/tg/Station 13

We, the coders, designed security as one half anti-antagonist, and the other half IC crime punishment.

Admins currently do not enforce the latter and, in some cases, enforce against the latter.

Please work with the maintainers and coding staff to decide how security should be played on the server by the players, so that we can do stuff like add/remove features to/from security to encourage what the admins actually want to enforce, since you admins clearly don't want to enforce what's already there design wise.

Firstly, Maintainers are always welcome to seek admin opinions on the game and game design, it does not need a policy thread and MSO has encouraged it in the past.
Secondly, from my experience as an admin I don't believe that security are being prevented from punishing people ICly in a valid context by admins, if you have evidence that demonstrates that the opposite for the majority of the admin team I'd be interested in hearing it.

I think this would be a more useful thread if you had specific complaints in mind.

Do you feel like admins interfere in valid arrests too much? Are restrictions on punishments security can hand out too harsh?

Are you proposing we all take the red pill and finally make Space Law codified server policy?

What EXACTLY do you want done?

NamelessFairy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 12:17 pm it does not need a policy thread and MSO has encouraged it in the past.

Yes it does because the admins never fucking provide anything substantial that they actually stick to and enforce. That is the purpose of policy discussion.

we can't force people to play in a specific way, that's the admin's job, so we need you admins to tell us coders how you intend to enforce people to play when they're playing security so that we can design the game around that, since you have refused to listen to us when we ask you to enforce in specific ways in the past(thieves, for example, and the refusal from the admin team to curate the playerbase to be able to handle the concept of an antag that can't murderbone), we are left with no choice but to let you admins lead the design here since security is intrinsically a rules based job and department

so, once again, how does the /tg/station administration want Security to be designed?

I like officers who put the story and everyone’s collective fun before their own. I don’t like officers who are only interested in ridding the station of any and all threats.

I like it when officers talk to the crew, give antags chances, and actually try and resolve disputes. I don’t like it when they kill every antag they find and use their gear to power up, and ignore the crew so that they can continue to do this.

Not an exhaustive list but it’s all I can think of. Not sure how you’d mechanically encourage or discourage either of these playstyles but good luck!

Edit: actually a “Rate my Security Work” tablet app would be cute. So that players can rate officers based on their interactions with them. I’d say keep it purely RP to prevent abuse (+ anything players can dream up is more interesting than a mechanical benefit).

iamgoofball wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 3:03 pm we can't force people to play in a specific way, that's the admin's job, so we need you admins to tell us coders how you intend to enforce people to play when they're playing security so that we can design the game around that, since you have refused to listen to us when we ask you to enforce in specific ways in the past(thieves, for example, and the refusal from the admin team to curate the playerbase to be able to handle the concept of an antag that can't murderbone), we are left with no choice but to let you admins lead the design here since security is intrinsically a rules based job and department

so, once again, how does the /tg/station administration want Security to be designed?

Isn't the point that the maintainers, not coders (Sorry), provide the overall structure and direction for the codebase to be in by themselves. Its up to admins to bear that weight and create administration around it. Coders can code whatever features and gameplay elements that maintainers (Plus there isn't exactly a security code owner) will greenlight.

This whole thing seems backwards. The separation between codebase and administration is absolute. I'm not about to ask maintainers to change their design visions in a way that would please me on an administrative level.

The codebase can offer whatever types of incentives for gameplay that it wants to for security, that includes for example spaces for RP like enhancements to a court room for gameplay on a server that ends up having nothing to do with it, while another server takes full advantage of it. That's an administration problem (and possible failure), if people actually see it as being a problem at all on that server. Not a maintainer-admin failure to communicate.

You also say work with coders, but then say work with maintainers. These are two separate things. You are a coder for example, not a maintainer. Why not bring this issue up with them and what gameplay elements could be in line with the sort of environments that they would like to promote?

My opinion, and the opinions of what other admins want for the game quite frankly, doesn't matter, and will NEVER matter in the end when it comes to the code. We are not maintainers. We do not have to comply with things that maintainers want to see in the game, nor do they have to comply with us and what we would like to see.

The codebase is available for multiple hosts and server environments, not just us. This isn't a closed source environment that only we have.

There is a much bigger picture here to be considering than just what TG admins would like to see.

wesoda25 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 11, 2022 4:07 pm I like officers who put the story and everyone’s collective fun before their own. I don’t like officers who are only interested in ridding the station of any and all threats.

The purpose of SEC is to rid the station of threats.

I like it when officers talk to the crew, give antags chances, and actually try and resolve disputes. I don’t like it when they kill every antag they find and use their gear to power up, and ignore the crew so that they can continue to do this.

If discordmins don't like the fact that antags get killed by SEC when they're caught they should change the rules that let antags be killed when they're caught, instead of leaving the established rules up and just operating on their own set of preferred rules.

Not an exhaustive list but it’s all I can think of. Not sure how you’d mechanically encourage or discourage either of these playstyles but good luck!

You can't, the problem is the gap between what the rules say and what some admins want the rules to say.

Edit: actually a “Rate my Security Work” tablet app would be cute. So that players can rate officers based on their interactions with them. I’d say keep it purely RP to prevent abuse (+ anything players can dream up is more interesting than a mechanical benefit).

Plenty of RP-y ways players can register in character responses to SEC's performance already. The habitual tiders who are the genesis of most SEC issues don't seem inclined to use them, not sure what adding yet another would do.

who gives a shit what admins think about security, not me!

oranges wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 1:46 am who gives a shit what admins think about security, not me!

normally i'd agree but security functions entirely on the admins actually enforcing the rules around how we want security to be played, we can give security all the arresting tools we want and if admins decide security isn't allowed to use those tools, we've got a significant chunk of the game design for security aimed directly at something they can't use without getting banned

iamgoofball wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 5:41 pm

oranges wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 1:46 am who gives a shit what admins think about security, not me!

normally i'd agree but security functions entirely on the admins actually enforcing the rules around how we want security to be played, we can give security all the arresting tools we want and if admins decide security isn't allowed to use those tools, we've got a significant chunk of the game design for security aimed directly at something they can't use without getting banned

Maybe you should wait for problems to actually appear before trying to solve them.

Rohen_Tahir wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:29 pm Maybe you should wait for problems to actually appear before trying to solve them.

But I want my sweeping reworks to be implemented now!

I don’t think either side knows how they want sec to be played. Like you can sketch out an “ideal way to play sec” but it’s a very different thing to actually play it in that ideal way. I think most of the ponderings on the “right” ways to play sec are untenable or just unfun which is why no one plays it that way.

People generally understand this which is why sec policies are proscriptive and not prescriptive. You write what sec shouldn’t be doing and leave it up to them to play the job how they want.

I agree though a sec player getting boinked for enforcing spacelaw, for instance, shows there’s a definite issue that should be discussed, maybe in another thread though.

The only way to have SEC work is clearly defined rules instead of incredibly vague suggestions.

But the most recent SEC rule changes have been in the opposite direction.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Mon Sep 19, 2022 7:28 am I don’t think either side knows how they want sec to be played. Like you can sketch out an “ideal way to play sec” but it’s a very different thing to actually play it in that ideal way. I think most of the ponderings on the “right” ways to play sec are untenable or just unfun which is why no one plays it that way.

People generally understand this which is why sec policies are proscriptive and not prescriptive. You write what sec shouldn’t be doing and leave it up to them to play the job how they want.

I agree though a sec player getting boinked for enforcing spacelaw, for instance, shows there’s a definite issue that should be discussed, maybe in another thread though.

We need more sec main admins and coders to work through these issues.

We don't feel the need for a sweeping rework of security policy, the note that prompted this thread has since been overturned, and you haven't posted any other specific desires or direction for discussion to work off here. Maintainer opinion is always appreciated and taken into account when developing policy, however there is no compelling reason to change how we handle security policy at present.