Furasian

SEC Instructor Jobs, A Remedy to Newsec

Recommended Posts

>Oh boy oh boy Rollback!

Well a week has passed, and over time I've observed pretty much everything that everyone was explaining. Those who took up my offer to learn would quickly learn what I know and their survival rate would double. Those who didn't usually disappeared in maintenance.

 

BUT WITH ALL THIS IN MIND and all the points presented one question remains: How do we go forward in implementing this idea? We have a general idea on the loadout, but what should be the official final decision on a instructor's loadout? How shall we write the SOPs for the instructor? AAAAH SO MUCH CRAP TO STILL ESTABLISH

  • fastparrot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Furasian said:

>Oh boy oh boy Rollback!

Well a week has passed, and over time I've observed pretty much everything that everyone was explaining. Those who took up my offer to learn would quickly learn what I know and their survival rate would double. Those who didn't usually disappeared in maintenance.

 

BUT WITH ALL THIS IN MIND and all the points presented one question remains: How do we go forward in implementing this idea? We have a general idea on the loadout, but what should be the official final decision on a instructor's loadout? How shall we write the SOPs for the instructor? AAAAH SO MUCH CRAP TO STILL ESTABLISH

clown mask, they dont deserve the mercy of any other clothing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly i don't see this as super useful. the vet players should teach the new players. having a specific job for it is a bit silly, and what will the instructor do if all the sec players know what they are doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Taac said:

honestly i don't see this as super useful. the vet players should teach the new players. having a specific job for it is a bit silly, and what will the instructor do if all the sec players know what they are doing?

 

This is kinda my worry. A newbie sec player worth their salt will listen to experienced officers anyway. A crappy one won't even listen to chat and just focus on harmbatoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taac said:

honestly i don't see this as super useful. the vet players should teach the new players. having a specific job for it is a bit silly, and what will the instructor do if all the sec players know what they are doing?

I'd like to imagine while not teaching new players, the Instructor could act as a sort of in-field Internal Affairs Agent. Keeping an eye on other members while they are treating criminals outside of Brig, while, as it seems the direction of people's opinion has gone this way, also just performing usual Officer duties.

General consensus on this thread seems to prefer them to act as more of a Senior Officer rather than a VIP. As such, I'll include a new idea for the uniform (which doesn't involve the VIP elements).
- Same as most general Security uniforms, maybe with a few minor changes.
~ Potentially could spawn with a different weapon than the taser, if it's decided to be a karma role they could even have the same revolver as the Blueshield.
~ Normal Secbelt stuff, or just make them pick one up same as the rest of the Officers.
~ Same general access, maybe elevated to include Detective's Office or Internal Affairs (if people agree on the integration aspect).
~ Officer's beret to help distinguish them from regular Security at a glance, would help new players identify without having to examine everyone for their ID. They could also just PDA them so that's not entirely necessary.
Could have their own office, but that would require the addition of a whole new access level and would probably be more effort than needed.
Maybe give them a SWAT mask on spawn?

Obviously the previous load-out I provided would be for the VIP aspect, but I hope the idea of a more general role helps too!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new office seems overkill - they should be out in the field.

A cool beret to make them look cooler for sure.

 

One issue I have (and this has come up with various ideas for things like "senior doctor" etc) - is eliteness. What could we do to make sure people using this role don't have an elitist attitude about it, and aren't going to wave their authority around?

  • Like 1
  • stunbaton 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, necaladun said:

One issue I have (and this has come up with various ideas for things like "senior doctor" etc) - is eliteness. What could we do to make sure people using this role don't have an elitist attitude about it, and aren't going to wave their authority around?

If it's decided as a karma role, they could be held to the same standards as the Magistrate and the NT Rep, in terms of the role being sensitive and higher RP standard required among those who play it to act more as an adviser to other Security rather than a higher ranking Officer.

If it's decided to be a high playtime role, then maybe they could be deterred with high levels of SOP for IAAs to keep an eye out for, and potentially a higher punishment due to the fact they're meant to be an example to others? Or it could be specified that while being tasked with helping Security and keeping an eye out for malpractice in the field, they do not outrank any Officer and will be held to the same standards for SOP breaches/malpractice than anyone else in Security would be held to.

I really don't know. Could attempt a sort of trial event in which CC promotes someone in Security to Instructor, they go to the HoP for an ID change and see how players react to it all. Although that would require some communication with players to see who's new to Security and who can help them out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say more yes for an officer-instructor, compared to a VIP-instructor, though I like both ways of the idea. With the officer version, it feels like more minor, and thus, adequate, change, for as officer they will do officer if there is no need for their specific profession. The instructor/advisor VIP, in the other hand, could have some more things on them, along with those thought on an officer-instructor. I'll write here about an officer-instructor as I happen to have more ideas on that one.

Either way, I see the job would have its best value in the duty to supervise and correct, that is, to prevent bad security action. That is now the sole responsibility of HoS and is too much for them, if the flow of the events was past certain level. That for, I agree that reasonable newsec will ask veterans and not-so reasonable won't care. But the instructor would be dealing with this fact happening anyway, by making HoS aware of the problem cases in case they're hopeless, else, correcting and teaching those - if the latter is possible per the attitude of the receiving end.

Most of the things, that would fall to the instructor to care about, are nevertheless small - small enough to disappear from the eyes of HoS or other, busy officers, but which will feed the known snowball effect of (angry greytiding <--> shitcuriting), or at least, will be uselessly dull experience for the receiving end. Then, in the other hand, if sec happen to be a great one, so that there are no need to watch over their doings, the instructor would do officer as an officer per usual, so the job would not be an useless one. Though I'd say there are more shifts in which it would be great if sec had extra attention to their conduct.

So not so much for just instructing, but more to have an eye whether some person needs that, or needs to get rid of, which, if you ask me, is the need that this role would fill. As distinct to IAA, instructor being in the field is to prevent, as IAA is to deal with the malpractice done. As distinct to mentors and vet sec as usual, the role would have an IC duty to be an eye on those things, which is in my opinion the neat thing there.

 

Thoughts on the practical questions here.

On distinct equipment, I'd say cool beret, aswell, not much else would be needed as clothing. Maybe an armband or stripes of similar colour theme as the beret, whatever it would be?

On gear, sec officer equipment as usual would do - I'm thinking here quite same as Christasmurf on the top there, about access, bit elevated, possibly.

On SOP, authority and what-if they do it bad - I'd suggest, in SOP, giving a distinction about in which instructor is officer is an officer, and in which they have their specific job. That could be described as something like - sketching it for a start:

 

"1.The instructor is to focus on either of their primary mission:

  • a. supervising the conduct of the officers in common, correcting possible mishaps, and endorsing good conduct in accordance with Security and Legal SoP and the space law,
  • b. to instruct specific officers, by their call to do so, or per such order by the HoS.

2.The instructor is permitted to do officer's regular duties, under the condition that doing so will not obstruct their primary mission, that is, the conduct of the department leave nothing to be attended with, in terms of acting in accordance of Security and Legal SoP and the space law.

3. The instructor must not occupy themselves with officer's regular duties so, that they fail to complete their primary mission.

4. The instructor perfoming officer's regular duties, under all circumstances, must follow the SoP guidelines of Security Officers. Or then copy the officer guidelines to the end, as they are done with the pod pilot's guidelines.

5. The instructor holds no authority to other officers, but are considered to be an officer among officers. Explicitly stated, so that the instructor won't start bossing around, or if doing so can be ignored, noted by IAA/HoS or get rid of if that gets annoying. Don't know whether the method on the function of "correcting" of 1a should be explicated here somehow, to like, be done in field privately, NOT via radio in public, so avoiding the threat of sec-arguing. - That isn't as dumb to be written out as it might seem, or it seems to me while I write this, as for even military conduct guidelines do state that ("correct specific personnel privately, not in public; latter is considered ashaming and correcting the unit instead of a specific person is reserved for the commander of the unit", or something like that. While the reasons for such aren't that far of what we might consider as such in a video game... nobody really wants that kind of acting.)

6. The instructor has an authority and responsibility over a specific officer, should the HoS order so, in the purpose of drilling a junior officer or supervising a misconducting officer. Concerning authority, am suggesting them to have a specific authority, but being locked behind the HoS. So for no powertripping (or if that should happen, the instructor does a SOP breach themselves and are, at first, to be noted, then to be considered whether to be kept or not, by either HoS or IAA, if present ). Yet this kind of authority would be in place, for dealing with the borderline unruly cases, and, in the other hand, giving the HoS a specific, concrete use of their instructor: "hey fillmoore so we have concerns on this officer Batonhonkers, take them to your drill, make papers for demote and proceed with that, if it's all useless"/"hey again fillmoore so some grayson wants to join sec as a trainee, you'll take care of them right?

7. The instructor must address, in first, the HoS privately, the IAA in second, or the Captain in third, should they have objections, in accordance with Security and Legal SoP and the space law, against the conduct of the HoS. " This in case of the HoS is the problem, what I'm trying to give out, is to either note them privately, then, if the subject matter is something gross, turn it to the IAA as an IAA case to deal with, if IAA is unable and it's really gross a thing, to the Captain. Also, of course this is about SoP breaches or misforcing the space law, for breaking the space law is an officer job to solve, as usual.

 

So I'd say instructor's functions, in priority, as supervise, correct, instruct, take responsibility on newsec or badsec officer if ordered so, be an officer.

More on the number 6 there, that way, in the case of the "harmbaton" officer, if the case isn't clear at first hand, having them mandatorially paired up with the instructor, would be a stage before just firing the officer in question. The good in that, is that it will become quickly clear whether a suspicious officer needs treatment by the boot or will they benefit of some guidance. That's a plus for an hurry HoS either way, as they could forward the problem for an another person to care about, be it just some extra attention or force-firing.

 

So far some sketching, if it's of any help for the case, I like it a lot.

Edited by Regular Joe
Some "why so" comments on that sketch of guidelines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly. i'm just a player so my opinion doesn't mean much but this is a big fat no from me. if we add more karma jobs i want more unique jobs. not just another job that is gonna end up being sec pod pilot where they are just a fancy officer 99% of the time. why not have the current sec pod pilot also teach people? this seems like a massive waste of job space.

Edited by Taac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Taac said:

this seems like a massive waste of job space

There is no job space that can be wasted. In fact, with the current constant highpop, creating new jobs that make sense is on the official desired features list. And people buy sec pod pilot for the pod pilot. Other people want to tutor newbies. Pod pilots would be pissed at the slot being taken up by someone that just wants to tutor people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TDS said:

There is no job space that can be wasted. In fact, with the current constant highpop, creating new jobs that make sense is on the official desired features list. And people buy sec pod pilot for the pod pilot. Other people want to tutor newbies. Pod pilots would be pissed at the slot being taken up by someone that just wants to tutor people.

other than the fact that sec pod pilot almost never actually flies their pod anymore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Taac said:

other than the fact that sec pod pilot almost never actually flies their pod anymore

This will derail the discussion towards pod pilot discussion but I will refute that “fact” add that I’ve observed almost every shift the sec pod pilots use the pod. They don’t use the pod the entire shift especially when shit hits the fan because it’s all boots on the ground from there on in. 

Instructors will also work the same way. When they have time to do so they can maintain their other duties, but when it REALLY hits the fan sec officers must remember they’re still a sec officer. Just like in the army: EVERY MAN IS A RIFLEMAN FIRST. Some people unfortunately fail to grasp that idea. Perhaps people who haven’t been exposed to a paramilitary organization...

 

another thing to consider: Its up to the player on how to handle the job... No matter how unique it sounds.

 

If you have a cool unique job idea I bet the community would love to hear it! Another thread would be a cool idea!

 

Back on track:

 

18 hours ago, necaladun said:

A new office seems overkill - they should be out in the field.

A cool beret to make them look cooler for sure.

 

One issue I have (and this has come up with various ideas for things like "senior doctor" etc) - is eliteness. What could we do to make sure people using this role don't have an elitist attitude about it, and aren't going to wave their authority around?

This will be inevitable based on how some players play. It will have to be handled case by case and hopefully SOPs can be established to prevent it. Eventually there will be some things where code and mechanics can’t  prevent it, that’s where players come into play to do something about it!

We’ve had that shift with a shitter nt rep, blueshield, or magistrate. We’ve had the NT rep who centcomm stamped everything and made it sound like it was a official centcomm order. We’ve had the blueshield become redshield, we’ve had the magistrate wear the white wig... From there on in however it’s up to the player’s initiative to speak up and act. We can make the SOPs, but it’s natural a person unfitting for then job will come by every now and then. As a karma job the instructor job will naturally have a higher standard, that being said job bans would probably be the best option if it is necessary.

But @Regular Joeand @Christasmurf Have a good idea on some of the SOPs and loadouts. Perhaps by the end of the month we can flush that out enough to draft a wikipedia page for the Instructor jobslot.

  • explodyparrot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a role to simply monitor cameras and coordinate/monitor coms? Dispatcher?

Dispatcher role could be heavy on making sure officers are responding to things. A lot of times security doesn't really have a clear voice to cut through the noise, so coordination is lost, and antags cause havok.

A robust dispatcher could cause security to redtide/be overpowered in general, so you might consider it a karma role, and increasing the slots available to this position based on population (Perhaps even disable it if the population is too low).

Maybe even go as far to have this role with an ability create one secborg at round start to increase robustness.

Edited by skb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now