Leaderboard

Recent works: Sekiro as a wolf, and a friend, illustrated in a style inspired by Yoji Shinkawa.

I took a moment to read everyone's post once again and took the liberty to start up the first official draft and description of the SEC Instructor. Here we go! *Icon here* SEC INSTRUCTOR Difficulty: Very Hard Guides: Guide to Security, Space Law, Standard Operating Procedure, Riot Control Access: Security, Brig Timers, Maintenance, Warden Sec Instructor is the field training officer of the Security Department. They consist of veteran SEC Officers who have walked the beat many shifts and survived the worst. With similar duties as a SEC Officer, it is their duty to shape up new recruits so they can be the next generation of veteran SEC Officers. TEACHING THE ROOKIES You are a instructor above all. While you carry a baton and a badge you should be more focused on making sure the rookies don't get themselves killed. They will look up to you, be sure to set a good example for them to follow. You are expected to be able to teach officers how to maintain all duties from patrol to perma brigging procedures to even some head of security responsibilities should your head request the guidance. While you might not end up taking over these roles over the course of the shift you should at least have knowledge of the roles. The Security Instructor is not required to report SOP Violations to IA Investigators and instead direct such reports to the Head of Security for corrective action. They still have the option to refer to Internal Affairs, should the officer show no remorse for his violation or no hope of improving. Old Green You are a officer among officers, you carry no rank over the Warden, Head of Security, or individual Officers unless stated otherwise by the Head of Security, Acting Head of Security, or Captain. Should the Warden or Head of Security go MIA/KIA, you are the third in line to be Acting Head of Security. As Stated before, the Head of Security or Captain, can give you command authority, but this is at their discretion. CODE GREEN PROCEDURES 1. Training new Security Officers takes priority. Security Instructors should take the initiative to identify and train new officers. 2. Security Instructors is permitted to carry out arrests under the same conditions as Security Officers, but they should not arrest if a Security Officer can make the arrest instead. 3. The Security Instructor is permitted to carry a taser, a flash, a stunbaton, and a can of pepperspray, while permitted to carry their _ _ _ _ they should only use their non-lethal equipment. 4. Security Instructors are expected to be able to brig in accordance to code green brigging procedures. 5. Security Instructors are not permitted to have weapons drawn during regular patrols. 6. Security Instructors should not conduct searches unless there is a clear and immediate threat or it is during brigging procedures. 7. Lethal Force is not authorized unless there is a clear and immediate threat to the station's integrity or the Officer's life. CODE BLUE PROCEDURES 1. Guidelines 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 are carried over from code green. 2. Should security numbers decline, the Security Instructor may act as a reinforcement and assume all Security Officer Responsibilities. 3. Security Instructors are permitted to carry around any weapons or equipment available in the armory, at the Warden's discretion. 4. Security Instructors are permitted to carry weapons in hand during patrol should they have no equipment space. 5.Security instructors may demand entry into specific departments during regular patrols. 6. Security Instructors are expected to take new Security Officers during patrol. CODE RED PROCEDURES 1. Guidelines 2 3 4 5 and 6 Carry over from Code Blue 2. Security Instructors may arrest like normal Security Officers during code red. 3. Securities Instructors may forcefully relocate crewmembers to their respective departments if necessary. 4. Lethal force is permitted if the target is confirmed to be guilty of Capital Crimes and actively, and aggressively, resists arrest. CHAIN OF COMMAND The Security Instructor works under the Head of Security. During extreme circumstances the Head of Security or the Captain can promote the Security Instructor and give him command responsibilities. Should the Warden and Head of Security die or go missing, the Security Instructor is third in line for Acting Head of Security.

1 & 2 really just need someone to put up a PR for them. 3. Living playtime is only used for stats tracking, and...the pollCandidates function: https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/blob/12dbd691a65cdb86e40ea1524f836cdd3aeadfac/code/__HELPERS/game.dm#L465 Since most ghost roles use the pollCandidates function(!).... this means that living time, including time spent as a pet, already counts towards unlocking "ghost roles".

Donut

Another thing about Gnar. Gnar

About Antag Tokens: Antag tokens are given out by admins, at their discretion. Typically, they are only given out to antags who have their antag round ruined by an admin's mistake, such as if an admin accidentally crashes the server. You are never entitled to an antag token. If you want to know if you have any antag tokens, ahelp and ask. There is no other way for you to check if you have one. If you have an antag token, you can ahelp "''I would like to use my antag token to become an X''" (where X is "changeling", "traitor" or "vampire") at the start of the round, to become that type of antag. You cannot use antag tokens to become any other type of antag not listed above. You cannot use the same token more than once. Even if you die 20 seconds after using the token. You cannot use antag tokens if you are playing a job that is typically mindshielded, like Captain or Security. Admins may deny your request to use an antag token in any particular round. We typically do this when the round is expected to be short (stops you wasting your token on a short round) or the antags are already very numerous/strong (stops the round becoming too unbalanced). If we deny your request to use a token in a particular round, the token is NOT used up, and you can try again next round.

I say more yes for an officer-instructor, compared to a VIP-instructor, though I like both ways of the idea. With the officer version, it feels like more minor, and thus, adequate, change, for as officer they will do officer if there is no need for their specific profession. The instructor/advisor VIP, in the other hand, could have some more things on them, along with those thought on an officer-instructor. I'll write here about an officer-instructor as I happen to have more ideas on that one. Either way, I see the job would have its best value in the duty to supervise and correct, that is, to prevent bad security action. That is now the sole responsibility of HoS and is too much for them, if the flow of the events was past certain level. That for, I agree that reasonable newsec will ask veterans and not-so reasonable won't care. But the instructor would be dealing with this fact happening anyway, by making HoS aware of the problem cases in case they're hopeless, else, correcting and teaching those - if the latter is possible per the attitude of the receiving end. Most of the things, that would fall to the instructor to care about, are nevertheless small - small enough to disappear from the eyes of HoS or other, busy officers, but which will feed the known snowball effect of (angry greytiding <--> shitcuriting), or at least, will be uselessly dull experience for the receiving end. Then, in the other hand, if sec happen to be a great one, so that there are no need to watch over their doings, the instructor would do officer as an officer per usual, so the job would not be an useless one. Though I'd say there are more shifts in which it would be great if sec had extra attention to their conduct. So not so much for just instructing, but more to have an eye whether some person needs that, or needs to get rid of, which, if you ask me, is the need that this role would fill. As distinct to IAA, instructor being in the field is to prevent, as IAA is to deal with the malpractice done. As distinct to mentors and vet sec as usual, the role would have an IC duty to be an eye on those things, which is in my opinion the neat thing there. Thoughts on the practical questions here. On distinct equipment, I'd say cool beret, aswell, not much else would be needed as clothing. Maybe an armband or stripes of similar colour theme as the beret, whatever it would be? On gear, sec officer equipment as usual would do - I'm thinking here quite same as Christasmurf on the top there, about access, bit elevated, possibly. On SOP, authority and what-if they do it bad - I'd suggest, in SOP, giving a distinction about in which instructor is officer is an officer, and in which they have their specific job. That could be described as something like - sketching it for a start: "1.The instructor is to focus on either of their primary mission: a. supervising the conduct of the officers in common, correcting possible mishaps, and endorsing good conduct in accordance with Security and Legal SoP and the space law, b. to instruct specific officers, by their call to do so, or per such order by the HoS. 2.The instructor is permitted to do officer's regular duties, under the condition that doing so will not obstruct their primary mission, that is, the conduct of the department leave nothing to be attended with, in terms of acting in accordance of Security and Legal SoP and the space law. 3. The instructor must not occupy themselves with officer's regular duties so, that they fail to complete their primary mission. 4. The instructor perfoming officer's regular duties, under all circumstances, must follow the SoP guidelines of Security Officers. Or then copy the officer guidelines to the end, as they are done with the pod pilot's guidelines. 5. The instructor holds no authority to other officers, but are considered to be an officer among officers. Explicitly stated, so that the instructor won't start bossing around, or if doing so can be ignored, noted by IAA/HoS or get rid of if that gets annoying. Don't know whether the method on the function of "correcting" of 1a should be explicated here somehow, to like, be done in field privately, NOT via radio in public, so avoiding the threat of sec-arguing. - That isn't as dumb to be written out as it might seem, or it seems to me while I write this, as for even military conduct guidelines do state that ("correct specific personnel privately, not in public; latter is considered ashaming and correcting the unit instead of a specific person is reserved for the commander of the unit", or something like that. While the reasons for such aren't that far of what we might consider as such in a video game... nobody really wants that kind of acting.) 6. The instructor has an authority and responsibility over a specific officer, should the HoS order so, in the purpose of drilling a junior officer or supervising a misconducting officer. Concerning authority, am suggesting them to have a specific authority, but being locked behind the HoS. So for no powertripping (or if that should happen, the instructor does a SOP breach themselves and are, at first, to be noted, then to be considered whether to be kept or not, by either HoS or IAA, if present ). Yet this kind of authority would be in place, for dealing with the borderline unruly cases, and, in the other hand, giving the HoS a specific, concrete use of their instructor: "hey fillmoore so we have concerns on this officer Batonhonkers, take them to your drill, make papers for demote and proceed with that, if it's all useless"/"hey again fillmoore so some grayson wants to join sec as a trainee, you'll take care of them right? 7. The instructor must address, in first, the HoS privately, the IAA in second, or the Captain in third, should they have objections, in accordance with Security and Legal SoP and the space law, against the conduct of the HoS. " This in case of the HoS is the problem, what I'm trying to give out, is to either note them privately, then, if the subject matter is something gross, turn it to the IAA as an IAA case to deal with, if IAA is unable and it's really gross a thing, to the Captain. Also, of course this is about SoP breaches or misforcing the space law, for breaking the space law is an officer job to solve, as usual. So I'd say instructor's functions, in priority, as supervise, correct, instruct, take responsibility on newsec or badsec officer if ordered so, be an officer. More on the number 6 there, that way, in the case of the "harmbaton" officer, if the case isn't clear at first hand, having them mandatorially paired up with the instructor, would be a stage before just firing the officer in question. The good in that, is that it will become quickly clear whether a suspicious officer needs treatment by the boot or will they benefit of some guidance. That's a plus for an hurry HoS either way, as they could forward the problem for an another person to care about, be it just some extra attention or force-firing. So far some sketching, if it's of any help for the case, I like it a lot.