Alert procedure change

[shazbot194]

In truth this would make going to red be treated as going to gamma is now, except not need admin approval. 

[SomeGuy9283]

1 hour ago, shazbot194 said:

In truth this would make going to red be treated as going to gamma is now, except not need admin approval. 

Yes, it will be gamma.

Yes, it will be without prior admin approval.

However, there is still the threat of admin intervention if abused. (And there will be plenty of admins with apps coming up).

And as the traditional red procedures are still under red, you can still up your game without going Judge Dredd.

Lastly, if you do not want security neutralizing any threat with extreme force, don't call the new red, call Blue(old red)

Edited June 17, 2017 by SomeGuy9283

[GunDOS]

Personally, my problem is still the phrase "Martial Law". I have only seen it declared twice (by admins). Both times ended up with my head on a spike because I didn't like security performing field executions. With the current status of security played by primarily newbies and commanded by people not speaking over comms or believing they are a security officer+ and not a commander. I don't think we should be giving security carte blanche. Under any circumstance.

[SomeGuy9283]

@Saul Argon

Yes, there is a problem with the average Security goon being played by a newbie.

Yes, there will be abuse resulting from a weapons-free IC policy.

However, the security regulars will never be more than a tiny cadre unless the tide is brought to heel.

And any shitsec will last much less longer as we get more admins to keep things from devolving into a complete mess.

[bryangullickson]

As someone who Tries to be a Decent Security Officer even i dont like the phrase Martial Law as i can foresee it being used even against other officers because we question why they Executed someone for no reason suddenly you end up dead because you questioned their murderboner and they declare you a traitor and of course no one would dare question a security officer less they end up the same way however i do agree we need to change how easy it is to go red as someone who has been on the other side of the badge as a civilian or non security crew member though as security i would like to see us be able to do something about graffiti and slipping and impeding security

 

[GunDOS]

Just now, SomeGuy9283 said:

And any shitsec will last much less longer as we get more admins to keep things from devolving into a complete mess.

Ironically that's why we have less veteran security. It's because security is under such a tight microscope. Though changing that would break more than it would fix. It's just a fact. I personally have trust issues when it comes to security, I have had to deal with to many occasions where they have gone off the rails.

[SomeGuy9283]

13 minutes ago, Saul Argon said:

Ironically that's why we have less veteran security. It's because security is under such a tight microscope. Though changing that would break more than it would fix.

Think of it this way: Sec will be held to the same vigorous standard as before, but there's actually a reason why they need to be policed as hard as they do.

And I think a lot of security players do not get burned out because they are held to a standard, they're disheartened that it's such an insanely different standard than the tide with no rewarding IC reparations. In recent months, mind you, admins have been a bit more relaxed in that department- letting a few harmbatons slide if the victim is really a turd, but there's still the issue of going through hell and back to arrest the assistant who broke on to the bridge on red so they can SSD immediately upon capture(or they'll break the windows while sec tries to get the antag the tider distracted them from to begin with).

13 minutes ago, Saul Argon said:

It's just a fact. I personally have trust issues when it comes to security,

As you well should, seeing as sec has been perpetually staffed by noobs. I do sympathize though, being a HOS main.

 

13 minutes ago, Saul Argon said:

I have had to deal with to many occasions where they have gone off the rails.

There is an issue with the Captain/Security power dynamic, and that needs to be addressed. I am open to any suggestion you might have to help the Captain keep Security on a tighter leash.

Edited June 17, 2017 by SomeGuy9283
Grammar

[necaladun]

There's a reason admins are very hesitant to ever allow martial law/gamma/etc, I don't see trusting players with it going down well. Especially because it's hard to determine who is at fault - if the Captain does it for the right reasons, but on information the HoS believed but turned out to be wrong about/tricked, and a sec officer harmbatons/permas the clown for slipping him, who is at fault here?

 

The best I could see would be a form of ERT request - that 2 heads swipe for it with a reason, then the admins can accept/deny it. It'd still need some non-ambiguous, well worded criteria that it can be requested in, and more importantly, when it ends. What force can be used extra then also needs to be well defined.

[shazbot194]

One way to solve that problem could be to have the station send a message to CC about why they are going to red alert and has to have CC's approval or apathy to change it to red. As well, we could re-write the SoP to cover some of the harder to clarify instances such as the clown slipping the officer, which is already illegal per SoP on red. 

[GunDOS]

I main an NT Rep and Captain. Generally, if I can get away with not touching security I will. I will outline the reasons down below.

20 minutes ago, SomeGuy9283 said:

There is an issue with the Captain/Security power dynamic, and that needs to be addressed. I am open to any suggestion you might have to help the Captain keep Security on a tighter leash.

In my experience, the tighter you micromanage security as captain. The worse they get. Personally, I have found the best way to do it Is to leave security semi-autonomous and only intervene with executions or poor commanding from the HoS.

As NT Rep. My main problem is SoP and Space law, or the lack thereof. I have had a number of situations where say, a detective has arrested someone and then shooting them when they attempt to run away. In those scenarios, one of two things can happen. One the Head of Security is horrified and demotes the person immediately. Or two, the Head of Security takes their side, usually quoting "your a traitor for going after a security officer", and either forces you to leave (or this has happened on a few occasions) brigged me for "acting against security". Going to the captain or CC is also an issue. But that is another problem entirely.

To end, it has been my experience that these kinds of events have been rising. I think we should attempt to fix those issues. And the issues of greytide, and the lack of respect of security. Before we give security more power.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Saul Argon
Gramzorzzz

[SomeGuy9283]

4 minutes ago, necaladun said:

The best I could see would be a form of ERT request - that 2 heads swipe for it with a reason, then the admins can accept/deny it. It'd still need some non-ambiguous, well worded criteria that it can be requested in, and more importantly, when it ends. What force can be used extra then also needs to be well defined.

I have no problems with that. It is not like the Code Red we are used to, so for there to be a tad more precautions makes sense.

I just don't want it to the mythical Code Gamma that I have seen called 4 times in my roughly two and a half years here- three of which were for a blob and the other one being @Fruerlund's meteor event. We see it is almost never called to counteract the breakdown of social order it is really meant to serve as when you say "marital law".

[necaladun]

The reason Gamma is so rarely called is due to the armoury and borg modules. I'd actually love to be able to call it more easily without those.

[SomeGuy9283]

10 minutes ago, necaladun said:

The reason Gamma is so rarely called is due to the armoury and borg modules. I'd actually love to be able to call it more easily without those.

And that's what new Red will allow for essentially.

Sound good?

[shazbot194]

17 minutes ago, necaladun said:

The reason Gamma is so rarely called is due to the armoury and borg modules. I'd actually love to be able to call it more easily without those.

Then wouldn't this be the perfect solution since, as far as I can tell, there won't be a red alert module, or armory, but still having all the stigma gamma alert has. Out of context, I really want a red alert armory with tesla coils, AKMs, PPS-43s...

38 minutes ago, SomeGuy9283 said:

letting a few harmbatons slide if the victim is really a turd...

There was once a round were a blob ate like a 1/6th the station, mostly the north-east part, and there was this one fucking janitor who would not stop bugging R&D about a mop, needless to say we wouldn't give him one, but he kept bugging us so much, it resulted in a fight, that he was really unprepared for, but he kept coming back for more. We asked if we could space him from the admins, and they gave us the green light, it was glorious justice.

Edited June 17, 2017 by shazbot194

[necaladun]

9 minutes ago, shazbot194 said:

Then wouldn't this be the perfect solution

That's what I love about it, but it all depends heavily on how it's interpreted. A captain being able to call martial law for the rest of the round because someone bombed medbay I don't like the idea of. I think an admin-approved call ala ERT would be the best bet here. Even then, I'd like to see a good SoP and the like for what happens, as gamma is pretty...well, incomplete, due to it's rarity.

[FPK]

On 6/13/2017 at 5:09 PM, Anticept said:

There's little point between blue and red, since most of the time it's next to impossible to actually enforce half the SOP items on the list.

The differences between red and blue are:

• Max suit sensors are mandatory. I'm assuming that failing to max one's suit sensors can be considered creating a workplace hazard.
• All crew with the exception of security must stay in their departments. An officer can relocate a crew member outside of his/her department, using force if needed. Failure to comply with security is considered creating a workplace hazard.
• Officers do not need to hail their targets before arresting/detaining them. Shoot first, take into custody, then talk when it's safe, is allowed on code red.
• Secure areas are to be bolted down. SOP lists a few secure areas, as well as provides a definition as to what can be considered a secure area: "EVA Storage, Tech Storage, Gravity Generator, Engineering Secure Storage, AI Upload, Teleporter, Vault, Gateway, anywhere else requiring a restricted level of access that does not get regularly used."
• Officers are permitted to carry more than one lethal weapon, and are strongly encouraged to do so.
• Officers are permitted to demand access to a department, in order to patrol said department or search it. Refusing an officer entry is considered creating a workplace hazard.
• All gateway excursions are to be put on hold. Only rescue teams are allowed into the gateway.
• Lethal force is permitted if the target forcibly resists arrest, or if attempting to detain them is unnecessarily risky.
• All crew members are to comply with lawful orders from security, or be charged with creating a workplace hazard.

Code red is primarily enforced through the workplace hazard law. If the crew fails to follow SOP, they can be arrested for creating a workplace hazard, which more or less works as a blanket punishment for failing to comply with security and SOP. There already exists a means to enforce code red SOP, without martial law. However, as very clearly indicated by the debate raging on in this thread, there is a demand for additional powers for security during code red, in order to enforce code red SOP. I think the root of the problem isn't in how each alert level is defined, but two more subtle issues. One, security lacks the basic access required to make their presence felt on the station during code red, and two, no one wants to enforce code red SOP, in fear of getting bwoinked or called shitcurity.

Because only the HoS has basic access to all departments, preforming patrols through departments requires additional access from the HoP, which can feel like pulling teeth for many officers. Many HoPs are reluctant to give out basic access for security, and many officers are reluctant to give back said access once the alert level has been lowered. However, basic access to all departments would allow security to preform departmental searches on code red without dealing with the AI or potentially rogue crewmembers (after all, if there really is something fishy going on in a department, why would anyone in that department let the police in?). Furthermore, basic access would make relocating crewmembers far easier, as officers could walk into the department without having to steal their perp's ID card. Perhaps code red could temporarily give security basic access to every department?

I don't want to get into the second part of this issue, that security is afraid of doing its job. I know that I am personally disliked by some for what I do when I play security, and it does make me want to not take up the baton anymore. Even when security players do their job to the letter, the ban hammer looms just overhead, low enough that if they just glance up a little from the horizontal, it can be seen suspended by a thread. I understand the need for such scrutiny, as I've run the gamut of bad officers: inexperienced (but usually well meaning) officers, sadistic powertrippers, powergaming rambos, and many more. However, divine punishment from above isn't the only source of stress for security players. From below, the chaotic forces of SS13 itself rage on, and officers are handed a baton and told to tame them. SS13 is a game about entropy. As the station devolves into a bloodied metal deathtrap in the sky, it falls to security and command to enforce order on a disorderly environment. It comes as no surprise to me that true shitcurity is born from the shell of good officers; When fighting monsters...

To reel this post back to the original topic, what should be done to make enforcing code red viable? I personally think that changing alert procedures will handle some of the problems, at the cost of breeding abusive and disorderly behavior from security at a much higher rate. Giving security access to departments on code red will help, but it's not a perfect solution, as lowering the alert level can prove to be a challenge. Perhaps the real change needs to be making code blue more attractive than code red?

It's a rough problem to tackle, but it's better to get it done with now, rather than to let it fester.

[necaladun]

9 minutes ago, FPK said:

and two, no one wants to enforce code red SOP, in fear of getting bwoinked or called shitcurity.

I think this is the real issue, and part of that is because red alert is called so easily. One traitor running past the bridge with an esword is enough for it, but it'd be downright silly to force everyone back into their workplaces with a stunbaton for that.

There's a real disconnect between the powers/theme of red alert, and this threads been great for highlighting some of that.

11 minutes ago, FPK said:

Even when security players do their job to the letter

Generally ones who do it to the letter are the biggest problem - as in the above example. The spirit is a big part of that too.

Honestly, jobbans for sec, while high, really aren't as looming as people think. Bwoinks are common, but I'd say a majority are resolved with "Ah, so he's just whining? Thanks for explaining, carry on.".

12 minutes ago, FPK said:

Perhaps the real change needs to be making code blue more attractive than code red?

I think that's a really good idea. If code red had some -cost- to it, with the benefit of increased security powers, that'd be great.

[FPK]

@necaladun I used "to the letter" to refer to officers doing the job correctly; applying the law where needed, using context to judge what sort of action (if any) is needed, providing security to the crew rather than providing the law, ect. I was not referring to officers who rigidly apply space law without taking in context. 

[necaladun]

Just now, FPK said:

I was not referring to officers who rigidly apply space law without taking in context.

Ah my apologies - my fear with the proposed martial law is the latter.

[ZN23X]

I get bwoinked regularly as sec but it's usually just an admin asking me "why was so and so brigged for xx amount of time?" I explain why, they say thank you, carry on. I imagine criminals who are being jerks that I brig for the maximum regularly ahelp salt because it's thier "final attempt" to escape thier sentence. As long as you dot all your t's and cross your i's when applying space law you are good to go. 

I imagine security job bans are mostly applied to people who use deadly force too early and frequently...and I don't need those people working with me anyways.

[ZN23X]

5 minutes ago, ZN23X said:

As long as you dot all your t's and cross your i's

Sorry for the double post but I had to call out and make fun of myself for this instead of correcting it.

Edited June 18, 2017 by ZN23X

[agentCDE]

Hm... the reference to Star Trek's version of blue alert has me thinking that separating our blue into an "hazardous creatures / adverse conditions" blue alert and an "actively malicious threat" yellow alert might be good. Blue alert could be used for giant spiders, rampant viral advertising, spess bears in science, excess clowns, Ian needs to go walkies, severe breaches, etc. Yellow alert would be the new alert proposed. (vamps in maint, a deliberate bombing, some greyshit yakitysaxing past the bridge holding an Esword, etc.) and red would be the "okay, NOW panic" level. (Ragin' mages, seething Singuloth, bellicose blobs, wrathful Warops, etc.) Gamma would still be "CONGRATULATIONS, YOU'VE BEEN CONSCRIPTED!" and CC only.

 

33 minutes ago, shazbot194 said:

Out of context, I really want a red alert armory with tesla coils, AKMs, PPS-43s...

WE WILL BURY THEM.

[necaladun]

@agentCDE

Those examples are actually pretty good for what level of threat for each. Having different ones for interior (rogue crew) and exterior (spiders, xenos, etc) threats, would be quite interesting.

[shazbot194]

It would also make it easier to give out lethal weapons to deal with external threats, both to security and civilian's, while keeping it as non-lethal as possible for internal threats.

[BiberDark]

All that said, i think the mainproblem is we have far to few security officer to enforce the SOP rules. And Greytiders and other shengians ignore you at all.

Maybe on code Red all Person who are cought outside ( a special dedicated room ) should be free for arrest and brig.