
#30
Perhaps you could pawn it off on someone else if they're willing, say a Sec PDA that whoever's card is swiped in last is considered off duty sec
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)