overthrowing security

[bman]

when is it appropriate? is it ever appropriate? discuss.

[Lazengann]

When they're appropriately shit

There will never be a defined line because people would toe the line and try to bait others into crossing it and it's up to admin discretion anyway.

[FantasticFwoosh]

I read this as security (HOS) overthrowing command. Eitherway if either party is being shit, ic'ly it can be dealt with via a non-lethal mutiny and getting the ID of the cap/hos rescinded.

[BeeSting12]

Overthrowing security is appropriate when you have exhausted all other options, firstly talking to the problem officer, then complaining to the warden/HoS and finally the captain. At that point it might be best to... not annoy the fuck out of them and do your job? If you actually did nothing wrong, and various round circumstances such as cult, revs, gangs, etc don't exist, then a mutiny is acceptable if you ask me. Keywords here being "if it's not cult, gangs, or revs," "if all other options are exhausted", and "if you actually did nothing wrong."

A good example might be security harmbatonning you for walking around on extended or similar. A bad example of a case is you slipping sec on a rev round, being harmbatonned a few times in the head, and then brigged. You did something wrong there, got harmbatonned in an attempt to deconvert, and got brigged, this is not valid reason to overthrow security. In 90% of the cases, if you comply with sec's original orders and don't fuck with them, you should be fine. You can't complain about security tasing you in your department if you didn't go to the brig for an implant when the HoS made an announcement.

[Cobby]

When you won a stupid prize but did not play a stupid game

[PKPenguin321]

What do you mean by overthrowing security? I'm assuming you mean just murdering all of them?

[Qbopper]

When you won a stupid prize but did not play a stupid game

succinct and accurate, nice

anyways this will never be hard policy because like lazen said, if you make it policy and don't just leave it at admin discretion, we get rules lawyers, and literally no one likes rules lawyers

[CPTANT]

When you dindu nuffin.

[feem]

Qbopper is right; I don't see this becoming some kind of flow chart policy. I figure it's up to the individual admins to determine it. If I were investigating this, I'd probably ask the following questions:

• Is this being done for personal gain, or has the HoS/security team intentionally gone out of its way to provoke/injure/defeat the crew?
• Is there justifiable cause for security having acted that way? (i.e. confirmed revolution, war ops, severe and destructive cult)
• Have attempts been made by heads to confront security and resolve the situation, if applicable? (obviously if a HoS is killing anyone that approaches the brig without warning, cause, or explanation, no one's expecting you to try to talk them out of it)
• Is there a legitimate IC escalation path for this, or is it intentionally fostered and manufactured by a small number of players on either side?

The answers to these questions will pretty much determine if it's an IC issue or if someone or several someones on either side need to be bwoinked. I've seen these play out in a lot of different ways from an administration/rules perspective, and at the end of the day it comes down to 'did you really have a reason for doing whatever you did?' which is essentially the basis of every rule we have.

[IcePacks]

not at the beginning of the round

every round is a self-contained heavy clusterfuck if security is trashing the station there's no reason to be afraid of fighting back

don't scream at the admins if you get dunked simple stuff

[Qbopper]

don't scream at the admins if you get dunked simple stuff

and if you do don't cry when the ic issue button gets pushed

granted a lot of the admin team has a bad habit of using just the ic issue button and not even addressing what you said, which I can sympathize with, but there's a reason people mash that motherfuckin' ic button so often

[onleavedontatme]

Any situation in which security has acted poorly enough that you could kill them all without getting banned is a situation that the security players probably would have already been banned in.

So to answer your question, basically never.

[John_Oxford]

The only people i know who are robust enough to one man a full staffed security team wouldn't do it in any situation at all.

The only other people who are capable of doing it to begin with are traitors with traitor equipment, which is self explanatory.

If you try to kill all of security or "overthrow" them, you are making yourself valid. Them killing you in response regardless of how shit they are and then you ahelping it is constituted as ban baiting by most admins.

If security is being explicitly shit, enough to actually warrant it, ahelp it, if a admin says its a IC issue, then continue to handle it IC'ly by making a futile attempt to kill security.

If there are multiple people to attempt this, its mutiny, its punishable by death and will most likely result in death. Don't ahelp, it's the grave you dug and bothering a admin will only get you hit with a ban for ban baiting.




Honestly, if its a individual officer, if they do something shit enough, only killing or otherwise hampering that individual officer is enough to fix the problem. If he's done something -moderately- shit and you're just so butt flustered about it, then you can just strip him in a hallway and take his shit. It already happens, its called """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""minor ic crime""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" and will result in either that security officer coming after you alone or security itself coming after you. Either way it'd be considered proper reasoning at that point to fight back. If no one ahelps in a situation, it should and always will be considered a IC issue because no parties are affected.

If you ahelp in a situation like that, regardless of if your security or the person getting shitted on, you have no spine and need to git gud. As much as i hate minor ic crime, it's leeway to flat out kill people who are purposely being shit to security. That also means it's leeway to kill anyone who is being shit to security in response of security being shit to them. It's a balancing act.


Regardless. Don't fuck with security and you wont get shit on. If they are being shit for no reason ahelp it. If the admins do nothing take it into your own hands. If they ban you over it make a ban appeal and i'll happily make a big drama uproar about it.

[oranges]

Any situation in which security has acted poorly enough that you could kill them all without getting banned is a situation that the security players probably would have already been banned in.

So to answer your question, basically never.

then why is J_mad not permanently jobbanned from sec?

[J_Madison]

Cases where I've been jobbanned were successfully appealed.

But in the event of admin intervention it becomes a case of OOC intervention. And they can't kill me after this point. They've tapped out.

Killing me requires not ahelping and dealing with it IC.
There have been cases of IC escalation in which neither party ahelped.


Also my security play is respected and competent, and the few incidents of upsets were due to heavy handed punishments that were appealed and cleared.


I think actual incompetent security incidents that have been linked to a few ckeys should be more in your focus.




In regards to overthrowing security, is akin to overthrowing an entire army over an individual or few individuals incompetence.

Provided there is enough discontent, incompetency, and a filler to the power vacuum and overthrow can take place.

Else not a coup isn't valid. And a job ban also requires frequent discontent from other security players in addition to players, incompetency, and inability to fill the power role of security.

All three of those attributes don't match me, which leaves little room for a sec ban.

[DemonFiren]

Also my security play is respected and competent

[Reece]

When they are genuinely being all around shit heads as a majority; murdering one sec guy on the sly is different from butchering a department.
When their numbers are limited; killing three guys is one thing, killing eight is something else entirely.
When your actions will reduce the overall damage done to the station; if security is setting up a ligger deathcamp on extended then there'a a real issue, if one asshole is beating up lizards then it's not a big deal.