Furasian

SEC Instructor Jobs, A Remedy to Newsec

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ty Omaha said:

The name is incorrect and should be based on logic rather than a number which is almost 50/50. I don't care about the look, the hat reminds me of a state trooper hat.

New security officers are going to want to get yelled at 24/7? No
Drill Instructors are going to make them to drills? No
Do Drill Instructors play an active role on the field? No

The Security department is not a paramilitary organization.

Which is why I personally wanted to go for the other option, but as I said before there's a significant voice of people who want me to at least put that title in. You'll notice through all my drafts I haven't used Drill Instructor because that wasn't the intention. If the poll could tip towards the 1980s copper theme that'd be cool! 

 

Anywho, if PEOPLE SAID SOMETHING SOONER which I've told you guys over and over in the discord to voice your opinions before the polls went out, then we probably wouldn't be at this stage. Those who saw my posts to come here and say something did, and that's why the job role went this direction. 

 

When we looked at the poll a couple days ago it was 10 - 6 Drill winning which is why the PR went in as drill for now. It can be changed, and the vote still has 4 days left! 

 

On a side note we're also pushing to have BOTH sides put into the server. The poll is for in the event admins decide only one theme can make its way into the server

  • explodyparrot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Anywho, if PEOPLE SAID SOMETHING SOONER which I've told you guys over and over in the discord to voice your opinions before the polls went out, then we probably wouldn't be at this stage. Those who saw my posts to come here and say something did, and that's why the job role went this direction. 

https://nanotrasen.se/forum/topic/15704-sec-instructor-jobs-a-remedy-to-newsec/?do=findComment&comment=127544

Share this post


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

Which I took note of! However I took all those other "police titles" and put it under the theme of the 1980s copper vote which has the description that supports Field Training officers and Sergeant ((the option I personally supported))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security seem not very police, in the other hand, that’s point of the drill instructor option. On the logic there, sec is not army but it isn’t state police either, and, moreover the gap between police and military are not that black and white as one could think of. As in ss13, we are mixing present and known scifi fables, sec seem to me to be a kind of... mixture of the both, turning more into military when the threats become more harsh.

Just saying, as I was here previously speaking of instructor role so, that I drew examples from the military side. By doing so I was not to suggest an yelling kind of instructor. People read things differently. To feel a military-twisted instructor as an yelling recruit driller is kinda US only thing. Same might apply in thinking of military in general to be just about intense warfare aka killing.

Most of the western military operations present are about de-escalation, stabilization and peacekeeping, while threats for that are usually NGO’s, instead of fighting states. I’ve reflected that kind of military to my character’s backstory, as it is what presently happens and lore-wise seem to fit the spess way future. Those, namely operations, are that way much different to movies, been there done that, in a level enough to see it from a range. Even if national military training where I’m coming from is foremost about combat, on foreign service, it’s all in for peace keeping, which means, that telebatons are more preffered than guns, and greatly, greatly over the both, every time when it’s possible, talking. That in conjuction with the readiness to highen the threat level, which makes gearing, attitude and preferred decisions on tensioned situationsä more ”military”, and, in face of sudden violence, the ability to self-defence. I’ll hardly believe that most of the US stuff, even, in last ten years have been that much about warfare, even in it’s low intensity form.

So for, I’ve happened to reflect the security as both police and military, namely, the lone keeper of space peace, security and maximum workspace efficiency on the corner of the space in which Cyberiad lies, and that way felt sec as a paramilitary-corporate security force. But that’s just an opinion along others we MRP around there. If people feel a military style instructor as a loss for immersion, or even as an excuse for unintented playstyle, better not choose that even if it’s liked, for that’s just about visuals. I actually didn’t know anything about police FTO’s prior this thread so couldn’t think about that beforehand. So, on second thought, giving that a drill instructor look could give people those kind of impressions, a FTO look would be more reasonable then.

On military and instructors there, can’t help myself to say, though, that instructors in military, either way, are not just a boot camp thing, even if the campaign hat in the vote points to US bootcamps. It’s a job to do among professionals on field aswell, as of in (at least) European militaries the distinction between field and academy isn’t very big any more, for readiness’ sake. After initial training, year or so, the unit enters service and it’s continously trained during that. Instructing there is not about yelling or drilling, but overseeing and practising. On staff or basic unit level, the title is instructor, an officer who usually has another job somewhere in the unit; inside a basic unit it’s among the duties of a commanding officer and-or a sergeant either in a platoon or a squad - this for reference of some options of mil themes other to drill instructors. Out of these I’d personally flag for a sergeant.

All in all I’m just full in for the idea, and on visuals, it’s reasonable for the role to stand out but not too specifically - so, that the visuals support the role to fit as much as possible our present brig. Count my vote for sec officer style cool beret and an attitude that is seen most fitting for there, be it military or police inspirated.

Edited by Regular Joe
Well this for final edit honk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUICK UPDATE:

 

Due to recent events I will have to suspend the vote. I thank you all for your time in voting! Unfortunately it is causing controversy that is stopping the merge from happening. I will take the time to speak with the coder who is helping me on the PR and we'll have to make some changes.

 

Thanks for your votes and time! But unfortunately both me and some staff members are confident would make more sense to make the officer go down the route of a Field Training Officer rather than a Drill Instructor.

 

To those who voted the 1980's cop vote. You won! 

 

Edited by Furasian
  • fastparrot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget to show people how to get their greentext:

 

  • Like 1
  • clown 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is far, far too much text here to read every single post, but here's my two cents.

To echo what others have said, I think this job will be no different to a veteran officer who knows what they're doing and teaches other officers how to do the job. Personally, I think there are two alternate approaches that might work better:

1. Go the opposite route and create a Trainee Officer role to clearly delineate newbies. They're clearly in need of hand-holding, and I'd suggest giving them Brig access but not equipment room access. Biggest issue I see with this is antags taking advantage, but that would require some discussion, I imagine.

2. Take the concept a step further and create a role akin to Veteran Officers (call them what you will). Again, something to delineate those who know what they're doing from those who might now. Veterans can act as team leads if the HoS assigns teams, they can hand-hold newbies as needed and they can be a rallying point if the HoS and Warden are either unavailable or dead. There would be a time requirement to unlock - no karma required. 

A trainer role, to me, has weird lore implications (why would you send untrained staff to a station? Staff in training is more reasonable to me) and I'm not convinced it would be anything but an excuse for people to act like a drill instructor for 45 karma. I could sit here and write an essay, but I doubt anyone would read it. Suffice to say, I'm not a fan of the concept as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To rework this as a trainee and trainer role would probably stirr more confusion in the code. The biggest issue behind the trainee role is the antagonist’s ability to abuse that job. 

 

And trainer roles are not as weird as you might think especially in security and law enforcement agencies! Some security agencies will throw you into your beat with a guy who knows what he’s doing if you just show them you’re certified to do the job. There are simply things you can’t learn in a class setting, so some agencies put the rookies out on the streets under the wing of a field training officer.

Like I said before coding is another issue. I was fortunate enough to find someone willing to code the Field Training Officer job. I don’t think it’d be fair for me to shake him down to code yet another job when I’m not even paying him. Maybe after the training officer is established we can look into trainees. The reason the training officer is being made is to designate someone as the person people can turn to for help while they work the beat.

 

I forgot to mention the PR is out! It’s still being edited and shaped so feel free to look into the code and point out any abnormalities that might need fixing!

https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/11387

Share this post


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

To rework this as a trainee and trainer role would probably stirr more confusion in the code. The biggest issue behind the trainee role is the antagonist’s ability to abuse that job. 

 

And trainer roles are not as weird as you might think especially in security and law enforcement agencies! Some security agencies will throw you into your beat with a guy who knows what he’s doing if you just show them you’re certified to do the job. There are simply things you can’t learn in a class setting, so some agencies put the rookies out on the streets under the wing of a field training officer.

Like I said before coding is another issue. I was fortunate enough to find someone willing to code the Field Training Officer job. I don’t think it’d be fair for me to shake him down to code yet another job when I’m not even paying him. Maybe after the training officer is established we can look into trainees. The reason the training officer is being made is to designate someone as the person people can turn to for help while they work the beat.

 

I forgot to mention the PR is out! It’s still being edited and shaped so feel free to look into the code and point out any abnormalities that might need fixing!

https://github.com/ParadiseSS13/Paradise/pull/11387

I'm not suggesting a trainee/trainer role gets added in addition, I'm suggesting them as alternatives to this idea, which I am against. I don't think the Sec Instructor role is a good concept, I'm sorry to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what Ralta said (trying to be short now, excuse me being a writing machine about every time I get interested to write) I'd read what Furasian wrote as a draft of guidelines for the new role so, that they actually cover the both, training and being a veteran officer.

While instructing is a primary mission, if there is no need for it - or, there are more priority things, like during code red, the instructor would act like "a veteran officer." So not just a trainer or just a veteran, but both blended as a security instructor/field training officer/sergeant - to answer both calls. On lore, it seems FTO's that train/supervise in field are a thing in law enforcement - and such work definitely is a thing in militaries, so that duties of training and actual stuff are carried by a same person. So the intention, as I read it from Furasian's draft, is to have both a trainer and a veteran there, with some openess for the style on how players will comply with the role, so that it will accommodate to different shifts; not all shifts have any need for teaching, while other times that would be great if it was available and same on roles that could be thought for a veteran officer.

Though whether or whether not instructors are things irl-wise, we of course play here with associations, which sure depends on culture, and we're here from all around the world. So it's indeed a question how to get the intended impression for the new role, like, not too narrow but still giving out the idea what's this for.

Edited by Regular Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to note is when it comes down to it the Field Training Officer is a Officer first ((on code blue/red that is)). The intention isn’t for them to still be instructing during code red incident but to atleast herd newsec and make them a force to be reckon with instead of just clusters of loot piñatas.

 

By the end of the day though I completely understand this is a controversial idea! We are trying to shape it to be more logical every day! Don’t hesitate to keep pouring ideas. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friday May 3rd Update 

To the 24 people that voted, the 7 people who commented, and the over 1000 views. I appreciate your time in bringing your opinions to the table, but the support for this job was not enough to please the coders to push the job through.

As of now the merge has been declined. Despite your voices on this matter unfortunately the coder community has thought otherwise.

 

So where do we go from here?

 

As of right now this job is dead in the water. Whether or not you all feel your voices unheard is unfortunately not for me to say on your behalf. You can always message a maintainer if you feel the job is necessary. Convince them otherwise as a community ((in a civil manner please)).

 

Until then this is the end of the SEC Instructor / Field Training Officer. I’ll leave this thread open should people wish to continue the discussion!

Edited by Furasian
Adding appreciation to those who participated ^^
  • fastparrot 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, too bad. It seemed a definite possibility. Given the amount of the work sec has to do, not to forget highening population, the department would really do with a buff to it’s organization to make it go more smoothly, more often. It’s getting heavy for now. Hope we’ll get this or something else rethought with sec, some other day. Thanks for taking it up!

edit: on more smoothly - just to underline it - not to catch baddies more quickly, but to reduce the misconduct, that takes the time of the player in the receiving end and, presently, HoS’s time to deal with it, as per usual, there is no one else to actively (that is, this being their ic duty) look after and instruct their goons’ doings.

Edited by Regular Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do like the idea of a "Security Instructor" on the whole, and I think you've put a lot of good work and effort into the concept. I hope this does get adopted in the future, and I hope you don't give up on it yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta convince the maints and heads that the job's useful, if you want to get it implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TDS said:

Gotta convince the maints and heads that the job's useful, if you want to get it implemented.

 

3 hours ago, Norwest said:

I really do like the idea of a "Security Instructor" on the whole, and I think you've put a lot of good work and effort into the concept. I hope this does get adopted in the future, and I hope you don't give up on it yet.

 

3 hours ago, Regular Joe said:

Oh, too bad. It seemed a definite possibility. Given the amount of the work sec has to do, not to forget highening population, the department would really do with a buff to it’s organization to make it go more smoothly, more often. It’s getting heavy for now. Hope we’ll get this or something else rethought with sec, some other day. Thanks for taking it up!

I terrorized @AffectedArc07 and @Christasmurfand *doesn't want to be mentioned* to put in work on this job and I will be damned if I just wave my arms and say "oh well GG" when I feel based off my experiences in SEC that this job is needed.

I agree, but the challenge will be to prove to the heads / maintainers that we as a community truly believe the job is necessary and wanted. Either that or prove to ourselves that it isn't necessary or wanted.

 

After a discussion of some folks with discord I believe one way to visualize whether or not the community feels this job is necessary is to compile a list of those who support it and those who are against it, fortunately we have this thread to store that information.

 

BEFORE WE CONTINUE 

The final decisions are set in stone:

Job Name: Field Training Officer (No SEC Instructor / Drill Instructor)

Equipment: Normal SEC Gear

Karma Locked Job

SOPs are still the same, HOS and Captain work as the checks and balance to the SEC Instructor to avoid karma job comdomery.

If you agree with these key points, feel free to either post here or PM Me so I can start putting together a list of those who believe the job is necessary and wanted. 

First thing's first though minor details are going to be fixed, Morgue Access ((dont know where that came from)) is getting removed, SEC Instructor is in the bucket, Field Training Officer is in and a few grammatical errors are going to be patched up. Understand there are more critical projects than the Field Training Officer project that coders have to dedicate resources to, so it will be some time before a second PR is compiled... And even then I won't ask for it to be turned in until I am sure the community actually wants this job.

 

This is where everyone who has support for the job count the most. Not only are you proving to the maintainers and head that the job is necessary but you are also proving to me that the job is necessary.

 

To those who disagree: You are important too, we need to officially visualize the yays and nays for the job.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what my opinion is worth, I support the Field training Officer job. Keeping track of all aspects of Space Law and SOP can be hard for new officers. Giving them someone in security they can turn to if they have a question (That isn't an already stressed HOS) sounds good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Furasian since you want to keep track of whos on what side I'll restate my point of view. (also maybe just make a vote instead of getting a bunch of long winded opinions like this one)

Credentials...I'm a sec main with over 800 hours of playtime, at least 700 of that being in sec. Probably more than most. I've seen several generations of security players come and go.

This job is already handled by veteran security players when they have the time and are available and just by simply playing and learning the hard way. Someone can talk to you for hours about how to be security,  you'll still never learn as much as you do through simply putting hours in and experiencing the endless scenarios being security throws at you. If someone cannot handle learning through failing and dying countless times then honestly security isnt the right job for them anyways. Security has functioned perfectly fine for years without this field training officer existing.

I also have played long enough to know that it is perfectly fine that security is not effective all the time. It makes security and the server more interesting when the the effectiveness of security fluctuates. Sometimes its a well oiled machine, sometimes its a hot mess, and everything in between. All of those are acceptable.

I truly don't beleive adding this role will actually have a noticable effect on anything. Everyone will still learn the same way they always have. I know people are just gonna stick with thier guns but I think any effort put into creating this role or even discussing it has been a waste of time. Including this post from me.

Edited by ZN23X
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ZN23X said:

I truly don't beleive adding this role will actually have a noticable effect on anything. Everyone will still learn the same way they always have. I know people are just gonna stick with thier guns but I think any effort put into creating this role or even discussing it has been a waste of time. Including this post from me.

I agree with tetris. I am glad I can waste less by just adding here.

  • Like 1
  • stunbaton 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ZN23X said:

@Furasian since you want to keep track of whos on what side I'll restate my point of view. (also maybe just make a vote instead of getting a bunch of long winded opinions like this one)

Credentials...I'm a sec main with over 800 hours of playtime, at least 700 of that being in sec. Probably more than most. I've seen several generations of security players come and go.

This job is already handled by veteran security players when they have the time and are available and just by simply playing and learning the hard way. Someone can talk to you for hours about how to be security,  you'll still never learn as much as you do through simply putting hours in and experiencing the endless scenarios being security throws at you. If someone cannot handle learning through failing and dying countless times then honestly security isnt the right job for them anyways. Security has functioned perfectly fine for years without this field training officer existing.

I also have played long enough to know that it is perfectly fine that security is not effective all the time. It makes security and the server more interesting when the the effectiveness of security fluctuates. Sometimes its a well oiled machine, sometimes its a hot mess, and everything in between. All of those are acceptable.

I truly don't beleive adding this role will actually have a noticable effect on anything. Everyone will still learn the same way they always have. I know people are just gonna stick with thier guns but I think any effort put into creating this role or even discussing it has been a waste of time. Including this post from me.

Noted, I've created a final yay / nay tally on the first page. As of now we have 1 yay and 2 nays

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan. Count me as a yes, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nay.

I can't really see how you would instruct someone like that in real time in game without looking over their shoulder and having voice chat. There's nothing mechanically unique to security, it's all about experience, teamwork, robustness, and that sort of thing. Compare a guide to what gets covered in guides to security versus something like atmospherics if you don't believe me.

I'm sorry, but this is a solution looking for a problem.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites