Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

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

Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by NecromancerAnne » #622643

As part of the rules of escalation for the role, Security Officers and any similar members of security are afforded a considerable level of leeway in how escalation applies to them while conducting their role. As it stands, most players cannot retaliate towards them while they have a legitimate (from their perspective) justification for arrest. The protections afforded to sec are done so under the assumption that they will act responsibly within these positions, with absolutely no barrier for entry for who can and cannot assume the role in question.
Escalation wrote: Exceptions: Security is expected not to retaliate with random abuse or violence unless the person in question is otherwise eligible for execution. You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for legitimate reasons.
This is also potentially escalated even further from arrest to lethal force if the person in question has presented reasonable justification for 'acting like an antagonist'. To what that constitutes is actually even as low as repeat stuns, which is the basis of most self-defence as it stands.
Security Policy & Escalation wrote:
Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.
Rule 4 Lone Antagonists can do whatever they want wrote: Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.
On the surface, this doesn't seem outrageous given what the role is expected to do. Handle disruptions to the general peace responsibly, and root out and stop antagonists or trouble-makers as part of the gameplay loop. There is, however, potential abuse in how this role can be leveraged in order to loop a player into not only making themselves valid for execution under rule 4, but through this loophole and potential deception on the part of the one abusing this, even pull a non-antagonist player into an effective ban if an admin is careless with their scrutiny of the scenario.

Issue One: Dragging other Officers into the Problem
One potential way this could be leveraged is a security officer escalating poorly on another player, and opening themselves up to general escalation while their metaprotections no longer apply. This is standard fair, and if a security officer opens with lethal force on a player they would otherwise could be simply arresting, and one who hasn't actually given reason for lethal force, that officer isn't acting in their role and isn't given their regular metaprotections with regards to escalation. If this results in a scenario where the person escalated on would either have killed the officer or horribly maimed them, or so much as stunned and stripped them, which is also valid for being treated as an antagonist under rule 4, it is possible that other officers might believe them to be an antagonist.

Through this action, the victim of this escalation has no justifiable defence against these other officers using anything up and to lethal force on them, since they cannot be escalated upon while they have reasonable justification for arrest. It is possible, through a very ungenerous and tight interpretation of these rules, that even using security gear on these officers to escape harm is a violation of escalation and potentially inviting administrative repercussions.

This hypothetical situation isn't outlandish, as the only necessity for this to occur is an officer being beaten in a conflict where in stuns/lethal force is applied, a common situation during a self defence scenario (note: shoving someone on the floor is a chain stun, tabling does lethal force).

Issue One Conclusion
Through the abuse of escalation from one bad actor, there can be a domino effect from the rules as they exist in which someone can be removed from the round permanently with full justification despite having done nothing wrong under most rules other than someone else having chosen to use their role protections as a weapon. Diligent and mindful security officers might be able to recognize this scenario and work towards de-escalating it and blocking the problem actor (the poorly escalating officer) from causing more problems, but if enough things are happening to keep their attention busy during a round, not every callout is going to be scrutinized properly.

Likewise, if this player so much as attempts to defend themselves from the assisting officers who possibly could be using up to and including lethal force, this player is in fact in the wrong for doing so, as these new officers are simply responding to a potential antagonist manufactured by the bad actor and the player has no justifiable escalation against these officers. Trying to protect themselves here is actually breaking escalation policy.

This might be, if abused, something that would be a Rule 1 issue whose pattern could be and would need to be ascertained over multiple rounds. However, the response from a player targeted by this is a definitive Rule 4 that wouldn't need multiple rounds to establish a pattern for, and this imbalance is something a bad actor might be looking to exploit.

Issue Two: Antagonists can Leverage This as Well
The above scenario and trap is equally usable by anyone impersonating a security officer, and especially so by anyone in an antagonist role. While people regard this scenario as organic roleplay, there is in fact an entirely OOC element that makes this definitively inorganic in nature, as any doctored situation from an antagonist that results in someone being framed as an antagonist cannot be used as grounds for self-defence against other officers when they seek out the victim of this attack. The potential victim in this scenario could be entirely innocent, but there is in no way they can defend themselves from these mislead officers without breaking the rules, and if they choose to do so they are walking into a ban unwittingly.

Up and until this deception is revealed, they're given the freedoms of an antagonist AND the role of a security officer, and escalating into them is impossible while nobody is the wiser. This is effectively an attack via the OOC rulebook and less of roleplay, since given our previous outline of how escalation is very prohibitive of even basic self defence against security officers, these antagonists can do far worse than simply IC repercussions, but as high up as OOC repercussions as well, dragging administrators into their actions as a consequence of their behaviour, or the retaliation against them/security by their victims. This is why security officers were restricted from antagonist roles in order to avoid scenarios like this, but nothing was done for the case of another antagonist using a security officer identity to do the same, and the more something runs the risk of administrative involvement, the less organic the game becomes.

Issue Two Conclusion
These metaprotections can be subsumed by antagonists and weaponized in order to orchestrate metatraps for their victims, ostensibly attacking players beyond the confines of the game and landing them into administrative hot water if not given proper scrutiny. There is no recourse through which these players can protect themselves while they know full well they're innocent. If this scenario results in lethal force being used against them, they're as defenceless as can be and simply must accept round removal. This unfairness is not only existing within the IC boundaries, but OOC boundaries as well. An antagonist should not be able to trick someone into getting themselves banned by their actions.

Proposal:
Since these scenarios are largely reliant on the good faith acting of some of those involved, who may simply have only so much of the information at hand, and the bad faith acting of a single individual (or deception of an antagonist), I believe that victims of these kinds of metatraps should be given leeway for self defence in these situations, and allow them to play out organically, without the threat of administrative scrutiny. That is, should a scenario like this occur off the basis of one person's actions framing another as an antagonist through the misuse of the security protections, the target of this attempt should be given some permission to respond to any arrest/field execution attempts with equal force so as to give themselves the opportunity to either clear their name, or just become the bad guy that security has chosen to make them if security is too bloodthirsty to see reason.

While this may seem like self antagging on the surface, this scenario already assumes the person targeted to BE an antagonist as a core of the issue. As a result, if security truly wants to find an antagonist out of some poor non-antag, this player should be allowed to assume the role apparently given. Or at least try and reverse the misunderstanding through some means, and allowed to protect themselves in the meantime, assuming capture = round removal and acceptance that escalating back is accepting that security intends for this as a conclusion even if their act of self defence might in of itself be justification for round removal.

What This Proposal Doesn't Cover
In situations where the player would otherwise have made themselves valid for being treated as an antagonist, this proposal doesn't allow that individual to escalate against security. That is, if they were being arrested for legitimate reasons (B&E, they were attacking other people, theft, etc.), and the officer was in fact using nonlethal force to arrest them before resorting to lethal force once that officer was attacked with credible lethal force in turn. Nothing here is meant to replace metaprotections, just closing a loophole abuse (and not necessarily add a restriction to antagonists on top of this)

Where this proposal might fall flat on is doctored evidence or mislead security without any members being compromised. I think in a situation like this, a softer variant of this self defence clause would be appropriate. That is, if security is seemingly after you out of the blue, and in fact coming seemingly en-masse, or you're wise to security considering you an antagonist in some way despite doing none of the proposed crimes, then taking the steps to keep yourself safe and out of bloodthirsty hands should be more understandable so long as it's not with lethal force.
User avatar
wesoda25
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by wesoda25 » #622670

Personally I would just rather see a more unified admin effort to hold security/cap to a higher standard of play.
[this space reserved]
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #622692

Oh shit someone wrote down the vague "in the air" badfeel about secprotections.

But yeah it kinda is an intractable problem of "If someone frames you for a lethal crime your options are to hide in a locker for the rest of the round, die, or get banned." and I just dont feel this proposal helps.
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. 🖕🖕🖕
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Pandarsenic » #622716

wesoda25 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:11 pm Personally I would just rather see a more unified admin effort to hold security/cap to a higher standard of play.
wesoda25 continues to be a certified font of unironically great and correct takes

Honestly, people should be copping secbans if they abuse the sec metaprotections to send their coworkers after people; similarly, sec randos should make the most basic efforts to verify claims.

Hitting someone's PDA with the fake uplink code during an arrest and passing it around the other officers before encouraging a """valid""" kill on the target is, in fact, totally different from the usual:
Average Sec Officer wrote: someone said on sec comms that the QM killed the HOP with a revolver earlier. There's no evidence of the alleged revolver even existing, the QM has no weaponry, we haven't checked if the autolathe is hacked or might have been used to print ammo, and the HOP got revived but nobody has talked to him about whether it was really the QM

anyway we put the QM in permabrig for running away while asking why we were firing disablers at him
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Tearling
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
Byond Username: Tearling

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Tearling » #622740

NecromancerAnne wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 9:45 am Should a scenario like this occur off the basis of one person's actions framing another as an antagonist through the misuse of the security protections, the target of this attempt should be given some permission to respond to any arrest/field execution attempts with equal force so as to give themselves the opportunity to either clear their name, or just become the bad guy that security has chosen to make them if security is too bloodthirsty to see reason.

While this may seem like self antagging on the surface, this scenario already assumes the person targeted to BE an antagonist as a core of the issue. As a result, if security truly wants to find an antagonist out of some poor non-antag, this player should be allowed to assume the role apparently given. Or at least try and reverse the misunderstanding through some means, and allowed to protect themselves in the meantime, assuming capture = round removal and acceptance that escalating back is accepting that security intends for this as a conclusion even if their act of self defence might in of itself be justification for round removal.
In my opinion this is the best and most obvious solution to the problem, even though it wouldn't completely fix it. Good take, albeit it took half a page worth of reading to get to it. This would still have a problem when someone, in good faith, turns themselves in to try and get it sorted, only to get executed/not believed anyways. While any good admin would likely take the side of the victim in this situation, if there isn't a clear-cut policy on it, it would be incredibly easy for an admin to claim "IC issue" and resolve the situation in the worst way possible.
Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Cobby » #622742

As it stands, most players cannot retaliate towards them while they have a legitimate (from their perspective) justification for arrest.
Being a legitimate reason is not subjective. If you did it you cannot retaliate, if you did not then you can escalate appropriately. It is not relative to what the officer believes. The rule does not say "if they perceive it to be a legitimate reason", and i think that nuance is important.

Officers have the stun weaponry out of the box as well as the numbers they dont need to shoot first.

This does mean if he just wanted to arrest you FNR but it happened to be after you broke in somewhere, you have to assume he's doing it legitimately unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise.

This also means if he wanted to arrest you for breaking in (legitimate reason) but you never left your office (ergo not actually a legitimate reason), you DONT have to take the disabler. If you choose to escalate then you obviously now have a legitimate arrest reason, but if you are just reacting/defending yourself then you could knock out the whole department and I wouldnt bat an eye.

So I guess I agree since the solution is basically reinforcing that notion?
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by sinfulbliss » #622907

This is a great topic and I'm glad it's getting talked about.

I think the solution that's already taken for Issue One is to simply disallow officers from starting violent conflicts with players FNR. Whether that's going around pepperspraying innocent assistants to "roleplay" as shitsec (have actually seen this), or any form of killbaiting, this should always be ahelped by the affected player since there is no good way to retaliate IC without making yourself valid to security. Sec should be held to a higher standard here.

This is completely different if the officer isn't the original instigator. If you instigate a conflict against a security officer, and they choose to void their metaprotections by responding with harm, you don't really have the right to complain that the deck is stacked against you.

Issue Two is significantly more problematic. In the event you are an innocent player being falsely arrested by an officer, your best option is to let it happen and get out once you're confirmed to be good. If you retaliate with lethal force or in an attempt to incapacitate, you make yourself valid for what will be considered attempted murder. I don't think your proposal is at all controversial, and I'd be surprised if this wasn't how it was already being enforced. But it doesn't really solve the main issue: innocent players lose the option to retaliate against sec, because it's sec, and are then round-removed by antagonists disguising as sec. The solution is to either accept that this is simply the power of a stolen security officer ID, or to make it more difficult to impersonate security.
NecromancerAnne wrote:To what that constitutes is actually even as low as repeat stuns, which is the basis of most self-defense as it stands.
Only real point I would contest. Stamcrit is used just as much as an offense as a defense, and if you're randomly batonned/stamcritted by someone, you should be able to rightfully assume they are making an attempt on your life. The other option is to let it happen, then hope and pray they don't decide to murder you while you're helpless.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Cobby
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Cobby » #623153

Just to be clear,

Valid arrest is not subjective. You lose the protection as sec (or rather the person doesn’t have to play nice) if their arrest is not valid. It is NOT based on what sec perceives to be valid.

If I have been in medical all shift and know I’ve done nothing and sec starts trying to wordlessly stun me I have full right to retaliate because I know I’ve done nothing. This does mean that if I did do something I have to assume sec knows I did and I can’t ESCALATE (still evade) until I’m certain it’s about something else
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
User avatar
Misdoubtful
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:03 pm
Byond Username: Misdoubtful
Location: Delivering hugs!

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Misdoubtful » #623357

wesoda25 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:11 pm Personally I would just rather see a more unified admin effort to hold security/cap to a higher standard of play.
Yerp, this. I'd much rather not see policy added for the sake of it when it's already within rights to police this.

I find myself becoming more and more adverse to people diving too deeply into things around here, I just recoil and lose interest when tautology and bureaucratic solutions come out.

No offense intended, I just really prefer simple common sense judgements and things being based on intent and merit.
Hugs
User avatar
NecromancerAnne
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
Byond Username: NecromancerAnne
Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by NecromancerAnne » #623370

wesoda25 wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:11 pm Personally I would just rather see a more unified admin effort to hold security/cap to a higher standard of play.
A lot of this was mostly discussed on discord, but I would like to see this not only be something encouraged by admins to their peers, but actually find a place in policy at least somewhere. That said, I find too much admin oversight to produce very inorganic play, and would rather this be limited as much as possible. Having to look to admin input every time an arrest seems to spiral into a manhunt is maybe a good way to stop the behaviour. But certainly might create an entirely new problem in the form of security being less certain as to whether they can act against every callout without possible reprecussion. That's because the issue is 'how exactly do I stop the rest of sec dogpiling this singled out individual while I deal with this problem officer'?

The answer is that most likely, the dogpiled person still has their round effectively ended and the problem officer still got away with their intent, since the damage is already done, because any way to stop that happening would require direct IC admin intervention. And would get pretty tiring.

And, even if the enforcement was tightened on regular sec, antagonists can still exploit this loophole fairly egregiously. Disguising as sec isn't something I want to deny them, as it would go against the principle of antagonists having ultimate freedom (also lings exist). I would prefer not to see code changes to fix this, and just have a more relaxed ability to act when you know you're innocent of a crime from the victims end. It doesn't need to be the extreme proposal I made, even something as soft as 'stun and evade to protect yourself'. But just allowing for action at all should prevent this tactic being too reliable and drives even a bit of action (hopefully).

Yes, I'm aware the targets of this are probably going to die regardless. I remember our discussion on the discord this point coming up a lot. It isn't about whether it stops the person dying or not, it's about allowing for an framed player to roll with it and act accordingly.
Cobby wrote: Sat Dec 25, 2021 4:47 am Just to be clear,

Valid arrest is not subjective. You lose the protection as sec (or rather the person doesn’t have to play nice) if their arrest is not valid. It is NOT based on what sec perceives to be valid.

If I have been in medical all shift and know I’ve done nothing and sec starts trying to wordlessly stun me I have full right to retaliate because I know I’ve done nothing. This does mean that if I did do something I have to assume sec knows I did and I can’t ESCALATE (still evade) until I’m certain it’s about something else
While I do believe this is the basis of what I was working from, I do want to stress that what constitutes a 'valid arrest' has in the past been weighed sometimes on what security has perceived as valid as well. (This is coming from personal experience here)

It doesn't seem like a consistent interpretation by admins, and even I'm not entirely disinclined to hold a security officer to ransom for making a bad call. But a bad call shouldn't still be something a player is expected to lie down and take. That seems extremely unfair for someone else to suffer the failure of someone else to act within their job.

The trap here is obviously that acting against this particular officer/group of officers will always make you valid to the other officers. And that's the part that is the loophole. Even if the offending officer in this situation isn't valid, retaliating against them makes you valid to the rest of sec, and their arrests are always valid and you cannot act against it. (per the rules anyway)
User avatar
NecromancerAnne
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
Byond Username: NecromancerAnne
Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by NecromancerAnne » #623372

Misdoubtful wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 8:11 am Yerp, this. I'd much rather not see policy added for the sake of it when it's already within rights to police this.

I find myself becoming more and more adverse to people diving too deeply into things around here, I just recoil and lose interest when tautology and bureaucratic solutions come out.

No offense intended, I just really prefer simple common sense judgements and things being based on intent and merit.
Sometimes policy can be just as much a tool for players as it is for admins. It can inform players of whether or not a situation they have found themselves in could actually be ahelpable and what they're allowed to ask for help with. This is a situation I've been in, many other admins have been in, many players have been in, and something I tried hard to help deal with when other people found themselves abused by poor actors hoping to ride the sec metaprotections as free reign to abusing others.

People do need to know that shitsec isn't actually something they need to lie down and take, but they do need to be informed about what could happen should you act against them in any capacity presently, if nothing here is changed. Right now, plenty of players will tell you that defending yourself against sec as a nonantag, even if they're shitsec and abusive, is something that will get you into trouble if you succeed and get you 'ic issued' if you lose, and so any action from sec against you might as well be a free reign to grief, because they hold all the OOC power as well as the IC power in the dynamic (as a consequence of this loophole). For a role that is able to be assumed by anyone, that seems a little fucked up to me.

Also I shouldn't need to explain why metaprotected antag sec is a bad thing for game health. This isn't even a debate, as the conclusion to this discussion exists with the removal of antag from protected roles. But this isn't easily resolved with direct policy alone, and code changes can only go so far (and really makes things messy as far as metainformation goes), so dealing with it is better solved with a roundabout solution.
Redrover1760
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2021 3:27 am
Byond Username: Redrover1760

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Redrover1760 » #623786

If I kill a security officer for ambushing me and trying to arrest me for no reason, does that make me bannable? Idk. But it is very true that ambush FNR arrests is definitely antag behavior. Then, the rest of sec runs after me for killing a seccie. Oops.

On the other hand, I defend myself and kill a doctor for trying to attack me, but medbay sides with the doctor and kills me. Or perhaps they killed my friend. Funnily enough this has happened to me before. Or perhaps I am a chef and a bunch of assistants and the clown try to lynch me for defending myself against the bartender (I even cuffed him and didnt kill him) after I had to kill pun pun for attacking me. In that scenario I slaughter the assistants in self defense, because bat is garbage compared to cqc, but then the botanist comes, sec, and other assistants come in and attack me also for killing so many people in my own workplace. So I kill them too until the seccie & borg go brrr (I was lucky enough sec had a brain and realized I was innocent and revived me). Sure, once the seccie got there I tried to explain myself and stop fighting, but he decided to side with the lynch mob and I got killed by the hungry tide.

Now, I'd love to do this sort of thing with security if they try to arrest me for no reason like an antag, but it really breaks here. Specifically the part about dealing with the bad actor. If I have to kill a seccie for self-antagging, everything escalates. If I could instead cuff the seccie and bring them to security to sort and talk it out, like my friend Tatto Moon has succeeded and done before, he's actually got a free baton and sec id out of it from an understanding warden.

I think that as a player, self defense still ends when your target is in crit. Killing the target is an act of escalation and revenge.

Still, the fact of the matter is that I feel like the only solution to this is security at least trying to confirm or deny your innocence, instead of wordless validhunting. Which doesn't work on sybil. Seccie calls someone a tot for stealing a baton in a FNR arrest, sec lethals "tot" to death. Strip, loot, move on. Many people have probably died as nonantags to shitters that call you a tot without actual evidence of being a tot. I've seen heads of staff that have done that in the past. Sec is incredibly well armed and equipped and you aren't beating them, the only solution here is some common sense on the part of security and ahelping shitty stuff, sadly enough.
User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by oranges » #623800

good way to make even less people play security
User avatar
Tearling
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
Byond Username: Tearling

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Tearling » #623818

oranges wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:11 am good way to make even less people play security
If people don't want to play security because it's becoming more strict and harder to get away with bad faith behavior, then those people shouldn't have been playing security in the first place.
Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
User avatar
XivilaiAnaxes
Joined: Sat May 11, 2019 7:13 am
Byond Username: XivilaiAnaxes

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by XivilaiAnaxes » #623819

Tearling wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:08 am
oranges wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:11 am good way to make even less people play security
If people don't want to play security because it's becoming more strict and harder to get away with bad faith behavior, then those people shouldn't have been playing security in the first place.
So who IS going to play security?
Stickymayhem wrote:Imagine the sheer narcisssim required to genuinely believe you are this intelligent.
User avatar
Tearling
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
Byond Username: Tearling

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Tearling » #623831

XivilaiAnaxes wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:12 am So who IS going to play security?
Hopefully non-shitters, but given how many people would still play security, I'm sure there would be plenty of shitters still up for the challenge of trying to get away with it.
Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
SkeletalElite
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:14 pm
Byond Username: SkeletalElite
Github Username: SkeletalElite

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by SkeletalElite » #623838

Tearling wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:08 am
oranges wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:11 am good way to make even less people play security
If people don't want to play security because it's becoming more strict and harder to get away with bad faith behavior, then those people shouldn't have been playing security in the first place.
People won't want to play security because how this will practically play out is one of their comrades being a dumb ass and calling out that grey mctide is a traitor when they're not is basically going to give grey mctide a murderbone pass against sec.
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Pandarsenic » #623853

True; I don't play Security because I don't play SS13 ever I don't generally like working with unreliable validhunters who are only there to get their rocks off redtexting people with a minimum effort at actual roleplay and at protecting the crew instead of seeking the valids.

idk if it's different on MRP though, I should probably try there a bit.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Screemonster
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:23 pm
Byond Username: Scree

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Screemonster » #623878

Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 3:52 am
Average Sec Officer wrote: someone said on sec comms that the QM killed the HOP with a revolver earlier. There's no evidence of the alleged revolver even existing, the QM has no weaponry, we haven't checked if the autolathe is hacked or might have been used to print ammo, and the HOP got revived but nobody has talked to him about whether it was really the QM

anyway we put the QM in permabrig for running away while asking why we were firing disablers at him
One of the ones I dealt with once was a borg not responding to orders because it was AFK in robotics, and an officer got it into their head that there was something sus going on.
While speculating why the borg wasn't responding to comms or orders, one of the officers speculated "maybe the robo emagged it".
This somehow twisted in the mind of every officer present into "The roboticist absolutely, definitely, emagged that borg."
They demanded the roboticist let them in to search the place, yelling threats that they're going to kill him when they get in, which naturally didn't incline the roboticist towards opening the door.
They started smashing their way in. The roboticist fled into maintenance. The security team gave chase.
UNRELATED, someone else was tunneling through the walls in maintenance for... whatever reason, and breached through to outside, which on this map had an atmosphere consisting of... mostly plasma and CO2.
There was still oxygen in the tunnels.
Did the security team hold their fire while surrounded by what was basically a toxins burn mix? Hahahahahahahaha, did they fuck.

Anyway, there was immense salt from the security officers after the round when they found out the robo wasn't a traitor.
They were even more salty when I told them that I wasn't going to ban the dude since he did nothing antagonistic other than run away from an angry mob that was threatening to kick his ass, the plasma leak was a complete accident, and the entire crime that sec was chasing him for was something the sec team completely made up.

10/10, perfect ss13 moment.
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Pandarsenic » #623933

Security, setting themselves on fire: "I can't believe the Roboticist did this"
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
Aeri
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:44 pm
Byond Username: Cat348

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Aeri » #624160

Not-Dorsidarf wrote: Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:20 pm Oh shit someone wrote down the vague "in the air" badfeel about secprotections.

But yeah it kinda is an intractable problem of "If someone frames you for a lethal crime your options are to hide in a locker for the rest of the round, die, or get banned." and I just dont feel this proposal helps.
Adding to this it feels like sometimes security has elected that you're bad with flimsy justification and trying to elude them is just going to make them double down, how often have you seen security give up on catching someone who did a crime? It's like they have nothing better to do. After all a guilty man wouldn't run right? :donut2:


So your options when sec has a false flag bone-on for you is to run away and eventually because hey small world, or get caught and get anywhere from five minutes of your sixty minute shift wasted to functionally round removed
Tell your local headmins to abolish ENFORCE_HUMAN_AUTHORITY, humans are fucking boring. Allow plasmeme CE, Lizard HOS, etc!
User avatar
Tearling
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
Byond Username: Tearling

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Tearling » #625004

SkeletalElite wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 11:12 am People won't want to play security because how this will practically play out is one of their comrades being a dumb ass and calling out that grey mctide is a traitor when they're not is basically going to give grey mctide a murderbone pass against sec.
It won't "practically play out" like that unless every security officer is such a dumb ass they think chasing Grey Mctide is a good idea based on the false testimony of, as you put it yourself, "a dumb ass" security officer.
Thankfully we don't need to think about hypothetical situations that might occur from an agreement ruling from the headmins because there are already shitty situations where fighting back against security, even for good reason, is already getting people in trouble. For example viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30677 where kieth4 got job-banned for essentially fighting back against security who were unlawfully trying to arrest him.

Which would you rather? Getting your round ruined because you tried to arrest Grey Mctide based on the false testimony of a shit secoff, or getting job-banned or worst (On that same forum the admin acknowledged they should have made a 2 day game ban, not just a job-ban) because an admin decided that you shouldn't stun an officer when they try to arrest you for something you didn't do.
Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
User avatar
NecromancerAnne
In-Game Admin
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:55 pm
Byond Username: NecromancerAnne
Location: Don't touch me, motherfucker...

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by NecromancerAnne » #625034

Quite literally kieth4's ban is a very good example of a situation where escalating into security being a clusterfuck, and it is extremely unfortunate this thread hasn't been resolved before that situation occurred.
User avatar
Sylphet
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:35 am
Byond Username: Sylphet
Location: Rent free ~

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Sylphet » #625206

NecromancerAnne wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 9:39 pm Quite literally kieth4's ban is a very good example of a situation where escalating into security being a clusterfuck, and it is extremely unfortunate this thread hasn't been resolved before that situation occurred.
Ahaha, I came in this thread to post this as an example. The single most important thing here is to tighten up our expectations of security. Things like lying about whether someone has committed a crime cannot be allowed. We also need jannies to be much, much more careful than they currently are in handling situations like that one, so policy can't fix every issue at play here. That said, I like this post, think it would offer some protection to players while we get our shit together on dealing with shitsec players, and back this as policy.
Tell me how much you think that I should be thrown out of the nearest airlock !
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 37&t=27175
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Zybwivcz » #625790

oranges wrote: Tue Jan 04, 2022 12:11 am good way to make even less people play security
It's hard to pick which one of the ideas proposed in the thread is the worst, there are so many options.

My favorite is the idea that arresting someone who's not 'really' an antag lets them attack SEC. So either SEC tries to arrest someone who is an antag and who can kill them, or they try to arrest someone who isn't an antag but can now kill them because they're not an antag.

99% of the people who get killed by SEC do so knowing they're doing something SEC can kick their ass for. The assistant running around with the hand teleporter and captain's gun five minutes into the round who gets shot after trying to stun the SEC chasing him knows he was doing something that could get him killed. If he adminhelps the only sane response is to hit him with banbaiting, not giving him the ability to kill SEC like a real antag could.

The point of the "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" is that it is supposed to be a punishment, why would you turn it into a free way to get antag status when you feel like killing SEC?

Want to draw clearer lines on when to punish SEC for bad kills? Make it explicit that surrendering peacefully while being arrested makes you nonvalid for all but exceptional purposes. People who are actually innocent get well defined protections. No more "I knew I was innocent so I pulled out my stolen energy gun and started shooting them then they shot me, ban plz".
User avatar
Screemonster
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:23 pm
Byond Username: Scree

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Screemonster » #625807

Zybwivcz wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:42 am
99% of the people who get killed by SEC do so knowing they're doing something SEC can kick their ass for. The assistant running around with the hand teleporter and captain's gun five minutes into the round who gets shot after trying to stun the SEC chasing him knows he was doing something that could get him killed. If he adminhelps the only sane response is to hit him with banbaiting, not giving him the ability to kill SEC like a real antag could.

The point of the "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" is that it is supposed to be a punishment, why would you turn it into a free way to get antag status when you feel like killing SEC?
what the fuck are you talking about it's explicit in the rules that you can't dunk sec if they're arresting you for a crime you actually did commit, nobody's proposing to allow greytide to escalate to dunking security when they try to arrest them for stealing the cap's laser, they're talking about making it permissible for people to defend themselves when (not if) security get their fuckin valids on when they genuinely didn't commit a crime

if "free antag if sec decide to wave their authority boner around when I'm actually innocent but not if I've done a crime" is an incentive for these tiding fucks to actually stay innocent then so be it
Zybwivcz
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:30 am
Byond Username: Zybwivcz

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Zybwivcz » #626090

Screemonster wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:15 am what the fuck are you talking about it's explicit in the rules that you can't dunk sec if they're arresting you for a crime you actually did commit, nobody's proposing to allow greytide to escalate to dunking security when they try to arrest them for stealing the cap's laser, they're talking about making it permissible for people to defend themselves when (not if) security get their fuckin valids on when they genuinely didn't commit a crime
I had an admin "IC issue" me when some tider who I arrested for stealing a hand tele ambushed me later in the round and killed me while explicitly noting that security metaprotections were 'up in the air' currently, so the policy is perhaps less than perfectly clear.
if "free antag if sec decide to wave their authority boner around when I'm actually innocent but not if I've done a crime" is an incentive for these tiding fucks to actually stay innocent then so be it
This is a stupid idea because whether or not they "genuinely" didn't commit a crime is a terrible standard. It's a)impossible to judge whether or not someone is "genuinely" guilty or just appears to be guilty until the round is over and b)people bullshit all the time about whether or not they're "genuinely" guilty and can't possibly be expected to be a good judge of whether or not they meet the new policy.

Giving tiders free semi-legit antag status if they decide they've been wronged by SEC isn't going to disincentivize them from tiding, just the opposite.

The point of the "surrender peacefully and SEC can't just baton you to death" rule is to give actually wrongly accused players a way to avoid getting killed by SEC without creating a grey area where it's kind of ok sometimes to fight SEC when you think you're innocent of the crime you think they're trying to arrest you for.
User avatar
Not-Dorsidarf
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #626244

“Surrender peacefully and sec cant just beat you up” and “If you havent done shit you can beat the hell out of him if you think youre hard enough to take on the entire sec team with a stunprod” arent mutually exclusive rulings you know
Image
Image
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please. 🖕🖕🖕
User avatar
RaveRadbury
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:41 am
Byond Username: RaveRadbury
Github Username: RaveRadbury
Location: BK ChatZone
Contact:

Re: Security Metaprotections being used as Metagame Traps (Both by Antags and Non-Antags)

Post by RaveRadbury » #628831

We encourage the admin team to hold security and head roles to a higher standard of play. Players can assist in this effort by ahelping problematic behavior.

Headmin Votes:
Dragomagol: Agree
RaveRadbury: Agree
NamelessFairy: Agree
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users