Heads of Staff and Security: They're a fucking joke

[Scott]

I am making this poll to get information on people's opinion, and not because I think it would be feasible to do something like this (although in a perfect world this would be a thing).

The other day a very brief conversation about the lack of robustness from players who played head of staff positions was held in OOC. Heads of Staff are not respected, at all (with maybe the exception of the HoS) and as a result, players with more experience and more robust don't play them, because they're jobs with extra responsibility and no reward for it, since your underlings don't give a shit about you or what you say (I know I can't respect a Head who is clearly ignorant about running his department). I notice the same thing happens to Security, people don't respect Security and SOs being idiots is one of the reasons for it, probably the hugest factor.

We end up with incompetent Heads of Staff and Captain and the little Security we do get can be useless. This is a problem, in my eyes.

So, what if, to play a Head or a Security position, you would have to prove you are robust / knowledgeable about the respective department? Putting a filter on the access to these jobs could guarantee that they are played by competent people and seen as positions to be respected.

[Aurx]

Whitelists are on the blacklist.

[Reimoo]

There is already a shortage of people playing heads of staff as it is. Barring the jobs like this would only ensure the slots stay empty every round.

While regrettable, the only thing we can do for it, at least in my opinion, is to give the heads a little more room to flex their authority. A tool for quick on the spot demotions and telescopic batons instead of flashes are a start.

[cedarbridge]

Limiting an already underpopulated group is not the answer. You said yourself, the reason people don't play Heads of staff as much (myself often included) is because its just ends up being a lot of extra work with minimal benefit.

As the RD I:
-Track where the TTVs are and if any have somehow manage to sneak out of the toxins lab
-Make sure R&D gets done in a reasonable timeframe
-Make sure mining materials actually make it to R&D for use
-Make sure Xenobio isn't breeding aliens or plotting to overthrow the station with golems/freed slimes/gold slimes
-Make sure telesci isn't stealing the armory or spacing the mime or something
-Keep track of the AI and Borgs. God forbid a round goes where any are subverted.
-Make sure robotics isn't making toys they shouldn't and actually maintains the borgs (without emagging them)

For this I get: A suit of armor that has a random chance of maybe protecting me from something but generally looks silly and every traitor/ling seems to have on their shopping list, and basic command staff access.

I also get to be the first to die in every malf round, first or second to get jumped in any given rev round, and every traitor/subverted/emagged silicon on the station has my name etched on their orbs in red.

On the flip side, I can play a scientist/roboticist and do all of the fun parts of the department without any of the managerial babysitting. I don't need a test in robustness to play RD. I need a bottle of aspirin.

[Arete]

This is definitely a problem that needs fixing, but I think the lack of respect is more of a symptom than an illness itself. Head positions need to be enjoyable enough that the players skilled enough to perform them also want to perform them. I notice that while AI is arguably the most stressful job on the station, there's no shortage of people with it set to high priority.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Whitelists are on the blacklist.

Can we just lock this then? This thread is a fucking joke.

[Steelpoint]

The only role I could even be budged to support would be for the Head of Security, and even then you would need to present a really good argument. As other's have noted, we need to better incentivise more good players to play head and sec roles more often. We do have good head/sec players, its just there are not a lot of them, and they can't be on all the time.

Security is a nightmare where your efforts are unappreciated, with heads of staff having little authority that is not derived from getting Security to help you, as well as being a nightmare at times, and lets not even start about Rev rounds.

Fix the cause, and you'll fix the symptoms.

[Scott]

There is already a shortage of people playing heads of staff as it is. Barring the jobs like this would only ensure the slots stay empty every round.

While regrettable, the only thing we can do for it, at least in my opinion, is to give the heads a little more room to flex their authority. A tool for quick on the spot demotions and telescopic batons instead of flashes are a start.

But people who would be competent Heads play assistant or whatever other jobs, because they can't be bothered to play Head. I'd rather have few but surely competent Heads than chucklefucks picking HoP to get all access or HoS to get a backpack full of eguns or Captain to be an all access assistant. When we do get competent Heads its awesome and it doesn't happen as often as it should.

(...)

I suppose the RD is a bit different, all that is expected of you is that you keep dangerous stuff contained and keep an eye on the silicons. But would the roboticists give the military mechs they build to Security if you told them to? Would the toxins scientists give you all the bombs they made so you could give them to mining or whatever? Assuming they aren't traitors, of course, I think they would tell you to fuck off. I was playing a Security Officer the other day and it was Cult. I was assigned to Science and as soon as I heard a confirmation of cults on the station, I told the RD to lockdown Science until I came back. After I died I went to observe Science with other ghosts, as it was the last department standing thanks to the RD following my orders. All good so far, but, with the exception of one scientist, the RD underlings wanted to get out to get converted. A serious lack of roleplay and respect for their head of department, they just wanted to go get antag status. If they had worked with the RD to keep the cult out of Science (hell, scientists should not like the cult at all), Science that round would have lasted longer and we could probably observe something more fun than juggernauts bursting in and slapping everyone.

This is definitely a problem that needs fixing, but I think the lack of respect is more of a symptom than an illness itself. Head positions need to be enjoyable enough that the players skilled enough to perform them also want to perform them. I notice that while AI is arguably the most stressful job on the station, there's no shortage of people with it set to high priority.

True, but what if people acted properly regarding the Heads of Staff, wouldn't that make them enjoyable enough? Power feels pretty good.

The only role I could even be budged to support would be for the Head of Security, and even then you would need to present a really good argument. As other's have noted, we need to better incentivise more good players to play head and sec roles more often. We do have good head/sec players, its just there are not a lot of them, and they can't be on all the time.

Security is a nightmare where your efforts are unappreciated, with heads of staff having little authority that is not derived from getting Security to help you, as well as being a nightmare at times, and lets not even start about Rev rounds.

Fix the cause, and you'll fix the symptoms.

What do you think is the cause, though?

----

[Arete]

True, but what if people acted properly regarding the Heads of Staff, wouldn't that make them enjoyable enough? Power feels pretty good.

You're right, but I don't think the proposed change would help in that regard. There's just a very strong culture of everyone doing their own thing on /tg/station, and the exceptions I've seen don't have anything to do with respect.

The big exceptions to that rule I've seen are (1) during team antag rounds, in which people need to work together to win, and (2) from players who wish to roleplay following orders, regardless of who's giving them.

[cedarbridge]

True, but what if people acted properly regarding the Heads of Staff, wouldn't that make them enjoyable enough? Power feels pretty good.

You're right, but I don't think the proposed change would help in that regard. There's just a very strong culture of everyone doing their own thing on /tg/station, and the exceptions I've seen don't have anything to do with respect.

The big exceptions to that rule I've seen are (1) during team antag rounds, in which people need to work together to win, and (2) from players who wish to roleplay following orders, regardless of who's giving them.

The irony about team antags (nuke ops especially) is that even then people will risk banning because they 1) Know better than the assigned leader 2) want to run off and do their own thing. The blacklash to the PR restricting mission launch for nuke ops to the leader ID kinda illustrates that sorta "I do it my way no matter what" culture that's kinda developed.

Frankly, I've kinda gone from being the sort of RD player that defends his department and staff against outside threats etc to a bitter curmudgeon that hates fun, to simply not playing RD much anymore. The position and role are great, but all the reasons listed in this thread so far just wear on the appeal. I get that this is supposed to be "light" RP and all, but I'm not sure which part of good RP a staffer sassing their superior and expecting not to be instantly shitcanned actually is. There's been talks elsewhere about demotions and the like, but unless I build my own comms console in RnD, I have to personally arrest and drag the jerk all the way to the bridge to confiscate their ID, all the while they're probably screaming "OH GOD THE RD'S ARRESTING MY OH GOD RD KILLING ME OH GOD RD ROGUE" or something along those lines and bringing in the tide to free them so they don't lose their illegitimate access. I've said it before, in a real corporate setting, sassing your superior gets you canned. Without sufficient security (and a willingness from sec to enforce insubordination laws) it falls to the Head to do a ton of extra work just to remove somebody from their department.

Either way, I don't really expect that much will change in this respect until some cultural changes develop. Until culture shifts to recognize a head demotion for a clearly explainable reason as the sign of a good Head and not a "shit head just wants to ruin MY fun" I don't really expect much to be done that really improves head of staff roles.

All negativity aside, I've had some great rounds with good staffers as RD. Its not all shit, but those good times almost always hinge on the staff actually behaving like adults and respecting positions as subordinates of a department. The RD can be a great enabler, but he shouldn't be just "the higher access errand boy." The same applies to all other Heads.

As an aside, the CMO kinda suffers from the same thing medbay does in general: any idiot can do your job.

[Raven776]

I've written up around 3 posts to this but each one has been deleted because I just don't feel there's any feedback I can put into this discussion other than, "I agree people are incompetent, but no people will not stop being incompetent." Because honestly, all it takes is one round as an utter fuck up and you can get ostracized or outright banned. It takes thick skin to ignore everything in OOC chat, but it takes thicker skin to try and convince the admins that this particular case of someone shoving you down in a hallway and driving your eyes in with a screwdriver is likely the result of a previous round's debate or disagreement.

Simply put, no one wants to be put into the spotlight in a game where failing is just SO EASY. I've had days where I can track someone through the hallways with a stun gun with laser precision and then there are days where I simply can't hit anyone worth shit, and lag isn't always the reason. The same goes for every little thing, especially those that involve another person.

[Arete]

It would be nice if heads of staff could demote IDs in their department without actually confiscating the ID in question.

[Scott]

An ID server system then? Each head has a terminal in his office to demote and promote people into his department. And there's a server somewhere that could be hacked into and to fuck up everyone's access levels.

[MisterPerson]

I think it might help a lot if heads of staff had access to the security frequency so they could ask for security assistance to demote someone.

I've long held that you can soft demote someone just fine by simply stealing their ID, radioing the HoP, and delivering the ID to him whenever you get the chance.

[Raven776]

Eh, if they're the kind of person that makes it difficult to demote them, then sending the ID to the HoP at all is a bit too much work. They're making your round shit, and he can just print off a new one. I assume if you're going to remove someone from a job then they're being enough of an absolute shit where doing them any favors is too many.

Edit: Holy fuck I was drunk or something when I wrote this.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

An ID server system then? Each head has a terminal in his office to demote and promote people into his department. And there's a server somewhere that could be hacked into and to fuck up everyone's access levels.

This is already the fucking case, there's ID console on the bridge and any head can use it to demote people. The latter is retarded.

I think it might help a lot if heads of staff had access to the security frequency so they could ask for security assistance to demote someone.

Heads of staff have access to command where there are two people who can pass their request to security and absolutely everyone has PDA.

[Scott]

You need the actual ID to demote. The idea I have involves remote ID modification.

And no, heads don't need security frequency.

[Alex Crimson]

The ability to change someones access without actually having their ID in your possession is stupid and would be overpowered as fuck. The current system is fine. All heads have access to items that can be used to stun people. All heads can use the Command channel for high-priority communication.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

You need the actual ID to demote. The idea I have involves remote ID modification.

No way in a million years. It's been discussed and it's not gonna happen, thank God.

[Malkevin]

I think it might help a lot if heads of staff had access to the security frequency so they could ask for security assistance to demote someone.

In theory thats a good idea, in practice you'll get back seat drivers injecting themselves into sec business ("No don't execute that traitor, he my friend", "Just leave cargo alone, they're not hurting anyone with those guns")

Maybe if there was a way to relay an announcement over the sec channel from the request consoles?

[cedarbridge]

I think it might help a lot if heads of staff had access to the security frequency so they could ask for security assistance to demote someone.

In theory thats a good idea, in practice you'll get back seat drivers injecting themselves into sec business ("No don't execute that traitor, he my friend", "Just leave cargo alone, they're not hurting anyone with those guns")

Maybe if there was a way to relay an announcement over the sec channel from the request consoles?

Robust players know how to access those channels on a radio without a headset. And handheld radios aren't in short supply.

[Arete]

The ability to change someones access without actually having their ID in your possession is stupid and would be overpowered as fuck. The current system is fine. All heads have access to items that can be used to stun people. All heads can use the Command channel for high-priority communication.

You're saying that it's overpowered for a head to restrict access into his department? It doesn't seem overpowered when used by a traitor head because any demotion is going to draw investigation. It doesn't seem overpowered when used against a traitor because of all the methods of illicit access traitors have. So what exactly do you mean?

[Cipher3]

>Implying that because a traitor can spend TC on an emag it isn't powerful to be able to instantly kill their all-access.

[Saegrimr]

I'd rather see an assistant whitelist before this.

[Cipher3]

I'd rather see an assistant whitelist before this.

Which makes zero sense, sooooo

[Saegrimr]

Which makes zero sense, sooooo

Exactly

[Arete]

>Implying that because a traitor can spend TC on an emag it isn't powerful to be able to instantly kill their all-access.

How do you get all-access while still playing badly enough to get heads to want to kill your access? In any case, you might as well copy your access onto an agent ID, hack through doors, weld and wrench through walls, c4 through walls, break windows, ask the AI to open for you, or follow someone through the doors to their department. People willingly play assistant traitor all the time. Losing your access is not that big a deal, especially when you consider that department heads are supposed to be more powerful than your common MD or scientist.

In general, I'd support measures that give department heads more power, and maybe give them more objectives as traitors or something to compensate.

[Scott]

I'd rather see an assistant whitelist before this.

And then we get HoSs who grab instead of pull ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Alex Crimson]

The ability to change someones access without actually having their ID in your possession is stupid and would be overpowered as fuck. The current system is fine. All heads have access to items that can be used to stun people. All heads can use the Command channel for high-priority communication.

You're saying that it's overpowered for a head to restrict access into his department? It doesn't seem overpowered when used by a traitor head because any demotion is going to draw investigation. It doesn't seem overpowered when used against a traitor because of all the methods of illicit access traitors have. So what exactly do you mean?

Its overpowered because the ability to change someones ID remotely just unfair. Imagine if a traitor got hold of an all-access ID and just removed the access from everyone on the station. It would cause more chaos than releasing the singularity or venting plasma.

You could void a players access whom you are chasing to box him into an area. Not everyone powergames and carries a toolbelt full of tools with them.

If heads were trigger happy with their demotions then the demoted player is pretty much screwed. Even if they didnt do anything serious enough to warrant a demotion.

Right now a heads needs to take the ID from a player to change its access. This is an annoying thing to do, so heads and do it when a player is actually doing something bad.

[cedarbridge]

Right now a heads needs to take the ID from a player to change its access. This is an annoying thing to do, so heads and do it when a player is actually doing something bad.

>implying I bother changing their access
Nope. If you fuck up and earn a demotion from my department you get to sit out in the hallway without an ID until you convince the HoP to make you an assistant or make you some other Head's problem.

[Arete]

Its overpowered because the ability to change someones ID remotely just unfair. Imagine if a traitor got hold of an all-access ID and just removed the access from everyone on the station. It would cause more chaos than releasing the singularity or venting plasma.

The main doors through the station don't require access and would continue to open for everyone. You know what causes even those doors to stop working? Power sinks.

You could void a players access whom you are chasing to box him into an area. Not everyone powergames and carries a toolbelt full of tools with them.

Not being able to yakety sax through the department of a head you pissed off sounds more like a feature than a bug to me.

[Alex Crimson]

Power Sinks can be found and disabled. Crowbars become easy all-access tools when there is a Power Sink around. Its hardly the same as removing access from every ID on the station. The only similar situation would be the AI bolting and powering down every door, which it never does.

Removing access from IDs is great. But removing access from an ID on the other side of the station without ever needing to see it is OP as hell and should never be added. If a head wants to demote someone, which is totally fine, they can just do it via the ID console on the bridge.

[kosmos]

Right now a heads needs to take the ID from a player to change its access. This is an annoying thing to do, so heads and do it when a player is actually doing something bad.

>implying I bother changing their access
Nope. If you fuck up and earn a demotion from my department you get to sit out in the hallway without an ID until you convince the HoP to make you an assistant or make you some other Head's problem.

Heads being able to demote staff is very good in theory, but doesn't work at all in practice. I've seen it done (and I have done it) 0 times. This, in my case, is because the asshole plain simple won't give their ID to you, why would they? And having them set to arrest for not following orders is just too much hassle for security and all.

Maybe this is derailing the thread but I think the remote access server would be the best way to tackle this problem (heads of staff being a joke).

To take it further, head IDs wouldn't be tied to any server and their access couldn't be changed remotely, but all other ID's would be tied to server boundaries. This way heads would have way bigger leverage on their staff, which is right now nonexistent.
And antags couldn't just remotely set the Captain to zero access.
Maybe the ID server console could send a same kind of ping to all sechud-wearers if it's being changed, or if that's too overpowered, a log like in the NTSL console.
The console could be situated in the Bridge or even AI Upload, thus if someone started to change accesses, it would be noticed quite quickly and the guy would be quickly bolted in by the AI or otherwise trapped in the middle of heads + security + lynch mob.

[Scott]

The system has to be designed so changing ID access remotely isn't too easy. So AI control should be out of the question, for starters. Then one local terminal that can change everything if you have access, but maybe limit it to the Captain IDs so even all access IDs can't use that OP terminal, and emags can't either interact or they break the terminal and let you only alter one ID. Map wise it's also a problem, where are you going to put something that is supposed to be very secure? Probably refit the Gateway room.

It is OP if done wrong, it would have to be very carefully thought out. The alternative is just have magic ID computers for each department and require access level of the respective department heads to log in, and it demotes IDs remotely.

[Raven776]

Remove ID change would be awful. It would make PDAs worthless (if they were required to make it happen) or it would make it suddenly far too easy to fuck people over. Any console that can be made can be deconstructed and moved into a dark maint tunnel.

Moreover, it would make the HoP line much less interesting, it would indirectly HEAVILY nerf agent ID cards (if they can't be changed via this terminal, tator evidence, and you can no longer quickswipe in the HoP line if that's still a thing).

Just the entire idea is ridiculous and would change too much in the game too quickly.

[Scott]

Nigger, the terminals wouldn't be moveable. The problem is restricting the root terminal users. The AI would not be on the whitelist, for example. And how would it nerf Agent ID cards? Emag terminal to get one use and it stays logged the last ID modified, so it would be a risky move to grant yourself all access like that. Easy to balance that. A good whitelist would be random code spawned in the safe inside the vault & Captain's ID, and no other way to use it.

Then each head terminal would only be able to remove or grant access of the respective department. ID consoles would still exist, they are not mutually exclusive. Maybe even limit them to access removal only, so people would still use the HoP desk.

Alternatively, a gun that turns IDs into assistant IDs.

[cedarbridge]

Moreover, it would make the HoP line much less interesting, it would indirectly HEAVILY nerf agent ID cards (if they can't be changed via this terminal, tator evidence, and you can no longer quickswipe in the HoP line if that's still a thing).

Agent IDs don't have anything to do with the access registry on the HoP console anyway. I don't see how this would stop you from HoP line harvesting either. I'm also not seeing how stripping soembody's legit access and seeing them still accessing places they shouldn't be able to as anything but functional detective work. "We took his access away but he's still accessing the lab. Seems fishy (because it is.)

[Reimoo]

Or perhaps we could just introduce a card voider tool instead of making all of this unnecessarily complicated.

[Cipher3]

>Implying that because a traitor can spend TC on an emag it isn't powerful to be able to instantly kill their all-access.

How do you get all-access while still playing badly enough to get heads to want to kill your access? In any case, you might as well copy your access onto an agent ID, hack through doors, weld and wrench through walls, c4 through walls, break windows, ask the AI to open for you, or follow someone through the doors to their department. People willingly play assistant traitor all the time. Losing your access is not that big a deal, especially when you consider that department heads are supposed to be more powerful than your common MD or scientist.

In general, I'd support measures that give department heads more power, and maybe give them more objectives as traitors or something to compensate.

If you get all-access why would you do nothign with it. Of course they don't want you to have it, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say there unless you mean trying to be super sneaky.

Also, you said might as well:
>Spend TC
>carry a full toolbelt on you at all times (only like three jobs would do this)
>Spend more TC
>Ask the AI to open ways for a traitor and not give away your position
>Waste a ton of time smashing down windows and leaving a huge trail
>If access doesn't matter, then - wait, did you even read that bit?

There's a point to going through the effort of getting access

[MisterPerson]

I don't want a system where a traitor jumps someone and steals their ID only to have that ID remotely nuked, invalidating the traitor's efforts.

[Incomptinence]

A melee range tool to remove (under their jurisdiction) access for heads seems like it would be a better application of the demotions idea. Better than needing to pin an asshole in amber to touch their precious IDs (requiring all heads basically have sec level gear to exert authority) or remotely getting a traitor stuck in your department basically gift wrapped.

Countered by:
A) Fighting the head off (disarm or whatever)
B) Putting your ID in a container before they scan you with it
C) Carrying a ton of stolen IDs in a container
D) Running
E) Fighting them after they change your ID and taking their ID

The tool would work instantly on any equipped or held pda or ID (not stored in backpack) for CE, CMO and RD. Unsure if the armed heads should get it since they can actually exert force without being gun snatching power gamers. Should not work on captain's ID obviously so no effect on gold IDs and should not remove maintenance or bridge+meeting room access as that is inter-departmentally shared otherwise works off the user's access. Extreme no access forcing variant for captains might be appropriate if giving this sort of thing to armed heads would not be too silly. Will add a DEMOTED prefix to their job title if any access is removed, a quicker way to check that rascally hop for all access for sure. Would giving it a recharge be a good idea? Is a pretty powerful concept but keep in mind it would not remove other job equipment from their person on its own.

Do you think removing access in one second of close contact would help heads enforce control of their departments?

[Malkevin]

I guess a limited ranged thing wouldnt be too op

[Steelpoint]

Could be a interesting alternative. Having it be only usable once before needing a recharge and/or a reload will prevent some from running around demoting everyone at once in their department.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Do you want easier demotions or fucking weapons?

Just take their ID. There. Demoted. Without some shitty devices. Fucking ID up without needing to at least restrain the target is ridiculous.

[kosmos]

Good luck being the CE and trying to "just take the ID" (or hit him with the melee-demotion-weapon too) of an engineer who just took off into maintenance at the start of the round.

This is why remote system would be far better. True, it would alter the balance a lot, but we can't counter this huge problem without giving the heads a huge buff, huge buff meaning naturally a lot of balance troubles.

Also, guys who want the melee/ranged demotion weapon, what if/when an antag or a shitler gets their hands on that weapon?

[Incomptinence]

I would rather be rapid demoted by a rogue ass crazy than stunned and/or beaten savagely. The remote idea has a similar problems but less chances to respond really.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Good luck being the CE and trying to "just take the ID" (or hit him with the melee-demotion-weapon too) of an engineer who just took off into maintenance at the start of the round.

Is it your sole purpose in the round to hunt down people fucking off? Adminhelp, report to security and go about your own business.

[Incomptinence]

Current demotion is such a chore I don't think dumping the responsibility on security even functions. I mean you capture them to take the ID off, you need to brig them to make sure they do not attack you for it, then the worst part comes up making a trip to HoP office with the ID yourself and waiting or getting lucky and having the HoP or Captain stop what they are doing and make a round trip to change the ID. Demotion is a perfectly reasonable IC thing, if it has more support I don't see why admins need to be involved in every case of discord within each department.

[Ikarrus]

The worst part can be avoided by using the identification console on the bridge. All heads have access to it.

[Steelpoint]

One of the main problems I see is the guy just going to the HoP and asking for a new ID.

Yes you can tell the HoP, but more often than not HoP's have too much to remember or something else that prevents that.

Having some kind of system where you can 'blacklist' people so that if the HoP attempts to change their access, it will show a warning detailing why they are blacklisted. Think of it as entering a Security record but any head of staff can do it.