Bring back security antags?

[Doukan]

 

Because implicit trust shouldn't be a thing and I want more paranoia.

And what better way to encourage security to be more self aware? And it'd give the IAA a reason not to auto-cyro.

 

Folks like the captain and HoS and maybe warden too certainly not however, since they're no doubt extensively vetted and trained and such, the mall cop level officers though shouldn't such paragons of virtue IMO, especially now loyalty implants don't exist anymore.

 

I've been told off for lacking foresight recently so here are some pros and cons I thought up but don't necessarily dis/agree with.

I might actually figure out if poll creation is possible one day.

 

Pros:

 

- More paranoia, can only be a good thing.

- Will encourage more people to play sec to enjoy said paranoia.

- Will liven things up, sec being a bastion of ultimate loyalty is very stale.

- Lots of aarpee potential, might see some actual framejobs.

 

Cons:

 

- We can't let antags have access to stun weapons that we have, that's OP!

- We NEED to be able to trust sec to effectively counter the antags, how else can we hope to beat them every-time like we do most of the time anyway?

- I don't roll for antag, only play sec, and shouldn't have to worry about my co workers turning on me, that's something I can't 100% secure myself against.

- Unnecessary change, no reason to, don't do it, we must stagnate.

 

I'm not biased at all honest

 

[SigholtStarsong]

 

Literally all your cons listed feel like a healthy helping of "ided, pls nerf." or outright attacks against Sec players.

 

I've seen plenty of antags win against excellent Security forces, and frankly, it makes very little sense for NT Security tk be anything but utterly loyal to NT - or else they'd never be hired for that role.

 

[Vivalas]

Condenscending attitude aside, this is something I would support. The only issue I see is antags playing sec purely to roll security antag and if they don't just cryoing out. That said I've always been in opposition of denying features because people would use them improperly, so tentative +1.

[Doukan]

 

Literally all your cons listed feel like a healthy helping of "ided, pls nerf." or outright attacks against Sec players.

I refer you to my final line.

I've seen plenty of antags win against excellent Security forces, and frankly, it makes very little sense for NT Security tk be anything but utterly loyal to NT - or else they'd never be hired for that role.

There's always been a debate going on over whether sec officers are eleet watered down space marines or actual mall cops, I've always seen them as something inbetween sheriff deputies and SWAT team commandos depending on competence.

 

Vast majority of antags get rekt and fail utterly in my experience, vast majority, you get the occasional robustee or lucky break for some but the balance of power is very much one way.

I could well be wrong, maybe there's stats for it somewhere?

 

Still though that's a whole other topic.

Condenscending attitude aside, this is something I would support. The only issue I see is antags playing sec purely to roll security antag and if they don't just cryoing out. That said I've always been in opposition of denying features because people would use them improperly, so tentative +1.

I think cyro'ing is actually something you get bwionked for if you do it too often for certain roles, it's probably more of a rules issue.

 

Another thing I've considered is that we could perhaps do with more people playing sec in general as well, a lot of people just don't play it because they find it unrewarding, conversely I'd say a lot of people play jobs like genetics and science because antagging as them can be very rewarding.

 

Not that's it's not nice to have hyper-competent regulars and clueness noobs that is but IMO a higher turn around like what other departments get could be a positive influence.

 

[liran424]

 

I support the idea (+1). Mainly because of the reasons above and also because security aren't a bunch of special snowflakes who protect the station with courage and valor. There are your average person who can be dissuaded from the "right path" with money, corruption or whatever. (your average mall cop)

 

You could argue that they have access to stun weapons and say "too op plz don't antagonize". But if you think about it every department has it own special thing for its antags. For example: antags in the medical department have access to chemicals, syringe guns, and genetic augmentation not to mention virus bombing. Antags in the science department have access to R&D (plz nerf), bombs and also chemicals. Cargo antags don't even need to use their uplink, they can just order everything they need. And finally engineering antags have access to EVA and lord singuloth... also atoms. So you see that every department has its own edges in-terms of supplementing their antags. So why not add security antags.

 

[necaladun]

 

One of the reasons sec antags are so powerful isn't just the access to numerous stun weapons etc, but is the authority to walk around with them and use them. Other departments may have bombs, syringe guns, etc, but if they walk around with them openly, they'll get in trouble with....security.

 

On top of that, there's the ability for them to lie and frame people, let out other antags, etc. On low population, even 1 sec officer as an antag may be the entire force - with no HoS or Warden watching them, they can easily rob the armoury with an emag, assuming they don't get promoted to acting HoS.

 

Unlike any other antag, a sec officer as an antag isn't just +1 antag, but -1 sec officer. Even the possibility of it undermines security massively.

 

Then there's the greytide yelling bloody murder. I'd kinda like sec to be antags just so some of them could murder the everloving shit out of people who troll sec. The chance of a sec officer being an antag might make people be a tad more polite to them on the off chance they'd be allowed to murder the shit out of you. But the fact that people like to push sec's buttons, then act like they're fighting for freedom against an oppressive regime - knowing that OOCly they can't retaliate, is another issue.

 

I really like it in theory, but in practice it's been a general negative. I've talked about the possibility of non-syndicate antag types for them, with objectives involving corruption or just permission to violate SoP, but it's a minefield of possibilities.

 

tl;dr great in theory not so much in practice

 

[Sothangel]

 

I have to agree with Necaladun, I think this would not work as well in practice as it does on paper.

 

I think it would lead to one-man supercop HOS, because you can't trust your underlings if they /might/ be corrupt... Right? The idea of having a mole inside security and finding them sounds good, but I think it'd just bring problems (Serious threat to station and it's known through forensics or whatever that an officer is an antag, do I give them all weapons from the armoury or not, some might think) for most of the crew, and whilst I'm not saying shitcurity keep everything intact, officers being able to be antags would create an every-person-for-themself mentality I feel.

 

[Doukan]

 

tl;dr great in theory not so much in practice

Well you're not wrong.

Still though all that'd have to be done to counter any of that would be for sec to actually... watch each other, and not let their co workers do whatever, just like everyone else does.

It's half the reason cops IRL have things like partners and statements and headcams.

 

[necaladun]

 

Supercop HoS's is a great point Soth - the less people known to be loyal, the more powerful the people who are guaranteed loyal are.

 

As for watching each other - that assumes they have the numbers to actually do that. High pop could easily have an IAA or whatever watching headcams or the like, but when there's only 2-3 people in sec (or 1) that's just not feasible.

 

[Spacemanspark]

I'd be fine with de-loyalty implanting sec officers, to make it easier to make them into an antagonist, but I don't think they should be roundstart antagonists.

[Allfd]

 

So I have a story.

 

I was playing a security officer one round a great while ago. I had the objective of stealing the CMOs hypospray, I made some fake charges, arrested them and dragged them to the brig all the while they were screaming about shitcurity. Threw them in the cell, searched them, and while I was putting their items in the locker I pocketed the Hypospray and that was it. Timer was set for whatever the time of the supposed crime was (I think it was 10 minutes but I don't remember the crime) and that was it. I did not want to do anything to take them out of the round so instead ended up just wasting the other players time so I could get greentext with minimal increase in any sort of chaos or narrative. This was the point I unchecked almost all the antag and they have only been put back on rarely since.

 

 

Security has enough problems without figuring out who is an antagonist or just a horrible security officer.

 

[Doukan]

 

Security has enough problems without figuring out who is an antagonist or just a horrible security officer.

You see the problem there is there was no oversight, it was assumed since you were an officer you were justified in doing whatever.

 

[GelatinousGlob]

 

While I agree it has its problems, if it got more people to play security I think it would be good. It might also make security more vulnerable to IAA and their superiors in doing their job right. One thing that would ideally happen is whenever a security officer just runs up to people and tasers and cuffs someone without word or warning, other people try to question and maybe even stop the officer until he explains. Antag security would be a juicy target for validhunters. It would make sending out wanted notices and such more important so officers don't get mobbed by greytide for stun and cuff on sight. People not announced wanted would hopefully be approached more calmly and if they run everyone knows that the security guy isn't being an ass.

 

In the past I mentioned a change that could also make antag officers a more realistic change, make setting cell timers record who set the timer and give a spot to say what charges the person inside were given for that time. Those records could automatically be applied to someones security record. It gives IAA a bit of bone to build a report on instead of he claims X, she claims Y, no physical evidence, im not even sure who set the timer. With more meaty IAA the bad officers get fired more, the good officers don't get bothered, antag security is more likely to be questioned or fired for illegal arrests and beatings and such, more people play security for that antag.

 

[davidchan]

 

If it can be coded to make them low priority for antag status id be all for it (science getting similar treatment)

 

Corrupt and crooked cops are a thing, lots of sec regulars already have antagonistic attitudes and will gladly shit all over you given the slightest justification or excuse.

 

 

All that said, sec is missing out on some amusing custom objectives that could be given out. Imagine if members of sec were given the objective to baton x amount of people, typically of a specific job or race. Hell imagine if once every 10-20 rounds the entire sec department was given a quota of things to do, such as end the round with 5+ assisstants in perma, and the IAA and Magistrate would need to be vigilant to find this activity and work with the cap to prevent it.

 

[Fox McCloud]

 

TG tried this for detective--it didn't work out too well for a lot of the reasons Soth and Neca brought up---not only that, but it also made everyone second guess the detective if he was really trying to solve a crime or just being an ass trying to frame people or cause trouble for security because he was an antag.

 

It sounds nice, in theory, but in practice, it works out terribly.

 

Even on no-RP servers (like Goon), sec is blacklisted from being antag.

 

 

I also suspect you'll see a lot more people who go sec purely in the hopes of getting antag because it would be ultra easy mode.

 

[GelatinousGlob]

The detective really should be excluded from antag even if security in general isn't. Usually its only one person and they are the only person that can take fingerprints and fiber samples and such.

[davidchan]

I'm calling BS on Detective being removed from the antag list on /tg/ because it didn't work. It got removed because Security players on tg can't fucking handle the thought that someone with access to their precious brig might not be trustable. Hell the guy who wrote up the PR, which had only slightly more support than it had resitsance against it, is notorious for nearly ever single one of his PRs being based around buffing security.

[Doukan]

 

The detective really should be excluded from antag even if security in general isn't. Usually its only one person and they are the only person that can take fingerprints and fiber samples and such.

Yeah I'd second that, the warden HoS and detective should really be trusted individuals as they fulfil very critical roles.

 

Then again though we implemented HoP antags a while back and they've been fairly well balanced since, people have learned to properly scrutinise backup captains and non-paperwork related HoP shitttery has hit a low, such healthy second guessing (with good reason) should be the norm IMO, not something sec are uniquely exempt from.

 

[Farya]

 

Some other builds like bay have second slot and equipment locker(including second gun) for detective. While Tau Ceti have Forensic Tech as additional job designed to help detective(code wise its nerfed detective for newbies/xeno players who are not allowed to pick detective due to char race).

Maybe we should add second detective/forensic tech and allow detective to be traitor? As well as security members EXCEPT HoS who would never be antagonist. Security members however would just have low priority for antags and there would be quota of one - only one member of security regardless of rank could be antag at the time, traitor or not.

Making objective depend from job would be extremely AWESOME and deserve its own thread. I would honestly enjoy to play as lawful evil warden who had enough shit from stupid and ignorant crewmembers and start to make his own gulag out of permabrig. And eventually overthrow the station command for the glory of Syndicate.

 

[Boris Lemons]

 

I think security would need to have a different set of objectives. If they were antagonists in the traditional sense, they'd risk being too powerful but also would mean there'd be one fewer person to help combat antags.

 

I quite like the idea of the "bad officer" objectives. Ones that encourage them to still do their jobs but in a way that doesn't detract from other players' experience. Stuff like the old "break someone's bone to teach them a lesson" or new ideas like "You hold a grudge against X, ensure they spend at least 15 minutes in a cell".

 

[SomeGuy9283]

 

Antags that infiltrate Security using impersonation, job transfers, and other methods are fine because doing so requires effort. Lets take a look at what a security antag would have available to them, without any sort of force or trickery on their part, and with using their uplink:

 

A security officer has a weapon that can fire six insta-stun bolts in quick succession, an anti-borg and instant disarm weapon (flash), flash bangs, armor, restraints, and a metal baton that does damage comparable to a sleeping-carp punch.

 

The Brig Physician, having equipment room access, has available to them all of the above, barring the Taser, plus sleep toxins in their sleeper, medical supplies, and enjoys a far lesser degree of scrutiny than a normal security member would.

 

The Warden obviously has all of the above, plus flashers, entire boxes of flash bangs, tear gas, hand cuffs and zip-ties. He has access to the armory, although given his position of trust he can just take a prisoner to 'process' them and they disappear."What happened?" "I dunno, I gave 'em to Officer so-and-so for interrogation"

 

I feel like the detectives advantages are pretty self-explanatory.

 

And all of this is without lethals being distributed, which they would once antags in other departments get moving.

 

To recap, making security viable antags pits loyal security staff and the crew as a whole against a force who are, to borrow terminology from the Taser electrodes discussion, 'Meant to be OP against normal crew,' without even using any TCs or other methods to gain that advantage. As for 'bad-cop' objectives, traitor sec completing their objectives in such a way that undermines or inconveniences other players without any overt antag or round-developing behavior would just add more confusion and add more fire to the anti-sec mentality.

 

[GelatinousGlob]

I wouldn't mind if they didn't have tasers but tasers are too OP for antag security.

[Renfield]

 

But that's one of the problems you face when look at making Security open to antags.

 

If tasers are too OP for antags, what are you going to do to replace them?

 

You can't really replace the weapon with anything else otherwise it'd be a dead giveaway, not to mention that you wouldn't really be able to justify ICly, the organisation that sent said antags, depriving their agents of a tool that could make their job a hell of a lot easier.

 

Personally, I think there is a lot of contempt towards security anyway, some of it warranted, some not to so much, but I think, at least in the formats discussed, giving Sec the capability to be antagonists will, to quote an earlier post, add fuel to what is already a relatively strong fire.

 

[davidchan]

 

I never had a problem with Sec Antags, mostly cause the difference between regular sec and antag sec was antag sec had an actual reason to kill you and the rest of sec would kill you because you annoyed them.

 

I'm neutral on this, but the amount of salt and drama regular sec players are making over this is rather amusing. Can't imagine working in a department without being able to trust everyone else along side you? *gasp* It's like every other job on the station! How horrible! Pretty much every argument for no antag sec could be made for no antag sci in how powerful they can be and the gear they have access to by default.

 

[improvedname]

 

TG tried this for detective--it didn't work out too well for a lot of the reasons Soth and Neca brought up---not only that, but it also made everyone second guess the detective if he was really trying to solve a crime or just being an ass trying to frame people or cause trouble for security because he was an antag.

 

It sounds nice, in theory, but in practice, it works out terribly.

 

Even on no-RP servers (like Goon), sec is blacklisted from being antag.

 

 

I also suspect you'll see a lot more people who go sec purely in the hopes of getting antag because it would be ultra easy mode.

 

But tg is a murderbone rest