[Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Ask and discuss policy about game conduct and rules.

Moderators: In-Game Head Admins, In-Game Game Master

Forum rules
Read these board rules before posting or you'll get reprimanded.
Threads without replies for 30 days will be automatically locked.
User avatar
NecromancerAnne
 
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...
Byond Username: NecromancerAnne

[Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby NecromancerAnne » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:10 am #579095

I've seen some security players pre-emptively search potential antagonists for implants every now and again on Manuel, which is rather odd. Sometimes their intuition is entirely in the right, and the person they're having searched has an implant. Stuff like storage implants, freedom implants, etc. Sometimes it's just a 'just in case' kind of deal, like they have no idea but if they are antagonists this is entirely something that will reveal it.

These are meant to be usually subtle tools to help antagonists get away with some sneaky stuff, but given we have this odd metagaming scenario of some security officers just randomly searching players they bring into the brig under suspicion of being baddies, it makes me wonder if this isn't a similar problem to random searches without justification.

The situations that I think an implant search seems justified are as follows:
1) Evidence suggests they did something during a capture that would indicate they activated an implant. Cuffs fell off, they got up immediately from a baton knockdown and sprinted off, etc. Visible confirmation of the potential implant.
2) There is evidence someone stole something but the item they stole is nowhere to be found. This is a dubious situation to allow implant searches in, because this is the one requires the most amount of context. It's one thing to believe someone stole an item, it's another to jump to the conclusion it has been hidden in an implant and not in, say, a toilet cistern or some other location.
3) Literally have evidence of it in the form of an implanter improperly destroyed.

This came up for me the other day. Security brought to me, acting CMO (and fellow traitor no less) a traitor they claimed had an implant. I asked which one, and they said it didn't matter, they wanted all of their potential implants removed. They were right, the traitor had a storage implant (and then so did I, into which I stored my stolen goods, but I digress). This seemed like the HoS and other security making wild assumptions and getting it right only because the player, thinking they had made a good call in using a secret compartment, ended up getting meta'd hard and outed as an antagonist. I believe they did leave some evidence at the scene of a crime to finger them as a suspect, but the implant was the nail in the coffin for them.

What do others think? Is this acceptable, or a little too much? What do you think would be an ideal ruling on this?

Edit:I kinda wish I could change that title now. It'd be better as 'Searching for Implants on loose evidence' or something. Nevermind found where I can edit the title.



User avatar
Farquaar
 
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:20 am
Location: Somewhere north of Hogtown
Byond Username: Farquaar

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Farquaar » Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:42 am #579097

If security reasonably suspects a perp of working for the Syndicate, then it's perfectly fair for them to search for implants. Like with most antagonists, it's okay for security to be aware of common tactics and equipment said antagonists employ and take appropriate measures to counter them.

We should remember that MRP is still a game. People shouldn't have to pretend like they don't know the rules in order to play it.

User avatar
JusticeGoat
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:36 am
Byond Username: JusticeGoat

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby JusticeGoat » Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:07 am #579123

On the other hand they can't search everyone and its a massive waste of time if it turns out to be false.

User avatar
Sylphet
 
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:35 am
Location: Deepest Medbay
Byond Username: Sylphet

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Sylphet » Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:46 am #579134

Farquaar wrote:Like with most antagonists, it's okay for security to be aware of common tactics and equipment said antagonists employ and take appropriate measures to counter them.


While I agree with this - sec should definitely need evidence that the person is Syndicate to be doing this at the very least. Open uplink, traitor items, watching possible implants get used.
Tell me how much you think that I should be thrown out of the nearest airlock !
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=27175

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Cobby » Wed Oct 14, 2020 1:55 pm #579155

If you know they are a traitor u can implant-check
If you know they are a criminal but not sure if antag u should not implant-check until you get better reasoning
If you don't know entirely you are blatantly powergaming
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Location: Delivering hugs!
Byond Username: Misdoubtful

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Misdoubtful » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:34 pm #579175

My whole entire issue with this is that thing of 'Characters are otherwise allowed to know everything about ingame mechanics or antagonists'. That really, really, can't be forgotten.

Meaning sec is going to know that implants are a possibility when they smell a traitor. It just boils down to choice and culture whether people are willing to let that possibility slide, but I am personally in that ballpark of enjoying people taking those kinds of choices. There isn't exactly a system in place for not knowing stealth based antag items or whatever else. Its up to players to make the choice to ignore it, or buckle down on it.

It doesn't seem right to tack a contradictory ruling onto the RP rules that goes against the one in the base rules.
Hugs

User avatar
wesoda25
 
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby wesoda25 » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:37 pm #579176

I don't think there should be a rule restriction, but people do who this sort of thing should be made fun of and if they do it frequently they should be told off.
Naloac wrote:Since you have asked for a *community opinion* and im the player voted admin. Ill give you my official opinion straight from the *community* Your fucking retarded

BrianBackslide
 
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 am
Byond Username: BrianBackslide

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby BrianBackslide » Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:58 pm #579178

I think that immediately searching for implants isn't healthy from an RP perspective. It's also bad from a "wanting antags to still have an impact on the round" perspective. What if my whole deal is to get caught, and use my storage implant to sneak stuff into perma? And then officer McAsshole who SOMEHOW knows surgery starts poking around my insides on the off suspicion that I have an implant. I've rarely seen a doctor called to perform surgeries as a usually medbay main, but I've been surguried plenty of times by Security Officers/Warden/HoS when I got caught as antag.

Edit: I would suggest that syndie implants have to be EMPed before they can be seen by surgery, but only because it'd be hilarious to watch sec repeatedly EMP themselves.

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Cobby » Wed Oct 14, 2020 8:30 pm #579191

Knowing how antags function means you dont have to play dumb, it doesnt excuse powergaming in the sense that you do something "just in case" because you technically know it's a mechanic of an antag (who you may not even be sure exists yet).

If you are caught doing something that confirms you are a particular antag, security has full right to search you in a way that "tests" to see if you have gear (if they see uplink, they should be able to implant search you). They should NOT be performing antag tests like implant checking in the same way you shouldnt forcefeed prisoners holywater everytime someone comes in because you're allowed to know it's the deconversion process of a cultist.

Known Antag = Can Perform Gear Tests Relevant to Antag (You aren't testing antag status because you know they are that antag already, you are just checking to see what they bought more/less)
Not Known Antag = Do Not Perform Gear Checks To Test Antagonist Status (You are trying to use the same tests above to see IF they are an antag)
Not Known Criminal = Powergame Trash (You are cringe)

If something is stolen, the person left the scene before you caught them, and you cant find it I dont think that excuses doing an implant search for storage alone. There are many places to hide items that aren't even locked behind antagonist status.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
SkeletalElite
 
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Byond Username: SkeletalElite
Github Username: SkeletalElite

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby SkeletalElite » Wed Oct 14, 2020 9:09 pm #579196

Cobby wrote:Known Antag = Can Perform Gear Tests Relevant to Antag (You aren't testing antag status because you know they are that antag already, you are just checking to see what they bought more/less)
Not Known Antag = Do Not Perform Gear Checks To Test Antagonist Status (You are trying to use the same tests above to see IF they are an antag)
Not Known Criminal = Powergame Trash (You are cringe)


What if someone steals Caps or HoS laser and you can't find it?
Stealing either of those is acting like an antag.
Act like an antag get treated like one = free to be implant checked?

mstachife
 
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:00 am
Byond Username: Mstachife

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby mstachife » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:27 pm #579212

SkeletalElite wrote:What if someone steals Caps or HoS laser and you can't find it?
Stealing either of those is acting like an antag.
Act like an antag get treated like one = free to be implant checked?


Having one of those items alone is normally imo not enough to be checked for implants. Only like Cobby said, if they have uplink or perhaps traitor gear.

User avatar
Screemonster
 
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:23 pm
Byond Username: Scree

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Screemonster » Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:57 pm #579214

BrianBackslide wrote:Edit: I would suggest that syndie implants have to be EMPed before they can be seen by surgery, but only because it'd be hilarious to watch sec repeatedly EMP themselves.

making "stealthy" items harder or more inconvenient to check for or identify would probably help

if it's possible to quickly antag-check everyone that comes into the brig then people will do it unless the check is made inconvenient - and specifically, inconvenient for the sec officer carrying out the check, not for the poor sod getting cut open on a table "just in case"

User avatar
Farquaar
 
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:20 am
Location: Somewhere north of Hogtown
Byond Username: Farquaar

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Farquaar » Thu Oct 15, 2020 12:52 am #579217

mstachife wrote:
SkeletalElite wrote:What if someone steals Caps or HoS laser and you can't find it?
Stealing either of those is acting like an antag.
Act like an antag get treated like one = free to be implant checked?


Having one of those items alone is normally imo not enough to be checked for implants. Only like Cobby said, if they have uplink or perhaps traitor gear.

I disagree. If somebody steals a traitor objective, then it makes them a prime suspect. Especially if they have no good reason to possess that high-value traitor objective.

It's a simple doctrine: Act like an antag, get treated like an antag. Antagonists, particularly traitors, steal high-value objects that they have no business having and conceal them with the goal of smuggling them off-station. If you so happen to be a petty criminal that stole a traitor objective, you shouldn't be surprised when get cavity-searched like a traitor would. Likewise, a traitor shouldn't be surprised that they don't get treated like a petty greytider when they commit serious, traitor-like crimes.

User avatar
NecromancerAnne
 
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...
Byond Username: NecromancerAnne

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby NecromancerAnne » Thu Oct 15, 2020 4:40 am #579232

What tends to qualify as 'act as an antagonist' is highly dubious at the worst of times. Misinformation is a big factor in this game, so most sec simply just implant check quite literally because it's reliable as an antag check. This is likely an issue with implants, obviously, but it's also a player problem.

It is one of the many instances that makes me question the intentions of people in the security role. Manuel was sold on the promise of giving antags even a little bit of a break and self imposing some kind of restriction from powergaming with the expectation that those antags don't do the extreme levels arcade-esque mass murder and violence and opt for trying to tell a story or spur on engaging roleplay. It's a gentlemen's agreement, if you will.

The vast majority of these checks are just antag checking to obtain as many valids as possible. It's beginning to become quite frequent as people are realizing how reliable it actually is, hence why I made the thread and why I'm worried about it.

User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Location: Delivering hugs!
Byond Username: Misdoubtful

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Misdoubtful » Thu Oct 15, 2020 5:53 pm #579274

You're right misinformation is a big part of the game. It's exactly why the concept of turning things into what could potentially feel like an uncomfortable check list to shuffle through feels wrong to me. Things like having to wait for someone to use an antag item - or getting stuck waiting until you see an actual implanter or anything to jump on it. Also hyper specifics scare me.

People powerdunking on players in general whenever they enter the brig with antag checks is one thing (a bad thing) but needing to tip toe around hap-hazardous dos and do nots to be able check for antags is another. Knowing a traitor could have an implant and checking for it is something, checking everyone that walks in just in case a to tick off a check mark is something else.

I feel like having to see something get used, or finding that implanter would only stifle gameplay potential and would only increase the divide between the server-bases. And as a result create meta solely by being inaccessible.

As stated after me:

I think this generally falls into the "no random searches without probable cause" rule that also applies to LRP, implants are a stealthy tool but if you've done something for security to suspect you then clearly something's gone wrong already


As such, just because the server gives a greater space for rp, gimmicks, creativity, or whatever else doesn't mean it always has to in all cases. Nor should it be required to. An antag shouldn't expect a free pass.

But then again I'm also fundamentally against holding arbitrary things over people so take this with a grain of salt.
Last edited by Misdoubtful on Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:44 am, edited 11 times in total.
Hugs

User avatar
Mickyan
Github User
 
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:59 pm
Byond Username: Mickyan
Github Username: Mickyan

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Mickyan » Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:15 pm #579275

I think this generally falls into the "no random searches without probable cause" rule that also applies to LRP, implants are a stealthy tool but if you've done something for security to suspect you then clearly something's gone wrong already

A more interesting IC approach to this issue would be to get the lawyer involved in this situation to determine whether forced surgery is warranted, but there's no clear guidelines on how much security is expected to listen to the lawyer instead of just doing whatever they want, either
ImageI play on Manuel as Swanni, the brain-damaged moth.
Be nice to each other.

User avatar
Ruby Flamewing
 
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:30 am
Byond Username: Ruby Flamewing

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Ruby Flamewing » Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:07 pm #579290

Personally, I've always been under the understanding of "if there's no probable cause to justify thinking they have implants, you don't check for them" because of the same reason you don't just strip-search people because you suspect they're up to or have been up to no good. You can say "Mister McMan is a traitor" but unless you have anything backing it up, Security will likely still apprehend them, check for what they got, and if everything comes back clean, you're next on their list. In an ideal situation, Security can snag a person suspected as a traitor, but if they don't find anything that incriminates them as such, they let them off with a warning and keep a closer eye on the person in the off-chance that the person IS an antag of some kind.

What typically happens, though, is Security will go that extra mile to go "yeah, they're a traitor because of an implant" instead of getting a forensic scanner to scan for prints, question any witnesses (which there's going to be at least one if someone's yelling that a person is an antag, and that's where more witnesses can poke holes in the real antag pinning things on someone else), and actually be SECURITY.

I feel the main issue is that the meme of "I joined the force to beat people to death" is perhaps too ingrained in how Security players act, that they're so driven to get their valids at all costs that the GOOD Security players aren't acknowledged for being good at their jobs. A round earlier today saw a Blood Brother get promoted to Head of Security, and they actually enlisted me as a deputy (I was an assistant that had helped with things throughout the round) to help with determining if the heavy crew losses and damages were the work of one confirmed traitor to have been taken out, or if there was more than one traitor on board. They played it right by having their Security force go investigate leads and gather information to help confirm or deny that one traitor caused so much damage; they played the part of HoS so well that the crew basically had no idea they were an antag until the round ended.
Ideally, Security wouldn't go for tried-and-true methods to out an antag because they want them valids - if you want to LRP things, there ARE other TG servers that cater to that more. Implant searching based on mere suspicion of someone being a traitor is shitty and unfun for both the traitor that decided to use implants and to the rest of the crew who now OOCly know that Security decided to just make the round more boring and we all know how green shifts usually go.

But as the Potion Seller meme goes, "this is not a perfect world." I can't say that it should be something done on a *rules* scale, but if someone's constantly doing it, they should get talked to - either by players in OOC after the round or by an admin - and have the matter addressed. After all, what's the method used to address a player doing something they shouldn't do without credible reason every round already? Bring it up with them and talk about how it's detrimental to the round and the other people playing it. Shouldn't this be essentially handled the same way?
(Looking at the one guy who got banned from going into space for space ruins every shift unless they were an antag for a big example of this ideology in play, since it was a way of handling it: players addressed the issue with the player to no avail, admins addressed the issue with the player to no avail, so a ban was put in place because they refused to stop doing it when asked to by players and staff.)
Light resides in darkness, as darkness resides in light

User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Admin
 
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Location: Delivering hugs!
Byond Username: Misdoubtful

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Misdoubtful » Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:27 am #579385

After some thought I updated my previous post enough to warrant noting that I have.

I feel the main issue is that the meme of "I joined the force to beat people to death" is perhaps too ingrained in how Security players act

Ideally, Security wouldn't go for tried-and-true methods to out an antag because they want them valids


I think its worth mentioning that I'd like to hope that the bit about 'punishments being proportional' would cover the majority of the times this pops up.

An example being permaing people for trivial things like breaking windows or being in maint' not exactly being the most proportional, or probable enough to jump on.
Hugs

BrianBackslide
 
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 10:43 am
Byond Username: BrianBackslide

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby BrianBackslide » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:08 pm #579433

I think a big problem is there aren't very clear guidelines on how Sec is supposed to act and deal with people. So you end up with this weird dance where neither player (Sec and Valid) wants to engage, and the moment that someone presents themselves as "Valid" frothing mouths take over because that's the one area where Sec gets more free reign on dealing with them. So you get situations where the detaining officer decides "better safe than sorry" and performs surgery.

Doesn't doing implant removal surgery violate the whole "stay in your lane" rule anyway? Again, never been called as a doctor to do any surgeries. It's always the detaining officer or HoS doing it. (And a borg shouldn't be doing it to a human without consent on asimov. Law 1 would override any order to do so)

User avatar
SkeletalElite
 
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Byond Username: SkeletalElite
Github Username: SkeletalElite

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby SkeletalElite » Sat Oct 17, 2020 10:19 pm #579434

BrianBackslide wrote:Doesn't doing implant removal surgery violate the whole "stay in your lane" rule anyway? Again, never been called as a doctor to do any surgeries. It's always the detaining officer or HoS doing it. (And a borg shouldn't be doing it to a human without consent on asimov. Law 1 would override any order to do so)


Given that the exuction room has a set of surgery tools in it specifically for sec to use there's a valid argument that it doesn't violate.

User avatar
Cobby
 
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Cobby » Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:33 am #579461

Act like an antag treated like an antag in cases like stealing the laser should fall back to what I said about knowing antag mechanics.

Could a nontraitor(antag or not)steal the laser and hide it? Yes, therefore you shouldn’t run traitor-specific tests “just in case”. Can a non cult steal the null? Ofc, but you don’t holy water suspects until you see the dagger or see a rune that the person may or may not even drew.

It’s not difficult just ask if there is any tangible evidence that suggests this person is a traitor specifically? If that answer is no you shouldn’t be running things that would test them for being a traitor.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current

User avatar
Coconutwarrior97
In-Game Head Admin
 
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 3:14 am
Byond Username: Coconutwarrior97

Re: [Manuel] Searching for Implants with insubstantial evidence: yay/nay?

Postby Coconutwarrior97 » Tue Nov 03, 2020 12:14 pm #580690

If you're going to implant check you should have a justifiable reason to suspect they are a traitor. Break ins, stealing someone's ID, stealing a laser, are actions which are not tied down specifically to traitors and aren't sever enough to justisfy an implant check.
Murder, multiple instances where someone is brought in for theft of weaponry, or being in possession of syndicate equipment are sufficient for an implant check.

Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Yes.
Domitius: Yes.
Naloac: Yes.


Return to Policy Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users