Rule 12 and Security

Locked
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Rule 12 and Security

Post by sinfulbliss » #633496

To kick off the new headmin cycle I thought it'd be nice to hear the headmins' thoughts on rule 12 as it applies to security, specifically on LRP.
Playing-to-win is to focus exclusively on a competitive victory condition, such as killing all antagonists. It is not empowering yourself to achieve personal goals, or taking measures to survive the shift
Previously sec players were allowed to round-remove any antagonist simply for being "valid." Many admins believe, as well as of a lot of the playerbase, that rule 12 is designed to inhibit them from doing this in some manner. The point of this thread is to try to hash out what that looks like so that security players are aware of where the new lines are being drawn and what, if any, behavior they need to change.

A lot of discussion about this has happened already, in the Rule 12 thread as well as the Discord, and headmins have expressed their opinions informally there. Based on these discussions, here are a few questions I think would be vital for security players to know:

1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?

2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?

3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?

4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?

These are all questions that would have been answered with a unanimous "Yes" in the past, and given how common these situations are for sec, it seems necessary for there to be a clear consensus about if these things are disallowed now under rule 12. Hopefully these questions are worded specifically enough so that clear answers are feasible.

Disclaimer: THIS THREAD IS DESIGNED FOR CLARIFICATION, NOT AS AN ATTACK OR PUSH FOR ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Stickymayhem
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Stickymayhem » #633502

One example I think is illustrative is something I've noticed a fair bit on Terry. Greytiders who near antag levels of destruction often end up taken to the brig, searched and then declared "not antag" and let go again because from a meta perspective, security knows their damage is restricted by the OOC rules so their actual behaviour doesn't matter ICly. I've seen this directly justified by some security teams as not wanting to remove non-antags from the round because the same people who cause heaps of trouble when there's no threat are often the validhunters who will take down the antags that are DEFINITELY about to appear because this is a video game with rounds not a space station. They don't want to reduce the crew in the face of the REAL threat.

The issues here are subtle, but this is where a play-to-win mentality is problematic for security. Not doing your job properly specifically to maximize your chances of defeating the incoming antag threat you only know is coming because you're not an actual character you're a self-insert in a TTT style pvp game.

Also I would argue that security arming up pre-emptively can and should be punished already, well before rule 12. There are plenty of notes out there for people who would crack the armory open for no reason or gear up with shotties roundstart just because they like shotguns. Frankly the normalization of cracking the armory for no reason is a problem of enforcement, it's something that shouldn't be happening. I even see security teams gear assistants up with lasers with no real active threat, again often due to a meta understanding that giving everyone lasers is ultimately just a boon for the crew because antags tend to have an asymmetrical access to lethal weaponry and when that gets subverted at roundstart they're actually much less dangerous due to their number disadvantage.

These are the kind of ways that Rule 12 should be applying to patterns of play-to-win security. Of course security can hunt antags, but in the same way we restrict random searches, we have to put some limits on what the security team can do to ensure antags have a fair chance. Of course antags can be executed (though other solutions are preferable to turning the round into a green shift, I doubt this will ever be punishable). Friendly antagonists shouldn't be exected they should be locked in solitary with the clown for 45 minutes AND THEN executed.
Image
Image
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
Super Aggro Crag wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:17 pm Dont engage with sticky he's a subhuman
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by sinfulbliss » #633509

Stickymayhem wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:59 pmAlso I would argue that security arming up pre-emptively can and should be punished already, well before rule 12. There are plenty of notes out there for people who would crack the armory open for no reason or gear up with shotties roundstart just because they like shotguns. Frankly the normalization of cracking the armory for no reason is a problem of enforcement, it's something that shouldn't be happening.
Opening armory shiftstart and distributing weapons to sec was ruled as allowable behavior per this ruling:

Image

This very well may be explicitly disallowed with rule 12 - this is why it is one of the four questions I ask in the OP. The jury is still out on this!
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
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: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Not-Dorsidarf » #633514

Stickymayhem wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:59 pm Snip
If security are handing out lasers en masse to random assistants with no real cause, why aren't you pressing "Create Antags" -> "Revolution" ;)
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. 🖕🖕🖕
Boot
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 10:16 pm
Byond Username: B00t

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Boot » #633534

sinfulbliss wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:19 pm
Stickymayhem wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:59 pmAlso I would argue that security arming up pre-emptively can and should be punished already, well before rule 12. There are plenty of notes out there for people who would crack the armory open for no reason or gear up with shotties roundstart just because they like shotguns. Frankly the normalization of cracking the armory for no reason is a problem of enforcement, it's something that shouldn't be happening.
Opening armory shiftstart and distributing weapons to sec was ruled as allowable behavior per this ruling:

Image

This very well may be explicitly disallowed with rule 12 - this is why it is one of the four questions I ask in the OP. The jury is still out on this!
To be clear, the headmin discussion was about eguns, not shotguns.
Image Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Pandarsenic » #633600

A lot of these seem like no-brainers to me, but perhaps I am simply a decrepit old boomer.
sinfulbliss wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:05 pm 1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?
2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?
3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?
4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?
1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?
Yeah, as long as you aren't neglecting the part about keeping the station safe (arresting tiders, for instance). Actively patrolling for threats is fine, but you should remember that as security, RP-wise, your job as sec is not to Get Valids or deny Greentext, your job is to secure NT's investments and by extension its personnel.

2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?
First of all, why did you arrest them to find this stuff in the first place?

That said, per rule 4, if you catch them out with antag gear and they can't explain it away, they are still open season. If they claim they got the .357 revolver by shoving someone into a wall or whatever, and you don't have any evidence of them using it, you should in fact do some Actual Investigation, make a detective get work done, etc. - Put in the most basic effort to act like a person instead of immediately going EAT SALADS SING BALLADS KILL VALIDS

Cultists are a round-disrupting team antag and you should immediately be getting holy water to deconvert them, but executing some poor fucker who has a Heretic focus but doesn't seem to have actually hurt anyone yet (especially if they clearly don't know what the hell they're doing) is incredibly Uncool at a player level. I wouldn't bwoink you for it as an admin, but I would probably make fun of you for it. Do something interesting, like put them in perma and send a lawyer over to prep them for trial if you have lawyers around. Let the baby antag have SOME sort of round.

Edit: I would also contend that the "right" call in this station is a matter of contextual RP. If everything is going to hell, you might just go "Sorry, can't take the risk" whereas if nothing is going on so far, it's pretty uncool to decapitate them just because valid.

3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?
Why do this, exactly? What does this accomplish? I have some opinions on this, but I'd like to hear your answer to that first.

4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?
If you're fine with it and cargo is fine with it, honestly, why not order some cool toys and make a thing of it? If you're invading the cargo department to do this when they're trying to do other stuff, though, you're being a dick. IMO, this is far less of an issue than, say, preemptively ordering a fuckload of loyalty implants Just In Case.

Cargo stuff is there to be ordered, and having more weapons than hands to use them is something that can backfire frequently, especially now that you can't cram 5 E-guns in your backpack.
Boot wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 12:20 am
sinfulbliss wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:19 pm
Stickymayhem wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:59 pmAlso I would argue that security arming up pre-emptively can and should be punished already, well before rule 12. There are plenty of notes out there for people who would crack the armory open for no reason or gear up with shotties roundstart just because they like shotguns. Frankly the normalization of cracking the armory for no reason is a problem of enforcement, it's something that shouldn't be happening.
Opening armory shiftstart and distributing weapons to sec was ruled as allowable behavior per this ruling:

Image

This very well may be explicitly disallowed with rule 12 - this is why it is one of the four questions I ask in the OP. The jury is still out on this!
To be clear, the headmin discussion was about eguns, not shotguns.
Ehhhh, guns are guns. I don't really see a reason that people shouldn't be allowed to choose guns they like if the people with access to those guns agree to it.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by sinfulbliss » #633623

Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:20 am
2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?
[...] executing some poor fucker who has a Heretic focus but doesn't seem to have actually hurt anyone yet (especially if they clearly don't know what the hell they're doing) is incredibly Uncool at a player level. I wouldn't bwoink you for it as an admin, but I would probably make fun of you for it.
I'd assume all the headmins would agree this is uncool. But there's a big difference between uncool and rulebreaking. I'm more interested in knowing if these specific actions would be against rule 12 and thus rulebreaking, since attitudes about playstyles vary wildly from person to person and, by extension, from admin to admin.
Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 4:20 am
3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?

Why do this, exactly? What does this accomplish? I have some opinions on this, but I'd like to hear your answer to that first.
I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or another. I could see both sides. For killing: friendly antags don't add to the threat of the round, which is their job as an antagonist, and that makes rounds less exciting - killing for it discourages this sort of behavior. For not killing: you're RR'ing someone who didn't do anything bad ICly, and you neutralize any chance they would have had of adding to the round in their own way, or through their own gimmick.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Pandarsenic » #633629

So what I was holding back is that usually friendly antags happen when one antag and another come into conflict - to use myself as an example, I often become a much friendlier antag when I'm suddenly attempting to survive an outbreak of romerol zombies or xenos or a cult (or if I don't think I can convince nuke ops to take me home with them).

I think, now that Dynamic is in, antags fighting antags and siding with the station for it should definitely be a case by case thing. Don't just say "Friendly antag???" but instead ask what they're doing and why. Respond with, and to, RP. Don't make it about their OoC antag status. Play a character who has thoughts and opinions and shit. React in a way that makes sense.

If they just want to get a bunch of TCs for cool toys, like friendly contractors used to be, then yeah, probably brig them! If a xeno hunter is dragging you off and a guy manifests .357 to gun it down, or if you're infected by zombies and your buddy manifests a Syndicate Surgery Bag, maybe be appropriately grateful IC when he does head surgery to take out the zombie tumor.
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by sinfulbliss » #633636

Pandarsenic wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 6:19 am I think, now that Dynamic is in, antags fighting antags and siding with the station for it should definitely be a case by case thing. Don't just say "Friendly antag???" but instead ask what they're doing and why. Respond with, and to, RP. Don't make it about their OoC antag status. Play a character who has thoughts and opinions and shit. React in a way that makes sense.
This is great advice for how to approach antagonists ICly. But security players are also held to a certain standard OOCly that mediates what IC actions they can take. Rule 12 holds all players to a certain standard too, and I'm curious what standard it holds sec to, using these questions as a way to provide clarity that is otherwise up to interpretation.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Sylphet
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:35 am
Byond Username: Sylphet
Location: Rent free ~

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Sylphet » #633677

Oh hell yeah, opinion posting time.
1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?
Security should always be alert for threats to the station, things like patrolling maintenance, searching disposals, bag checks on blue+, all of that kind of thing is fine.
2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?
Security are free to be stupid and sabotage their own fun and job content.
3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?
All antags pose a threat and security can do what they see fit. My personal expectation is that people be treated with consideration to what they actually did. The guy who bombed med and turned Ian into a burger before force feeding it to the HoP should be executed. The guy who stole the CE's shoes, while technically valid - you're a dick if you execute for it. Gulag and perma exist for these cases, just because you can do it without getting banned does not mean you should.
4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?
Armoury weapons are there to be used, if the warden cares to hand them out, that's okay. I don't mind cargo orders so long as it's not super excessive. Roundstart ordering 8 gun crates is bad, ordering a crate of eguns is fine - the exact line here is best left to admin discretion. Handing out guns to non security however, is not acceptable.
Tell me how much you think that I should be thrown out of the nearest airlock !
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 37&t=27175
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #633796

I like to think of this rule as more of a guideline - instead of just killing the antag and round removing them if it's possible to arrest them, you should take their uplink and implant them with trackers or something, or toss them in perma so they have to do a daring escape with almost no items.

However, I think enforcement is the fuzzy bit. Is security wrong for executing the traitor? No.

However, there is another ruling we can look at for comparison - lowpop murderboning. Antags can murderbone, but if they're seen lowpop murderboning, an admin can note them for it if they so choose at their discretion - this choice would probably depend on the factors of the individual round, like whether or not they made the shift interesting, or was there an RP reason to murderbone, or were they just being a dick to the lowpop crowd, etc.

I feel like this rule should be enforced in the same manner. You CAN just execute the traitor, but it should be enforced against under context of the round in question. Were they arrested successfully? Yes. Did they actually harm anyone? No. Did the secoff scream "HAHA FUCKING VALID GET REKT" before shooting the traitor mime they had cuffed in the brig? Yes. In this case they should probably be noted. So, I think this rule needs to be enforced very contextually.

Of course, the funni joke about this whole thread is that no one plays security on Sybil in the first place because it's awful due to the playerbase, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
Image
Image
ArcaneDefence
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2020 6:29 am
Byond Username: ArcaneDefence

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by ArcaneDefence » #633804

Sylphet wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 11:15 am The guy who stole the CE's shoes, while technically valid - you're a dick if you execute for it. Gulag and perma exist for these cases, just because you can do it without getting banned does not mean you should.
Would be funnier to confiscate the boots, store them in evidence, and then shoecuff the individual and stuff them down disposals.
If the lad wants boots... give them boots.
User avatar
iamgoofball
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by iamgoofball » #633818

as someone who's been playing security recently I've been having a LOT of issues with my coworkers doing shit like:
1. completely ignoring everything short of murder and then letting the guy who did the murder go after a quick bag search for antag gear
2. crack open the armory at the earliest convienence and hand out guns to fucking every shithead greytider that gets arrested
3. actively letting people other security officers arrested out of cells for no reason and refusing to say anything when caught in the act
4. frankly just not prioritizing anything other than killing the antags at all costs

i once escorted a sec officer to an arrest as a detective after telling him the suspect broke into tech storage, had him go "what am I arresting him for?" when we arrived, told him the crime again(breaking into tech storage), he put cuffs on the suspect, then asks "wait what am I arresting him for", both the suspect and I say what he's being arrested for, we get to the brig, he goes "what is this guy being arrested for?" over sec comms, we reiterate it a third time, he then searches the guy's backpack, puts it back on him, and then takes his cuffs off and lets him go without a word and runs off

apparently this guy was waiting for me to say the magic words "he's an antag"
Last edited by iamgoofball on Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by sinfulbliss » #633830

iamgoofball wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:09 pm as someone who's been playing security recently I've been having a LOT of issues with my coworkers doing shit like:
[...]
4. frankly just not prioritizing anything other than killing the antags at all costs
These are tricky issues. Requiring sec players to arrest/brig people for lesser crimes under rule 12 is a pretty tight restriction and would probably gut the department. Certain crimes on LRP are conventionally ignored by security, but it's not always from the bad-faith motive of "not antag, not bad." The good-faith motive for ignoring lesser crimes is to preserve the freedom players enjoy in playing LRP, along with the greater chaos incentivizing sec to ignore minor crimes.

The question you should ask yourself before arresting is: does this crime create a legitimate problem? An assistant hacking into tech storage for insuls probably doesn't. An assistant hacking into engi for insuls probably does, since the engineers will suffer as a result. Lesser crimes like these are best punished for swiftly and on-the-scene. Even in lower threat rounds, sec will have this tendency to ignore lesser crimes, primarily because they are steeped in a high-chaos LRP culture which rewards that behavior.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
PKPenguin321
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
Byond Username: PKPenguin321
Github Username: PKPenguin321
Location: U S A, U S A, U S A

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by PKPenguin321 » #633921

If you're asking for clarifications on the new rule, good luck. I spent maybe an hour in adminbus the other day asking for concrete examples of a scenario where the rule would be enforced and got precisely 1 at the very end of the hour. The rule is intentionally vague because it's not meant to really be enforced, more to guide player behavior.
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
Image
User avatar
massa
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 am
Byond Username: Massa100

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by massa » #634109

iamgoofball wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:09 pm as someone who's been playing security recently
Image
ok lol bro you're out of touch
:donut2: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :donut2:
User avatar
Stickymayhem
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:13 pm
Byond Username: Stickymayhem

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Stickymayhem » #634115

massa wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 8:34 pm
iamgoofball wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:09 pm as someone who's been playing security recently
Image
ok lol bro you're out of touch
He didn't say anything wrong though I'm a sec player and I'll encounter 2-3 out of 4 of those EVERY round
Image
Image
Boris wrote:Sticky is a jackass who has worms where his brain should be, but he also gets exactly what SS13 should be
Super Aggro Crag wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 6:17 pm Dont engage with sticky he's a subhuman
User avatar
datorangebottle
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:53 am
Byond Username: Datorangebottle

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by datorangebottle » #634119

massa wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 8:34 pm
iamgoofball wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:09 pm as someone who's been playing security recently
-
ok lol bro you're out of touch
Normally I'm highly critical of goofball, but I don't think he's as out of touch as you think. At least, not in this instance.
Timberpoes wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 10:33 pm ImageAnother satisfied Timberpoes voter.Image
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:16 pm I highly doubt any other admin on the team would have given you this chance, except maybe Kieth because his brain worms are almost as bad as mine.
Vekter wrote: Tue May 16, 2023 4:45 pm At what point does someone's refusal or failure to improve become malice in and of itself? If you give someone a year to stop shitting on the carpet and they keep doing it but get slightly closer to the bathroom every time and sometimes they get to the toilet before it happens, at what point does it become acceptable to just ask them to go shit in someone else's house?
Timberpoes wrote: Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:00 pm I'm sorry, can we get a real player to resolve this appeal? I don't like this trial player. They can't even set their own name.
Chadley wrote: Thu Apr 27, 2023 4:00 am WENDEZ, cute, cute. I imagine the sleeper activation code when I hear it. That's pretty cool. qB). But I don't like that it doesn't line up to be anything obsurd like WEWLAD. 6/10

SUGMA, nevermind it makes sense now. fuckyou/10
kieth4 wrote: Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:34 pm If it goes to appeals I will stand as the shield and protect this man's right to shit himself. Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
sinfulbliss wrote: I almost prefer Rave's AI-generated "We cannot accept this appeal at this time. If you would like assistance appealing in the future, please dial 1-800-1984-1488."
Pandarsenic wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 2:25 pm I think we can all agree that someone throwing a reverse revolver at Zyb as a secret test of character, and Zyb immediately fucking himself with it, is the best thing we all could have received for Christmas this year
User avatar
iamgoofball
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by iamgoofball » #634138

massa wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 8:34 pm
iamgoofball wrote: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:09 pm as someone who's been playing security recently
Image
ok lol bro you're out of touch
if you had scrolled down slightly:
Image
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Timberpoes » #634142

Let's not get hung up on playtime charts. It's one of the most useless metrics we've got to decide anything.

I haven't played a single shift for like 1 and a half years and I'm now one of the 3 hapless fools who get input to decide policy for the next 6 months. So if you think goof's not qualified enough to make decisions and have opinions, wait until you see me!
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
User avatar
massa
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 am
Byond Username: Massa100

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by massa » #634151

Timberpoes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:39 pmI haven't played a single shift for like 1 and a half years and I'm now one of the 3 hapless fools who get input to decide policy for the next 6 months.
that is one of the problems that some people might have though
:donut2: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :donut2:
User avatar
nianjiilical
In-Game Admin
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2019 2:30 am
Byond Username: Nianjiilical

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by nianjiilical » #634221

just tossing out my personal opinions
sinfulbliss wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:05 pm 1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?
4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?
there's nothing wrong with security starting the round and deciding they're going to go patrolling for antags. it is literally their job to be the station police

that said, the degree to which they powergame their loadout *might* become worth looking into if it becomes regularly excessive. just grabbing an egun or disabler is fine, but if the first thing a secoff does every round is gear up with 3 batons, 2 flashes, an egun, the krav maga gloves, the ablative trenchcoat and a sec modsuit, then run to cargo to order thermal pistols, then go to rnd to research powergamer items, then ask the hop for more id cards with extra access, thats probably the point at which its worth telling them to calm down a little

of course this is all just roundstart, if theres a confirmed cult/blob/revolution/wizard nobody's going to blame sec for gearing up, and at the end of the day the point of this rule is just to give admins a solid ground to talk to people who are actively making the game worse for other people by powergaming. if anyone reading this is playing sec and thinking to themselves "well i dont want to be *too* powergaming so i'll try to be considerate of how much gear i take before we have a confirmed threat" i guarantee you will never get a rule 12 bwoink because you're already taking the experience of other players into account and thats really all you need to do
sinfulbliss wrote: Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:05 pm 2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?
3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?
antag rule immunity by design should be a two way street: if antags can do anything they want, then the crew has to be able to do anything they want to antags

that said i do think its more fun for all involved parties if security doesn't outright perma/kill people they find with traitor gear when they havent really done anything awful, and its something to be encouraged, but not really something that needs outright ooc admin intervention
human: ramon chivara
ai: shitpost generator
borg: shite-115
clown: donk tonkler
mime: beautiful noise

admin feedback thread

my admin policy:
Spoiler:
Image
User avatar
massa
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 am
Byond Username: Massa100

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by massa » #634242

nianjiilical wrote: Fri Mar 18, 2022 5:36 am that said i do think its more fun for all involved parties if security doesn't outright perma/kill people they find with traitor gear when they havent really done anything awful, and its something to be encouraged, but not really something that needs outright ooc admin intervention
a traitor that got caught early with their stolen PDA in evidence storage is a good story in half an hour once he makes an attempt on it, it's true. Spite is the best driving force for this game.
:donut2: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :donut2:
User avatar
Ziiro
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:12 pm
Byond Username: Ziiro
Github Username: Ziiro
Location: Robotics
Contact:

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Ziiro » #634360

Timberpoes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:39 pm I haven't played a single shift for like 1 and a half years and I'm now one of the 3 hapless fools who get input to decide policy for the next 6 months.
You're saying the quiet part out loud.

Anyway, this rule just seems like a new thing to leverage against someone you otherwise have nothing on. "You're an assistant with a full toolbelt? Do you have an RP excuse for that? Seems like a Rule 12 violation."

"I see you've turned off your PDA Messaging, do you have an RP reason for that, or are your protecting yourself from PDA bombs that might happen to you? Rule 12 violation."
User avatar
bastardblaster
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:57 am
Byond Username: BastardBlaster
Location: Ionia, Runeterra

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by bastardblaster » #634369

Ziiro wrote: Sat Mar 19, 2022 5:16 pm
Timberpoes wrote: Thu Mar 17, 2022 10:39 pm I haven't played a single shift for like 1 and a half years and I'm now one of the 3 hapless fools who get input to decide policy for the next 6 months.
You're saying the quiet part out loud.

Anyway, this rule just seems like a new thing to leverage against someone you otherwise have nothing on. "You're an assistant with a full toolbelt? Do you have an RP excuse for that? Seems like a Rule 12 violation."

"I see you've turned off your PDA Messaging, do you have an RP reason for that, or are your protecting yourself from PDA bombs that might happen to you? Rule 12 violation."
It's literally specified that this is fine, man. As long as you're not making the game worse everytime you play for other people, you're fine. To reiterate, the only way you're gonna get bwoinked for rule 12 is through a consistent pattern of excessive powergaming (not just grabbing a tool belt) that harms the spirit of the game or other people.
Image

Image

Image

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

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Cobby » #634439


1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?

2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?

3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?

4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?

These are all questions that would have been answered with a unanimous "Yes" in the past, and given how common these situations are for sec, it seems necessary for there to be a clear consensus about if these things are disallowed now under rule 12. Hopefully these questions are worded specifically enough so that clear answers are feasible.

Disclaimer: THIS THREAD IS DESIGNED FOR CLARIFICATION, NOT AS AN ATTACK OR PUSH FOR ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
1) validhunting as in what? if you are patrolling looking for antag activity as sec that is fine, if you are doing that despite seeing actual law breaks on a consistent level maybe not so much. Your job is to police the station, not just hunt antags.

2) I would lean towards yes if we are talking about conversion antags. Traitors with guns is also ok but if you start doing that to traitors without guns (without context) youre part of the arms race problem and contribute to boning/validhunting round-after-round. If you are going to kill someone if they have an emag, then next round they buy a gun (because you killed them for having much less earlier), then you only have yourself to blame. Instead of self-reflect youll probably just ask for an egun the next round and we continue down the spiral. Someone has got to take the L for us to reel it in so I think those players who are trying to play in good faith should be protected in some way.

3) Contextually. I would be ok with someone killing a guy if they were just giving toys away, If they simply were trying to run a gimmick that involved using antag-specific mechanics in a way that isnt turning people sideways that "outted" them I would prefer people at least try to engage with that with the same amount of effort the player put in trying not to wipe off the station (perma for example).

4) They should be able to outfit armory like a war was going to happen every round. It should only be after a threat has been determined before people start actually distributing the guns like candy imo. Even before rule 12/3 you shouldnt be personally preemptively gearing up for antags without rhyme and reason.
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: Rule 12 and Security

Post by sinfulbliss » #634506

Cobby wrote: Sun Mar 20, 2022 7:16 pm

1) Is security allowed to spend their round validhunting for antagonists and antagonist activity, despite there being no active threats on the station?

2) Is security allowed to execute captured antagonists who are at high risk for posing a future threat (e.g., .357 in bag, cult dagger, heretic focus, etc.), but who otherwise have not committed any crimes?

3) Is security allowed to execute friendly antagonists - i.e., antagonists who pose neither a future nor active threat (including those who have helped the crew)?

4) Is security allowed to preemptively gear up with armory weapons and weapons ordered from cargo, even with no active threats on the station?

These are all questions that would have been answered with a unanimous "Yes" in the past, and given how common these situations are for sec, it seems necessary for there to be a clear consensus about if these things are disallowed now under rule 12. Hopefully these questions are worded specifically enough so that clear answers are feasible.

Disclaimer: THIS THREAD IS DESIGNED FOR CLARIFICATION, NOT AS AN ATTACK OR PUSH FOR ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER.
1) validhunting as in what? if you are patrolling looking for antag activity as sec that is fine, if you are doing that despite seeing actual law breaks on a consistent level maybe not so much. Your job is to police the station, not just hunt antags.

2) I would lean towards yes if we are talking about conversion antags. Traitors with guns is also ok but if you start doing that to traitors without guns (without context) youre part of the arms race problem and contribute to boning/validhunting round-after-round. If you are going to kill someone if they have an emag, then next round they buy a gun (because you killed them for having much less earlier), then you only have yourself to blame. Instead of self-reflect youll probably just ask for an egun the next round and we continue down the spiral. Someone has got to take the L for us to reel it in so I think those players who are trying to play in good faith should be protected in some way.

3) Contextually. I would be ok with someone killing a guy if they were just giving toys away, If they simply were trying to run a gimmick that involved using antag-specific mechanics in a way that isnt turning people sideways that "outted" them I would prefer people at least try to engage with that with the same amount of effort the player put in trying not to wipe off the station (perma for example).

4) They should be able to outfit armory like a war was going to happen every round. It should only be after a threat has been determined before people start actually distributing the guns like candy imo. Even before rule 12/3 you shouldnt be personally preemptively gearing up for antags without rhyme and reason.
1) This is a good question and I will clarify what I meant. When I said "spend their round validhunting for antagonists," I mean that literally. Consider the case where all of the security player's round is spent only going after antagonists, and nonantags are at most briefly checked for antag gear and then released. This worst-case scenario is best to use, I think, since bwoinking over this would set the precedent that there are positive requirements for playing security. That is to say - you have to police the station, and if you hunt for antags instead you can be bwoinked for this playstyle. That may be a fair requirement - but I think aside from command roles it would make sec one of the only jobs that have positive requirements, so it should probably be given some thought.

2) I'll clarify what I meant here - when I say "pose a future threat," I don't just mean "being a traitor." You could make the argument any antagonist poses a future threat, but what I mean here is that there is evidence they will pose a future threat. So traitors without guns, without any harmful weapons, etc., would not be included in this category. Obviously traitors that have already murdered people also are not included in this category, since they pose active threats and have committed crimes that make them valid for execution regardless.

3) The issue here is that one could argue giving toys away is a gimmick, and other such things. The security player also has limited information and is not aware of how the "gimmick" is impacting the round as a whole, compared to the admin who might be able to view things in a broader context. So to enforce this contextually would be really difficult and confusing for players. That's why I draw the line at "not posing a future nor active threat" - these are antags of the gimmick variety, and to answer "no" would be to allow antags that run gimmicks to have breathing room until their gimmick actually becomes harmful. On the other hand, it may incentivize lower-impact antag playstyles and lessen chaos.

4) Do you mean "shouldn't"? Not sure if that was a typo. Firmly disagree with your second point, though - before rule 12 it was not only commonplace to gear up pre-emptively shiftstart, but it was a headmin ruling that you were allowed to open armory and distribute guns to sec shiftstart (I linked a picture earlier). This likely needs to be revisited now.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Rule 12 and Security

Post by Mothblocks » #634620

Rule 12 specifically forbids playing to win (part 1), when it is at the expense of others (part 2). It is **not** roleplay rule 6 (Deal with the bad guys in proportion to their crimes), nor is it roleplay rule 10 (Stay in your line).

With this in mind:

1. It depends on what "validhunting" means here, but ultimately--if you aren't playing to win and aren't ruining someone else's experience, you will be fine. This likely needs a more specific case, but walking around maintenance and such as security is fine. Do remember that security is the job designated to protect the station and enforce order, not a job designed to exclusively attack antagonists.
2. Yes. Rule 12 is not RP rule 6 + Rule 4. "Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists"
3. Yes, rule 4.
4. Generally speaking, no, this was already frowned upon. However, this would be allowed if you are not using your weapons to play to win at the expense of others.

Bonus personal Mothblocks thoughts: I can confirm after reading through other admins posts in this thread that they have the correct idea of how rule 12 works
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users