Regular Joe

Probably for oldcrit races are straight-forward to treat. Not saying, that treating newcrit is hard, but doing so requires the reagents and the handheld defib, if it’s bad, anyway. Medbay being capable of doing the tricks isn’t that sure, and if you’re alone you’ve got to got the chems. So it’s a buff, that way, in certain situations - like when medbay hasn’t much time. Yet prolonged death is certainly a buff (more a buff than the previous, if you ask me, referring to Coul’s maths) for newcrit when you are fighting something, as it’s been said. Like, took five revolver shots and still was able to tase and cuff the syndie as a partner shook me up before he got hit. Then epi and I lived enough to walk to the hallway from the maint to be dragged to medbay from there. And so on with that kind of examples. I like it from the doctor’s perspective, over the old system. The other side would need tinkering, but exactly how to do it? There’s such many things to consider so it does not seem easy. Initially, this setup was considered very deadly as of defibs didn’t revive. Even then the ability to stand after excessive damage was there, though. TDS’s PR to alter the rolling for crit effects seem interesting. Threshold for the initial brute damage whether it kicks the crit effects in, and threshold of health to enter with certainty to crit effects - it could solve the issue of not getting down and dying after extreme violence.

You could only imagine how a shift could end up so, that a syndie, as here seen, is inside the Central Command, driving his sports car - in DeathSquad suit... after he had killed half the DS back in the station, while wearing an ERT armor... ...and after having finished the rest of DS off at CC, along with a Spec Ops officer, by sneaking in there camoflaged as a DS commando.

Hank?

Earlier that shift, when everything was still as-usual, IAA's were doing IAA things as-usual.

I agree, given the population it would be really neat to have more departmental job slots. And assistants thought this way makes, as I see it, good sense. For I remember, being a new to the station last summer, wondering that ”hey I’m an assistant, but nobody actually wants me to help or to go try learning their jobs”, so that I wandered in maints and got thralled by Slith until I had enough courage to try actual jobs. With this, civilians would remain as a such choice, while some, up to some 10 slots (1-2 assistants per department?), could take the departmental assistant jobs and do actual space work. So this implemented would be noobfriendly in general, endorsing ones who don’t know the jobs to try and learn them with less responsibility (and hopefully drifting these people away from pure tiding). As an experienced player I could also go and take it for a less stress yet working shift, or, if all other slots are taken. Jobs to the people, so. As said above - the old discussion there say the downsides of the idea well, for me, it seems the positives are greater.

Count me for yes.

Oh, too bad. It seemed a definite possibility. Given the amount of the work sec has to do, not to forget highening population, the department would really do with a buff to it’s organization to make it go more smoothly, more often. It’s getting heavy for now. Hope we’ll get this or something else rethought with sec, some other day. Thanks for taking it up! edit: on more smoothly - just to underline it - not to catch baddies more quickly, but to reduce the misconduct, that takes the time of the player in the receiving end and, presently, HoS’s time to deal with it, as per usual, there is no one else to actively (that is, this being their ic duty) look after and instruct their goons’ doings.

On what Ralta said (trying to be short now, excuse me being a writing machine about every time I get interested to write) I'd read what Furasian wrote as a draft of guidelines for the new role so, that they actually cover the both, training and being a veteran officer. While instructing is a primary mission, if there is no need for it - or, there are more priority things, like during code red, the instructor would act like "a veteran officer." So not just a trainer or just a veteran, but both blended as a security instructor/field training officer/sergeant - to answer both calls. On lore, it seems FTO's that train/supervise in field are a thing in law enforcement - and such work definitely is a thing in militaries, so that duties of training and actual stuff are carried by a same person. So the intention, as I read it from Furasian's draft, is to have both a trainer and a veteran there, with some openess for the style on how players will comply with the role, so that it will accommodate to different shifts; not all shifts have any need for teaching, while other times that would be great if it was available and same on roles that could be thought for a veteran officer. Though whether or whether not instructors are things irl-wise, we of course play here with associations, which sure depends on culture, and we're here from all around the world. So it's indeed a question how to get the intended impression for the new role, like, not too narrow but still giving out the idea what's this for.

I wish I could have back those moments I tried it first on, it was... hilarious, for the amount of stuff there is to get used to. Hope you'll enjoy it! Here for beginner's highlights of the wiki: for controls: https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/Keyboard_Shortcuts for radio usage: https://nanotrasen.se/wiki/index.php/Guide_for_beginners#How_to_operate_your_headset And here at forums, in the Guide board, there are indepth guides on a number of topics: https://nanotrasen.se/forum/63-guides/ I had to alt-tab a lot to these back in the day.

You’re doing great to manage the process Furasian, thanks.

Security seem not very police, in the other hand, that’s point of the drill instructor option. On the logic there, sec is not army but it isn’t state police either, and, moreover the gap between police and military are not that black and white as one could think of. As in ss13, we are mixing present and known scifi fables, sec seem to me to be a kind of... mixture of the both, turning more into military when the threats become more harsh. Just saying, as I was here previously speaking of instructor role so, that I drew examples from the military side. By doing so I was not to suggest an yelling kind of instructor. People read things differently. To feel a military-twisted instructor as an yelling recruit driller is kinda US only thing. Same might apply in thinking of military in general to be just about intense warfare aka killing. Most of the western military operations present are about de-escalation, stabilization and peacekeeping, while threats for that are usually NGO’s, instead of fighting states. I’ve reflected that kind of military to my character’s backstory, as it is what presently happens and lore-wise seem to fit the spess way future. Those, namely operations, are that way much different to movies, been there done that, in a level enough to see it from a range. Even if national military training where I’m coming from is foremost about combat, on foreign service, it’s all in for peace keeping, which means, that telebatons are more preffered than guns, and greatly, greatly over the both, every time when it’s possible, talking. That in conjuction with the readiness to highen the threat level, which makes gearing, attitude and preferred decisions on tensioned situationsä more ”military”, and, in face of sudden violence, the ability to self-defence. I’ll hardly believe that most of the US stuff, even, in last ten years have been that much about warfare, even in it’s low intensity form. So for, I’ve happened to reflect the security as both police and military, namely, the lone keeper of space peace, security and maximum workspace efficiency on the corner of the space in which Cyberiad lies, and that way felt sec as a paramilitary-corporate security force. But that’s just an opinion along others we MRP around there. If people feel a military style instructor as a loss for immersion, or even as an excuse for unintented playstyle, better not choose that even if it’s liked, for that’s just about visuals. I actually didn’t know anything about police FTO’s prior this thread so couldn’t think about that beforehand. So, on second thought, giving that a drill instructor look could give people those kind of impressions, a FTO look would be more reasonable then. On military and instructors there, can’t help myself to say, though, that instructors in military, either way, are not just a boot camp thing, even if the campaign hat in the vote points to US bootcamps. It’s a job to do among professionals on field aswell, as of in (at least) European militaries the distinction between field and academy isn’t very big any more, for readiness’ sake. After initial training, year or so, the unit enters service and it’s continously trained during that. Instructing there is not about yelling or drilling, but overseeing and practising. On staff or basic unit level, the title is instructor, an officer who usually has another job somewhere in the unit; inside a basic unit it’s among the duties of a commanding officer and-or a sergeant either in a platoon or a squad - this for reference of some options of mil themes other to drill instructors. Out of these I’d personally flag for a sergeant. All in all I’m just full in for the idea, and on visuals, it’s reasonable for the role to stand out but not too specifically - so, that the visuals support the role to fit as much as possible our present brig. Count my vote for sec officer style cool beret and an attitude that is seen most fitting for there, be it military or police inspirated.

I'm not into sci, so got not much to say on the topic concerning mechanics, but I do however find telescience a positive thing. Antag and crew-side, too. Crewside, namely, during mass casualty events, xenos, spiders, blob, as mentioned there. When the crew really start to be in the receiving end, the evils have already gained the upper hand and then telesci is an one way to keep on fighting. That is, mind you, probably the point when the one who would do such thing becomes aware of what's happening, unless they're very keenly monitoring the crewmonitor. I've seen Crangus to do telesaving (not many else, lately, around my times to play); it isn't that OP as the ones saved that way have a good delay before they can go back into the fight, because of their injuries. Otherwise they'd just die. Though spiders and xeno need their toll to reproduce, but then in other hand, there are prey with no sensors on, and I'd say things are already bad for the crew when a telescientist becomes aware of it - and when that point has been reached it's going to be anyway tough time for the crew to survive. And moreover, even if some Crangus then telesaves people, it needs a chain of other things to be present, to be an actual threat for those antags, namely, a working medbay. And then, it's an odd game mechanism. More mechanisms mean more fun for the nerds who want to explore their usage in different situations. Also, as a mechanism, it is only available for the people who make effort into learning it and who then, during the shift, spend their time to make the machines and work around. That's so one viable strategy to be used, then. You could do big bad or big good things otherwise, not to mention genetics, well, many things if you know what you're doing. Few days ago xenobiologist made a ton of alienqueens, hivelords and spacebears to fight blitz nukies. Crew won, though not only thanks-to them. Then again, that kind of stuff happens once in a blue moon, as a telemaster scientist is quite rare, after all. Maybe it could be, as a first aid, nerfed the way Jazz suggests it, by making teleporting just less powerful by reducing the calibration interval from the twenty shots. So that you just couldn't teleport hordes of people rapidly, but rather you had to decide on which you use it, on which you don't. More cool way to do nerfs would concern the math side of it, but that might be hard to do so, that it reasonably adds to the difficulty, though as I'm not playing sci I've really got nothing to say on that topic. Just wanted to say that imo telesci is quite cool. Nerfing instead of removing, if you'd like that, personally I'm fine with it as is.

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.

Was not meaning to distract the conversation - take my previous as looking the issues sec has from an another viewpoint. Being a closed system, they are connected together. Like this: organization --> communication -> badsec by inexperience or nobody caring, or know to care, and badsec there is a modifier which can be either nil, minor issues or a result of complete disorganization, and that depends on the prequisitions. Now the instructor role would tackle badseccing, as having a person with that as their job, is a less dependant on the prequisitions (comms, that officers know what's happening, and that is result of organization) as the present situation is - which is, vet sec corrects and teaches when they happen to spot something, if they happen. The underlying issue is, however, the cluster fun that sec will become after some point; organization that suffers from the overflow of events. Wrote that stuff as an example of other way to deal with it, tackling organization directly. As you can read from it, anything like that is way more grave change to the department. So that is an argument for instructors, since it could actually be kinda small change and thus easy to implement. That for, it's meant to deal with the results of an underlying issue, not to root it out. Rooting the disorganization out - like the way I sketched on my previous - would probably be out of boundaries as a change. For, it's also very positive that sec is a sandbox in terms of how you play it. It's a game, so people want to play it the way they like to - in accordance with the rules, and then the IC SoP, that describe the boundaries for playstyles. So someone might say sec is not a team but in very special conditions only, and some might say it's every shift up to them for how they become a team, for example, and so on. That way, having just instructors that have keeping-eye as their job along with being officers - as pod pilot is an officer with specific mission - could help the cause of improving sec's conduct with being a rather minimal change to the department itself, which is good. Yet, that could, in theory at least.

Colored the sketch again, this time more gently... my gimp skills are work in progress.

Six poor fellows laying in a xeno nest. Uh... what is this thing that feels inside my stoma--

Come to think about it - what Landerlow said on comms and Gatchapod on instructor/cadet system - yeah communications are problem. Even, organization is the problem. For in highpop shifts it becomes really hard to keep things in decent order, after some point. By order I mean just to avoid situations like people being in processing God knows why. What the instructor role is also about, is the fact that sec might need some more organization. Somehow. Having an instructor to keep an eye for misconduct-stuff would be one way to achieve that, as it would free HoS to worry more about the situation at hand. Keeping eye for the conduct of the officers consumes the precious time, while it is kind of most important tasks that HoS has. Especially it consumes time if there was lot to do in that field. Which happen, as said. So with an instructor present HoS would have some more time to organize. To do comms. And I'll have that belief, too, that having people specific jobs will pay to organization naturally; so for the instructor. But issues with sec could be done otherwise. This as brainstorming... things do work out now too, but if we want to alter things. I've had best success as HoS - success, in terms of things staying at hand, officers knowing what we are after to and actually complying with it, and people being processed properly - the times when I've been able to organize a response team to deal with dangerous threats. Some two, three or more officers in one or two teams, depending on what were happening, to work together and keep out of arresting and processing anything else, but their objective, while other sec deals with the former. Once this kind of team even clothed themselves in uniform, it was great. And even more neat, as HoS, I had just to keep on touch with them and make sure everybody stays on the map, not to machine-gun type to dispatch. That of course requires fine officers and enough authority for the HoS to be able to organize teams on the fly. This leads me to think, there could also a ready distinction between officers and officers, bit like there is a distinction between nurses, MD's and surgeons, that and with bit more subject. Say, two kinds of officers instead of one kind. At first, patrol officers, that do what officers do generally. And secondarily... intervention (?) officers, who, if no designated threat, do what officers do, but during emergency they would have a SoP bond to gather up and work together to solve it. While patrol officers could and would also involve, just as all officers do now, this kind of distinction would make a ready team that know THEY right there have to bump together and do together. That adds to organization: designated jobs make things happen better than a shared duties. Also if that kind of framework was an option (be it a title change or karma/time-locked... maybe time-locked? role) to choose, it would make sec's organization less dependant on HoS's iniative to dispatch people here and there or to form ad--hoc teams. Thayt way, it would make HoS role bit less busy - also bit less vital, in case of HoS isn't able to act accordingly - so that they could have more time on what we suggest with instructors, to keep an eye, train and correct. OOC-wise, it would be an option on what to be after to as officer: patrol or intervention. Namely, it would suit people's different moods to play sec. Recalling my feelings: sometimes I like to do minor stuff alone, like sit on cameras, watching over little things, arresting minor criminals, and by this keeping comms alive while myself not doing much - instead of doing hard teamwork, while other (and most) times I love the latter. So as a veteran sec (well, among this group, I was probably blowing chemmasters with pota-water as a newbie chemist, when your spacemen's lungs were already black of Robust) I could take the patrol officer if I was hoping for less stress. It could be a title change, yet probably better as a separate role, behind a playtime lock, to avoid people just taking a cool title disregarding the objective in it. Then distinction written out in Sec SoP. On the name "intervention", I just took that one from a hat. Looking for an example, in Finnish police system, there are officers in each police unit, that have a designation to belong in "difficult situations unit"... or it is "police tactical unit" in good English? These policemen, if the call arrives, gather together from whatever they are doing, and head for the "difficult situation", usually a thing that involve firearms. While if everything's normal, they do what police does in usual, ie. treats intoxicated people around the streets with the drunk tank. I don't know much police stuff, but I'll guess it's kind of same internationally. Of course - anything like that has the exact same problem, that is referred before: be it anything about adding roles with specific duties, there are cases when people won't play them like they should. It's on everything here. And, in other hand, good people do this kind of things on the fly. Things are working, generally. But we could try, somehow. I had this idea of distinct officers from Gatchapod's writing, as they proposed cadet-trainer pairs to specific things per regulation. Having the instructor role would probably be less a change to present. Not changing my mind on liking that idea very much, just thinking out loud even more. And yeah, just for the record, these as ideas, that might, or might not, have any merit. Eh, another wall, sorry. I was writing my study, and again neatly avoided that in the favor of spess. Honk

Sec-arguing, it... reminds me of discussions in university in general. Certain threat, so. Maybe not so much on advice but more on spotting things then correcting them, but it could be a problem whether the role would be understood as such. On communication, oh yeah. With communicative sec that hasn't too much of matter in hand, the issue is often dealt with easily enough. Shifts differ though. The cases which make me wishing the instructors happen in those shifts in which I type at machine-gun rate and that blinds and puts me aside of the small things.

Yeah, agreeing on all there. Didn't mean to express that the instructor role could deal with the whole issue. As you put it, it actually can't be rooted, namely, foul mentality (mentalities) to do sec jobs (I love the proverb on your signature, "The greatest flaw of being an intelligent species is we cannot force everyone to be intelligent." Kind of applicable hereby). And then some honestly have the idea of winning as their motivation, while being fine otherwise. To pull that thing to a better direction is just to give an example by doing, rather than having a role for it. So I'm trying to say that the instructor would fill another needs, namely some more... in-hand things. To prevent and correct them. I love how Furasian actually reads my thinking better than I did on my own writing: Excellence in little things. This kind of stuff (and then the wordless tasing, or more grave things) happen a lot, and more often that not are left unnoticed by fellow officers and above all HoS who is by book in charge of herding their loose batons. And not always of sheer carelessness of them, but of being in hurry. And in difference to IAA, the instructor objective would be to prevent. So the instructor would endorse excellence in little things, and this way giving the HoS some more time to have the initiative on the mission at hand. (Pardon me for military jargon - those two are something that is referred in about every commander's address, even if it's christmas eve and raining horizontally, I'm both in love and traumatized with it.) Even if this position could be done poorly as of in-charge positions already are, I believe giving an IC framework for it would atleast add to game (if not, as it totally wouldn't, deal with the roots of the issue) by giving sec an another person with the both the mindset and explicated job - along with the HoS - to feel a duty on how the officers are doing. Then, again, this is also done by veteran sec. Yet having specific jobs helps the issues, that the jobs are created to cope with, to be actually dealt with; I'd see the issue Furasian decipted is big enough for to have a specific job on it. I feel the little things as an issue while doing sec, specially when doing HoS. Just frequently not having enough time to cope with misconduct, even if it's still rather simple: "you claim the arrest reason first, then ask, and tase if they flee, right? - Hey, don't take that nitrogen off voxy. - Don't leave your arrested alone in processing, if you arrest, you either call warden, or do the job yourself if he or she is unavailable, ten minutes limit right?"... and so on. Could use another pair of eyes for that, while them eyes know that it's their job now. I could imagine it to be an interesting one to play too. Being a trainer and then in other hand a sec along with others. Having an IC framework for it makes there some authority to do it.

While this is true and this way it will work, as it works now, I'd see the idea of having somebody dedicated to teaching and overseeing as a buff in what HoS and Warden, along with veteran officers, are doing: the leadership and good conduct of security. I'd reason it by the thing that there is often too much to deal with for the warden and HoS keep enough eye on how officers do, even if they want and are able to. Though sec can't do everything, in other hand, anyway, and that's a part of the game, but that side could need a buff. So I'd see this role to be about of preventing security doing bad. By doing bad I don't mean them 'losing' to antags, it's not a thing about winning - but not acting accordingly to SoP, space law and sane manners, misconduct. The latter doesn't add to the game, as we know it's also a nuisance to the receiving end. Also with the HoS role I'm most stressed of the fact that by the book, you're lone in duty to deal with misconduct cases as HoS - while an IAA is excellent to deal with them after they've happened, hence I love IAA's - and in the same time you're in duty to keep the officers informed and acting against the situation at hand. A good leader sure won't try to do everything alone, and often there are good hands to take over with stuff happening, so that as the HoS, I can concentrate more on whatever are most necessary at the moment. What the instructor role would be about, is to be an explicit sign of somebody who is willing to help in this cause as their primary job, thus making it happen more. Also it could be a sign for those who are not sure on what they do to ask this person. In an ideal situation new officers ask help, and well, the not-listening types would ideally not exist. But what happens is, that you need to observe, who needs some guidance and/or shadowing, be it either because of they are new or they are not caring. An extra pair of eyes to this, so. What comes to other officers, they should teach new ones and report bad stuff happening, too, and that's how it works now. But dedicated role would give some authority for the one to do that, as everybody knows that this is their job, along with the thing that if you have people with explicitly given jobs, the jobs will happen to be done more, compared to having duties shared along with many, so even if the people you had at hand were the same. Concerning IAA's, IAA's are to deal with issues already happened. In contrast to them, this idea would be to prevent bad things happening, thus not taking IAA's work away - if they are unruly, the instructor will pass the job to IAA to be investigated and/or HoS directly. On the name, I'd say to give the instructor some authority over other officers, it would feel reasonable for their job. So for sergeant. Though it should then to be made clear that they have no independent force, but are dependant to HoS on their actions, like warden. And what comes to things other than conduct and training they would be an officer along officers.Training officer has a feel of being just a trainer, while instructor, sergeant, warrant officer kind of names points to somebody that is active in the field with the mission at hand, while not having independent or separate authority from their commander, but well, that's just my feel. It is bit on what we are looking for as an example. FTO's are a thing in police enviroment, and for what I know they are active field cops as well. And of course it's a question if it actually works, while it seem neat as we speak. Could try the same as Furasian is going to, to get an title and focusing on it, if I have time for it soon enough.

I'm full in for this idea. In fact I was about to write up the same suggestion, until got into Discord discussion with Furasian, along with other people, who had been thinking on the exact same thing separately. I think there is a need for this kind of role to sec. The issue, in which this new role could be the answer, are, if you ask me, quite the two kinds of misconducting officers, the types that Necaladun mentioned: The HoS is in charge to herd the officers to do it rightly. To deal with the first group you need to supervise the conduct of the officers and then fire hopeless cases. To deal with the second ones you need to, well, to supervise officers to notice these cases, and then to show them the ropes or make someone do it. The situation in hand is like this. HoS is more often than not very tasked already. As HoS I love to make officers do it good if they won't do already, but often I just can't see the bad cases happening, or have time to react them, be it (force-)firing or teaching. Bigger problem is noticing conduct things, as firing or teaching could be allocated to somebody else as HoS if they had the argument for it. Warden, as they stay in brig, could notice and correct mistakes - in processing they already have to, as it is their job. Moreover, experienced officers could and often they will teach those in need, but they are not in charge of it. Then there are IAA's. But they are to deal with misconduct when it is already done, and are not sec to be able to show things. The good thing in the instructor idea as I see it, is that we could have an officer role which has training and supervising as their charge. Having duties allocated to different people makes things to happen better. And, in the other hand, many bad stuff in station happens because nobody cares - or knows to care; well that is just so in organizations generally. And here, the issue is that it is really nobody's job to ensure that other officers do it right, except for HoS, and Warden on processing, even if good officers do teach new ones and make it known if they see rash mishandling. People who would take the new instructor job would then have watching over other's doings in their mindset, as it is their job. So somebody cares and actively tries to know to care about it. From the viewpoint of new officers and echoing Furasian there, an instructor could be easier to ask to teach the stuff for them, as they know that it's their job. So all in all, the instructor would either teach when asked or supervise and correct if not asked to. Reading what've been posted here, there's so far two ideas to implement the role. Either make them an officer along with officers with a special job, like warden is now. Either make them a VIP with VIP authority. I had my idea, like Furasian put it, of the instructor/warrant officer/sergeant to be an officer along officers, with their special duty. I'd see the plus side for the instructor to be such as people might be more likely to pick that job then. As their primary job to ensure officers act accordingly and teach new ones, either as they ask to or either as they note somebody that needs instructing. As secondary they would do officer. As the officer job is as secondary there, the instructor would always have work to do - if they do it well and no need for teaching, they can do officer's work as usual. That might resume to people taking that job more often, compared to an instructor VIP. However the idea of the instructor being a VIP is neat aswell as I see it, it has different side add-ons in it. I would, personally, at least like somebody that is all-security advisor to the HoS. (Magistrate is there if they are, yes.) Specially in the highpop rounds there happen to be lots of information to deal with and lots of important decision to deal with. Concerning this, it would be the VIP instructor's secondary job to assist HoS in close co-operation with them. Namely HoS could turn some decisions to them to do, like how to sentence difficult crime cases (if magistrate is not present), how to deal with some threat, how to deal with some unruly/misconducting officer and so on - if he is busy in one such thing and can't do others in time. That way sec could run better as not all the decisions is up to HoS, if they're crowded with them. This something that happens already, too, but again it makes things to run more smoothly if they are clearly allocated to different people. I would say more yes for an officer instructor - kind of sergeant -, but still totally yes for both ideas, whichever is seen better to be implemented, if so. Role-play wise, an instructor job is present in both law enforcement and army. Senior army NCO's has ensuring conduct as their job in their unit, as the commanding officer has their focus on operation, even if the latter have the last word in conduct affairs, as well as conduct is not the sole thing to do for the NCO's too. Instructor with VIP status would work as well, as advisor/adjutant or instructors that tag along an active unit are a thing aswell. Moreover, the idea of a cadet role is neat too! That could endorse those new to sec to ask for showing the ropes. Also it could easen the step to do officer job. Recalling my first shifts as sec, I had myself hired from the manifest as a cadet with basic access. Then spent that shift practising stuff with somebody. Back then Iwas kind of afraid to take a roundstart officer job, for high standards are expected from security - both IC and in rules, too.

"Through pain to the stars", says a lone spaceman in a town with no name, far away from everything... except for some syndies, dust, and spaceman's trusty toolbox.

It takes two to tango.

Hey, this sounds fun. A kind of QM for the service, yeah. A commander of the force fighting the source of (almost) all evil, that is shit. Hereby profanely referring to dirt, litter, garbage, waste and all other kinds of stuff that is either inusable, disgusting, irritating or inefficient and is caused by the service department (of course there are other sources of shit, but they should have their departmental inquisitors already), be it litter on floor or litter on food or litter between some janitor's, botanist's, chef's or bartender's ears to somehow be litter instead of doing it right. A hermeneutical study on some (1) spaceman's thoughts says, that 48% of on-board shit happening has their primus motor on station being dirty, food's being poisoned, botanists doing unruly or traitorous things (never trust a botanist) or people spending their time on bar intoxicating themselves (though that might not make bartender the one to blame). These here are referred as shit. While the other 50% of bad stuff are of greytide, and 2% of enemy activity (percentages totally not altered, our station is safe, always), it has to be kept in mind that the unnecessary shit affects catalytically to the latter, too. So outruling shit could use some effective, determined and hard-working leadership that the Health Inspector (other suggests I'd thought the title to be: Service Inspector/Supervisor/Foreman, in case of they could held authority over said people) will provide. I could already hear their booming voice from the kitchen: attention, lock and cleanse! On the serious side of the topic, supervising these things are under multiple personnel now. HoP and IAA, for chef partly CMO. It works, fairly. Especially the IAA could have good time dealing with these things, if they happen to be a problem. But considering highpop rounds, this idea could do out very nice, for the amount of chaos that just naturally generates. And IAA is more to deal with issues already happened. They couldn't... lead an operation of hygienizing the station. HoP could but they have rather lot of duties already. Moreover, there quite isn't ever enough of fight against chaos.

Oh, yes. So I managed to draw a Finnish face, that's what I tried to, as a part of a story I thought for Jean. For the rest you got to pardon my creativity that's a kind word for nerditry, thanks, buddy to start drawing without actually knowing how to. I used this as my guide: EDIT: owl. See you down there.