SEC Instructor Jobs, A Remedy to Newsec

[Furasian]

UPDATE 04/24/2019: The official Draft for the SEC Instructor is published along with a poll to determine which sprites should be commissioned! Both uniforms will eventually find their way into the role if everything goes according to plan, worst case scenario we will have to choose one or another. That's where the poll comes in!

UPDATE 04/29/2019: The first iteration of the PR is up! Shout our to @AffectedArc07 as well as @Christasmurf and Mocha for their assistance!

 

This is a vague post with not ALL the details inserted because this is all on the phone. Feel free to ask questions or assert opposing opinions! 

 

So we were having a discussion on discord in reference to the new wave of security officers joining the department without any guidance. Over the course of the discussion the idea of a Field Training Officer job came to light. . . In a time where the population influx is ALOT more than 8 officers can handle there is a need for a job where the job holder goes into the job knowing his responsibility is to train the newer officers coming into the department.

 

Here are a couple footnotes brought up to help establish a foundation for the job.

 

Criteria: 24-50 hours time as SEC ((or less depending on how this discussion goes)

Job Name can either be Instructor, Drill sergeant, or FTO ((names suggested by discord))

 

Now many folks out there might be asking “Why is this needed? Why should I waste coding resources and time to make a job, a new premise ID, as well as new premade access? Why is Furasian on forums? Why isn’t the head of security doing this?” The reasoning behind this is that the job title helps new security officers designate who they can turn to in order to learn to ropes. The job holder also goes into the job understanding he/she also inherits the responsibility to guide and train sec officers on how to be robust and remain within the legal boundaries of space law at the same time. This also helps relieve a burden on the Head of Security’s shoulders so he/she can focus on the commanding responsibilities rather than balancing both teaching and commanding. Not to mention it’s less intimidating to turn towards someone of similar rank rather than your boss to tell them that you don’t know how to do your job in some aspects.

 

Security officers are under great scrutiny and their walking targets for antagonists. To have a officer prepare them will help increase the retention rate and help establish a new wave of security mains. This also establishes a new layer of responsibility. NewSec won’t be able to just simply say “I didn’t know” everytime they step on their meat. 

 

I’ll try over the course of the week to test this idea out. In game I’ll try to get a custom job name of FTO and dedicate my time to training new officers to determine if this idea would have a significant impact. Please go into this idea with a open mind! I know everyone here has had a shitcurity moment where they wished someone who knew what they were doing had stepped in and educated the officer.

OFFICIAL DRAFT

*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.

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.

 

POLL ANNOUNCEMENT

Hello everyone! Furasian here,

I have currently put out a poll to see if we can set a foundation for what the SEC Instructor should look like. Here are two options I've developed based on discussions here...

 

Since we've weeded out the idea of SEC Instructor being a centcomm asset like the NT Rep and Blueshield I've currently taken those two appearance options out until otherwise. 

I am currently looking at two options, feel free to add more in the discussion!

Option 1: 1980s copper- A true sign of a veteran! You've done your time and got some stripes. Now you stand with your fellow officers like the grumpy veteran you are! You smell bribes and loafing around so get those coppers on the streets to write those damn tickets! WHAT?! What do you mean we don't write tickets on this station?! 

Inspired by the pixel game Beat Cop, the true image of the tough old days, where you had to actually take fingerprints to a machine to get DNA instead of a handheld device. These rookies have it easy compared to the days you were on the street!

Despite this vote having the upperhand as of 4/27/2019 Option 2 has been removed from the poll. Leaving only Option 1 to be our viable option

Option 2: Drill Instructor- STAND AT ATTENTION! You lead these maggots and turn them into hard core officers! This is a paramilitary organization! If they don't like it they can leave! YOU ARE NO LONGER BLACK, OR YELLOW, OR GREEN, YOU ARE NOW RED! YOU ARE NOW DARK RED! 

 

Inspired by well.. Drill instructors.

https://www.strawpoll.me/17878229 Vote now! Let your opinion shape this job the way YOU WANT it to be shaped! 

I've seen a couple discussions about the job along with a couple of ideas on the discord, reminder to post them here on this thread so it's all together in one location instead of being buried in the chaos that is discord

 

THE VOTE WILL CLOSE ON 05/01/2019 (ONE WEEK FROM NOW) 

 

05/04/2019

FINAL TALLY FOR DISCUSSION

YAY: 5

NAY: 3

Edited May 13, 2019 by Furasian

[Christasmurf]

I'll add my points:

- Security Instructor could be a karma role, similar pricing to either the Nanotrasen Representative (30 karma) or the Magistrate (45 karma).
- They'd have a small office somewhere in/around Brig, with a locker and other such furniture like a desk, filing cabinet, Camera Monitor console, maybe a fax machine, that kind of thing.
- Their Standard Operating Procedure would be somewhere along the lines of allowing them to arrest/process in code green/blue in order to show a recruit the procedure and other such proceedings in Brig. Code red would allow them to do it based on how effectively the actual officers are working, similar to the Detective.
- They would be a Central Command VIP, similar to the Nanotrasen Representative, Magistrate and Blueshield. As such, they would outrank all other Security staff but would not have authority to overrule many orders and proceedings, much like how the NT Rep functions within the Command staff. They would act as an adviser/direct trainer for Security staff up to and including the HoS. This would give people who are in the process of transitioning from Officer to Warden to Head someone to look to for guidance and support, as the HoS role can be a difficult one to grasp.
- Their equipment would include an Officer's beret, a spare Navy Uniform, white gloves and armour, as well as a full Security belt and HUDglasses, with a headset that can only connect to Security communications. (Command too if you want them under the protection of the Blueshield, similar to the NT Rep and Magistrate).
- They would have access to the labour camp, processing, cells, Detective's office and the firing range. That way they can teach new officers a list of different things, from analysing evidence, to processing procedure, to combat practice. They would not have access to the armoury, pod pilot bay or HoS office as they would only need access to teach very specific things about those jobs, which can be provided by the staff member requiring the guidance. (Bridge access could additionally be granted should they be under the Blueshield's protection).

Along with the Instructor, a Cadet role could also be added.
- Cadets would have basic equipment: A flash, handcuffs, armour, headset and HUDglasses. (Given on spawn).
- Stunbatons/weapons can be given to Cadets based on station threat circumstances and training, at the discretion of the Warden/HoS/Captain.
- In order to advance to Security Officer and Detective, you must first have a Security playtime of somewhere between 3-4 hours, making new players have to go through the Cadet system in order to advance. This would give them about two full shifts of learning time so they can properly grasp their duties and Space Law before diving right into the deep end.
- Cadets can be buddied up with Security Officers, Detectives, Pod Pilots, Wardens or the HoS based on the discretion of the Instructor, or failing that, the HoS/Captain.
- This also gives opportunity for mid-round Security transfers in the form of the Cadets, which have less access to equipment but can still help out with arrests by pairing up.
- Access would be similar to the Detective, with no access to the main Security Officer lockers or the firing range. Map changes could require additional doors/moving of the vendors/clothing lockers for access, or instead they could just ask for access to use these facilities.

That's my addition. Hope this helps in any way.

[McRamon]

what Christasmurf has written is a very cool and interesting idea, i would love to see such karma job (this is also a good idea for different departments instructors karma jobs, but that is another stroty)

[Pokebro2000]

As someone who tried sec for the first time last night (on a cult round, no less) I would LOVE to have someone able to help me get the hang of things. Staring at the guide to security only helps so much. 

[necaladun]

On slower rounds, Warden can very easily do a lot of this IMO. 

Hell, even as an officer, just...speaking clearly and with confidence can do a lot.

I find (from admin perspective heavily mind you), newbie officers run into a couple of different kinds:

1) People not experienced with the game in general who want to get access to weapons and beat people up. These types won't likely listen at all.

2) People who don't have sec experience yet, and might know other systems, but not combat/sec stuff. They'll likely listen, but may make mistakes like harmbatoning or getting charges wrong.

 

If you're new, I highly advise just...asking questions and telling everyone it's your first shift as sec!

 

A cadet and formal trainer role would be interesting, all depends on exactly how it's implemented. 

[Regular Joe]

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:

13 hours ago, necaladun said:

1) People not experienced with the game in general who want to get access to weapons and beat people up. These types won't likely listen at all.

2) People who don't have sec experience yet, and might know other systems, but not combat/sec stuff. They'll likely listen, but may make mistakes like harmbatoning or getting charges wrong.

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.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Regular Joe

[Furasian]

With the instructor foundation in place it seems we are looking at two routes for the instructor regardless both have the same responsibilities:

 

The first route is to make then a sergeant rank or a supervising rank, with this we can use more SEC Related routes. This might make the sergeant more relatable to the SEC department and more easy to look up to. 

 

The second route would be to give the instructor a VIP rank like blueshield or NT rep, which makes sense due to it being a karma job, and it’s a neat incentive. The question behind this one in the way of loadout is whether or not we wish to give them a vip sidearm like a enforcer or stun revolver. 

 

Either way while it looks good on paper, the biggest challenge it do adjust the player culture so we can have a pool of volunteers ready and willing to do the instructor job properly. It will all come down to how the players handle that responsibility.

 

I guess identity and load out would be something for admins to get together to determine. Most Karma players would like to see something unique with the job, but how do we balance uniqueness and fairness?

[Gatchapod]

The Instructor job could be, to an extent, covered by IAAs. The problems are, however, self-evident.
Many new officers seem to understand just one thing: IAAs have no authority. They will sometimes even try to disregard Magistrates, incapable of telling the difference.
Many IAAs seem to not understand one thing: Their own SOP.
These lead to more fighting than cooperation.

If a new officer makes a mistake, the most likely reaction from their department is an IAA attacking them. It is a natural reaction to defend yourself, even if you are in the wrong. From there on, things can only escalate.
IAAs have often diplomatic skills of a jellyfish, so yelling and waving around SOP books is their default response where one can much more efficiently "ensure that Standard Operating Procedure is being properly followed" by proving it's beneficial to the officer. If they can't provide a reasoning to support something, why the officer should listen to you?

 

Why Instructor, in whatever form implemented, could positively affect this situation?
As a senior officer, he will be immediately more respected. Now, yes, there will be cases of people not respecting them, but they are the same people who die 10 minutes into round somewhere in the maintenance. They are hopeless and Instructor isn't there to bother with them, maybe just to root them out.
Officers who have the right mindset will be facing a less impartial teacher. Someone who will, ideally, tell that pedantic IAA to fuck off, they've got it covered. Sure, this will piss IAAs even more, but majority of them is perpetually angry anyway.

That is obviously just the part where IA and Security actually interact - the Brig. It's quite clear the Instructor's responsibilities would extend far out of it and to much greater extent. You could say it would be fooling around and wasting Security's resources, but if the Instructor was willing to, they could easily train new officers in combat in rather safe environment. It's not like they will go blind if they take SEChud off and let their pupil see how flashes work. Bolas won't gib them. And if they decide to practice melee... well, I don't actually expect them to let someone harmbaton them to see how bad it is.
Outside of the brig, they could provide valuable insight and much needed backup in case things go terribly wrong. Learning security with someone watching your back might lead to a certain dependency, but I think depending on other officers is the key to success in Security. You can't be everywhere. You can't do everything alone. So why not make pairing up the first thing you learn in Security?

 

Regarding Cadets, this seems a bit redundant. To make this job relevant, you would have to either put a significant playtime gate on regular officers (suggested 2-4 hours above seem too little) or make their equipment much worse. While the former might be accepted, the latter would directly disrupt the Instructor's job, as the people they are teaching won't have access to the necessary tools.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Gatchapod

[ZN23X]

I feel like learning in security is handled the same way it is in any other department...veterans teach the new people. Regardless of their job title. 

And you learn alot just but doing the job. I could explain to you how to properly play sec at nauseum for endless hours, nothing teaches you how to play security like patrolling the station, dealing with the shit, and dying countless times.

This honestly SHOULD primarily be the job of the HOS, and secondarily the warden...but I'm very aware that inexperienced players frequently play both, and even when that's not the case, too many HOS just treat the job like they are an officer with better gear and access and don't actually LEAD security. Hence why I said any veterans in the dept should do this regardless of their job title.

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by ZN23X

[TyOmaha]

"Security Sergeant" sounds better or something or "Field Training Officer"

[Rurik]

So would it be a no go for the alternative title "Local Badass?" 

[necaladun]

Sergeant kinda implies authority over other officers. Training Officer I like.

[Regular Joe]

1 hour ago, ZN23X said:

I feel like learning in security is handled the same way it is in any other department...veterans teach the new people. Regardless of their job title. 

And you learn alot just but doing the job. I could explain to you how to properly play sec at nauseum for endless hours, nothing teaches you how to play security like patrolling the station, dealing with the shit, and dying countless times.

This honestly SHOULD primarily be the job of the HOS, and secondarily the warden...but I'm very aware that inexperienced players frequently play both, and even when that's not the case, too many HOS just treat the job like they are an officer with better gear and access and don't actually LEAD security. Hence why I said any veterans in the dept should do this regardless of their job title.

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.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Regular Joe

[ZN23X]

15 minutes ago, Regular Joe said:

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.

This behavior is, again, already taught by veteran security. If you have a bunch of people playing to win in sec frequently, new people will follow their lead. If you have a bunch of sec who aren't playing to win playing sec frequently, new people will learn those habits instead. So, if you have this new role that is dedicated to teaching new sec, the person playing that role will teach sec how THEY play. You cannot guarantee that the person playing this role won't be someone who teaches play to win playstyle. Just as it is now with new sec learning from vet sec, this could go either way.

Even without being taught bad practices, some security also get the play to win mentality because they've been wordlessly killed too many times and are tired of it (happened to me early in my sec days). Just like some antags are driven to wordlessly killing because their rounds are ended by wordless tase cuffs too many times. Chicken or the egg?

AND even with being taught "the right way" some people just believe the right way IS playing to win...regardless of what others say or think or do...that's why they play games and that's what drives them.

Also...whats preventing this new role from just doing the same thing a rambo HOS does and playing officer while ignoring the rest of their duties? Or someone taking the role who is not qualified for it? We already have issues with people playing command roles who aren't experienced enough, so unless you planned for this role to be locked behind some massive playtime gate that doesn't even apply to command, you'd have that same problem here.

[Furasian]

Whew boy here come the responses I'll try to get everyone 

 

3 hours ago, ZN23X said:

I feel like learning in security is handled the same way it is in any other department...veterans teach the new people. Regardless of their job title. 

And you learn alot just but doing the job. I could explain to you how to properly play sec at nauseum for endless hours, nothing teaches you how to play security like patrolling the station, dealing with the shit, and dying countless times.

This honestly SHOULD primarily be the job of the HOS, and secondarily the warden...but I'm very aware that inexperienced players frequently play both, and even when that's not the case, too many HOS just treat the job like they are an officer with better gear and access and don't actually LEAD security. Hence why I said any veterans in the dept should do this regardless of their job title.

 

I see its a frequent discussion and took the liberty to address that statement here: 

On 4/8/2019 at 9:04 AM, Furasian said:

 

Now many folks out there might be asking “Why is this needed? Why should I waste coding resources and time to make a job, a new premise ID, as well as new premade access? Why is Furasian on forums? Why isn’t the head of security doing this?” The reasoning behind this is that the job title helps new security officers designate who they can turn to in order to learn to ropes. The job holder also goes into the job understanding he/she also inherits the responsibility to guide and train sec officers on how to be robust and remain within the legal boundaries of space law at the same time. This also helps relieve a burden on the Head of Security’s shoulders so he/she can focus on the commanding responsibilities rather than balancing both teaching and commanding. Not to mention it’s less intimidating to turn towards someone of similar rank rather than your boss to tell them that you don’t know how to do your job in some aspects.

 

 

On top of that I understand that there's a potential for someone to see the job as a way to get more gear. That's where the karma points can come into play. 

 

Take the blueshield job for example, with Karma people are more careful to spend karma since its difficult for them to obtain karma through normal gameplay. They typically do some research and make the executive decision to spend karma on that job. With Karma we don't see that many NT Reps, Magistrates, or Blue shields going down that gung'ho "Ignoring duties and fucking around" compared to the Head of Security. 

While it isn't a fair system, the Karma system does do a effective job at making sure non qualified people dont get the job. BUT IT ISNT PERFECT I KNOW. YOU GET SOME SHITTER MAGISTRATES, NT REPS, AND BLUESHIELDS EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, BUT IT ISN'T AS FREQUENT AS A SHITTER HOS OR SEC OFFICER OR WARDEN.

 

2 hours ago, necaladun said:

Sergeant kinda implies authority over other officers. Training Officer I like.

Field Training Officer sounds like the best title for the job in my personal opinion, but that's for whoever is coding / deciding whether or not this job is a good idea to decide! 

 

2 hours ago, Ty Omaha said:

"Security Sergeant" sounds better or something or "Field Training Officer"

Nerd.

1 hour ago, Regular Joe said:

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.

Aaah wall of text! But yeah this pretty much also highlights some key elements where a Field Training Officer is crucial for SEC function. For example when a officer decides to arrest Kiachi for Vandalism. The entire incident can be prevented if the Field Training Officer is with that newsec to tell him "Don't arrest for Vandalism charges. We don't do that on this station"

 

The goal of this job is primarily for people who are going into SEC who understand that their job is to be the training officer for newsec. In order to ensure the job holder is going into the job understanding that we have two options:

Karma Job - Which would probably be preferred by many Karma holders due to the lack of Karma Jobs. However this would potentially restrict access to the majority.

Time Lock - Kind of like how HOS is except with a EVEN LONGER time lock. I personally believe it'd take 20 hours alone to understand the Security Job enough to teach. That's 10 consistent shifts *If they survive the entire shift*

2 hours ago, Rurik said:

So would it be a no go for the alternative title "Local Badass?" 

Maybe you could convince a HOP for a job name change! The Criteria for local badass is you must carry a bottle of whiskey in your bag. The whiskey is your uniform

Edited April 9, 2019 by Furasian

[Regular Joe]

3 hours ago, ZN23X said:

This behavior is, again, already taught by veteran security. If you have a bunch of people playing to win in sec frequently, new people will follow their lead. If you have a bunch of sec who aren't playing to win playing sec frequently, new people will learn those habits instead. So, if you have this new role that is dedicated to teaching new sec, the person playing that role will teach sec how THEY play. You cannot guarantee that the person playing this role won't be someone who teaches play to win playstyle. Just as it is now with new sec learning from vet sec, this could go either way.

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:

2 hours ago, Furasian said:

 For example when a officer decides to arrest Kiachi for Vandalism. The entire incident can be prevented if the Field Training Officer is with that newsec to tell him "Don't arrest for Vandalism charges. We don't do that on this station"

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.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Regular Joe

[CornMyCob]

1 hour ago, Furasian said:

In order to ensure the job holder is going into the job understanding that we have two options:

While it'd be stupid to buy and play a job you don't know anything about, having an amount of karma does not imply security experience. You'd want this to be locked behind a time limit. I'd personally be for just adding a separate title for security officers, like I see some people using the nurse job (lewd jokes aside), that shows that they don't really have much experience in the role and are still learning. I think officers already have enough people to go to for advice anyways; you have a warden, HoS, IAA, magistrate, NT rep, your fellow officers and mentors to ask for help and advice from. I see this resulting in something like internal affairs where they have no real authority and people will just argue with them all the time over trivial shit.

[Landerlow]

I'm a bit so/so about this suggestion.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a designated instructor. It should DEFINITELY be a karma job, no questions asked. 

 

However the thing is, in this game .. there is often not the /time/ to properly 'train'  officers. And, to be honest, and this goes for current officers as well: The biggest issue often is C O M M U N I C A T I O N. 

 

Communication, lack of map knowledge, lack of SOP knowledge. These are things an officer should read up on before actually taking the job, things the officer should keep in mind, things an officer should not have to be told a lot. It's only natural to communicate as often and as coherent as you can. Then again, it should also be common knowledge not to harmbaton everyone, but hey .. communication really is one of the biggest issues. And blueshields who interfere with security thinking they're redshields, but that's handled seperately.

 

To be fair, I think a lot of this could also be handed to IAA's. IAA's are there for the whole station, but let's face it, they focus most on security. It could be an idea to make an alt-title 'security instructor'  for the IAA job. This gives them actual things to do, makes them helpful. I'm not sure a *complete* new role is needed for this. I think, with what we have currently, we could work something out.

[Regular Joe]

15 minutes ago, CornMyCob said:

While it'd be stupid to buy and play a job you don't know anything about, having an amount of karma does not imply security experience. You'd want this to be locked behind a time limit. I'd personally be for just adding a separate title for security officers, like I see some people using the nurse job (lewd jokes aside), that shows that they don't really have much experience in the role and are still learning. I think officers already have enough people to go to for advice anyways; you have a warden, HoS, IAA, magistrate, NT rep, your fellow officers and mentors to ask for help and advice from. I see this resulting in something like internal affairs where they have no real authority and people will just argue with them all the time over trivial shit.

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.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Regular Joe

[Gatchapod]

I suppose a too lengthy post might be unappealing, so I might end up slightly repeating myself.

IAAs are way too often completely unqualified to guide newsec in Space Law and SOP matters. Magistrates have dealt with so much shitcurity they often have very little patience, too. Both are just bogeymen newsec would prefer to avoid for somewhat sensible reasons. They're only learning, can you stop yelling at them for all the slightest mistakes?

HoS more often than not is playing Rambo. He's big, he's bad and he ain't need no officers. He can handle the baddies.
Warden is glued to the camera console and would rather suicide than spend time at least explaining how equipment works.
While some veterans will show good behaviours, like pairing up to investigate "help maint" moments, many important things are easy to miss and take up a lot of time and luck to learn. Furthermore, veterans at most will passively show good behaviours, maybe correct minor mistakes around them. Almost never actually teach.

Creating Instructor/Cadets system would allow new officers to not impact the round so badly. As it is right now, creating an unofficial Instructor/Cadet pair cripples the Security while spawning additional antags. If we reduced their weight just a bit in comparison to regular officers, there would be close to no difference, I believe. Instructor/Cadets would only have to really respond to code red threats when the station's integrity is endangered, otherwise they would be almost a subdepartment handling minor crimes and conducting seaches when main department is too busy piloting exosuits into the cult base.

I know this form could be abused by veteran security signing up as Cadets and Instructors validhunting. The latter being less likely, since, as Furasian said, karma jobs often live up to the expectations. Consider this a brainstorming.

 

And it's hardly shorter...

Edited April 10, 2019 by Gatchapod

[Fursamie]

20 hours ago, Landerlow said:

I'm a bit so/so about this suggestion.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a designated instructor. It should DEFINITELY be a karma job, no questions asked. 

 

However the thing is, in this game .. there is often not the /time/ to properly 'train'  officers. And, to be honest, and this goes for current officers as well: The biggest issue often is C O M M U N I C A T I O N. 

 

Communication, lack of map knowledge, lack of SOP knowledge. These are things an officer should read up on before actually taking the job, things the officer should keep in mind, things an officer should not have to be told a lot. It's only natural to communicate as often and as coherent as you can. Then again, it should also be common knowledge not to harmbaton everyone, but hey .. communication really is one of the biggest issues. And blueshields who interfere with security thinking they're redshields, but that's handled seperately.

 

To be fair, I think a lot of this could also be handed to IAA's. IAA's are there for the whole station, but let's face it, they focus most on security. It could be an idea to make an alt-title 'security instructor'  for the IAA job. This gives them actual things to do, makes them helpful. I'm not sure a *complete* new role is needed for this. I think, with what we have currently, we could work something out.

Adding on to this, from personal experience I can say that security gets pretty stressful from either the 30min mark or the 1hr mark, what with 5 people being in processing for god knows why, with no notes, one of them is bleeding out, two are vox without their tanks, the other three arent cuffed and are trying to escape - security isnt very organized usually in normal rounds. This suggestion sounds well on paper, but the fact of the matter is that paradise rounds are not that slow paced  (and with the 1k mark being hit everyday, it is even worse) to allow a role like this to function properly.

[Regular Joe]

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

Edited April 10, 2019 by Regular Joe

[Gatchapod]

I would suggest sticking to the topic for now.

You are touching a different subject. Instructors are about making Security more approachable and less of a Dark Souls-like experience. YOU DIED. Git gud, scrub.
You are talking about the fact one person, who often finds themself in the field, simply can't coordinate a team spread around the station. Why? Because it's not actually a team.
Do note that when Security coordinates larger operations, probably the most common (the only, really?) case being attacking cult bases, they usually are capable of cooperating. Because it's possible to cooperate a few people within your sight. Hell, they probably won't need much communication.

But again, let's focus on one thing. If we start throwing ideas what could be added to/changed in Security, thread will quickly lose its value due to a lot of ideas that get no attention whatsoever.

[Calecute]

I like the idea. I think Karma role should probably be enough filter, even thou people can theoretically get the job without sec xp. 

I don't think the role make sense thematcally as a VIP, it should be proper sec like pod pilot. Should not have command comms, or be protected by BS or be outside normal chain of command.

While people can and do learn from more experienced players, nudging people to teach and nudging noobs to be taught will help.

[Regular Joe]

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.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Regular Joe