Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

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

Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by wesoda25 » #639761

Rule bloat is not a proper solution to that which is already covered by rules 1 and 12.

When I look at the new addition I wonder two things: first, who thought the sec players behavior was acceptable? On forums and discord I don't think I've seen anyone take their side. Second, why are we turning what was formerly accomplished with a sentence into a multi-paragraph beast? My point with these two being: who are we clarifying this for? The many people who seem to have perfect understanding of enforcement, or the person in clear violation of the aforementioned rules?

Leave this to discretion. If someone is confused, an admin can explain it to them. Let's keep things simple. If need be we can re-add the former statement.

Thread prompted by: viewtopic.php?f=54&p=639759#p639759
Last edited by wesoda25 on Wed May 04, 2022 8:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
[this space reserved]
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by Mothblocks » #639765

Even though I can sympathize with the thinking, you must admit that you can't really expect the term who pushed with a majority vote to also repeal with a majority vote. You will have far better luck waiting a term or two
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 <<<
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by sinfulbliss » #639767

I agree this rule struck me as very odd.

First it states that, although harmfully retaliating isn't okay, against a VALID arrest nonantags "do not have to simply give up and allow the arrest to happen." Okay, so you can resist a valid arrest as a nonantag if you want.
Then it states, " Resisting or retaliating against arrests without good reason may break Escalation Policy and be handled administratively." So, you still risk breaking rules if you don't have "good reason."

This is a clear contradiction. First it states resisting a valid arrest nonharmful is in the spirit of the game (no one wants to be arrested, that makes sense). Then it states you need a reason to resist the valid arrest. If you know the arrest is valid, what possible reason would you have apart from "I don't want to be arrested"? Very confusing.

The second thing I take issue with is this part: "When dealing with minor crimes where there are no realistic threats present, communicating the intent and the reason for an arrest to the player lowers confusion and makes it less likely a non-antag player may validly resist the arrest."

I presume this means communicating the intent before the arrest, because obviously after the arrest they can't resist since they're cuffed. If that's what it's suggesting, I completely disagree this is the right way to play. I've tried doing this as sec a good bit, and I found one of two things happen: 1) if they're an actual antag, you are now much more likely to be killed since they have the chance to attack you while you're explaining the arrest to them, or 2) if they're nonantag, they will argue with you about the arrest and resist anyway.

If they're a nonantag there is roughly a 0% chance they will listen to you explain the reason for the arrest, turn around, and let you arrest them. At best they will argue with you and then resist the arrest afterwards regardless. The only time asking is feasible is for simple searches, like a bag search or something, almost never for arrests. You can and should explain after the arrest though.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by Pandarsenic » #639774

There were literally two types of replies to that thread/peanut: "I hate this kind of player" and "I hate this player, specifically and personally, based on these prior interactions."

As for the ruling/additions...
Mothblocks wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:26 am Even though I can sympathize with the thinking, you must admit that you can't really expect the term who pushed with a majority vote to also repeal with a majority vote. You will have far better luck waiting a term or two
I like to think that, if people raise issues of wording or specific content that weren't previously thought of, the response might be reconsidered/revised/hotfixed.
When dealing with minor crimes where there are no realistic threats present, communicating the intent and the reason for an arrest to the player lowers confusion and makes it less likely a non-antag player may validly resist the arrest.
Nigh-meaningless. "Lowers confusion" and "makes it less likely" something happens. I know Silicon Policy has a lot of "We shouldn't have to explain this to you, but..." (no you can't Law 2 the AI to suicide at roundstart, no you can't lock a room just because a traitor's objective is inside it, etc.) but I don't believe this line will meaningfully fix something that happens regularly. Until/unless we get Typing Bubbles, long may they reign, people who want to talk first will talk first and people who want to stun first will stun first.

Just cover this under "don't be a dick" and "maybe you should try roleplaying once in a while instead of having such a hardon for winning" rules!
Non-antags should not harmfully resist or retaliate against valid arrests, but do not have to simply give up and allow the arrest to happen. They may instead non-harmfully escape or avoid the arresting officer in the spirit of the game.

If an arrest is not obviously valid, it follows standard escalation. Resisting or retaliating against arrests without good reason may break Escalation Policy and be handled administratively. Non-antag players may lose any OOC and IC protections if they choose this path and should consider ahelping if they believe they did nothing to warrant being arrested.

In resisting arrest, non-antags should not loot officers and should not detain or incapacitate officers any longer than is necessary to escape or explain themselves.
What does "Retaliate" mean here? If you shove the officer, grab his baton, and stun him with it, then cuff him, is that "Retaliation" or is it "nonharmful escape," and if you keep the baton is that "looting officers" or is it just "winning the arrest fight?" Never mind that I see some assistants acquire batons in a suspiciously high number of rounds """""despite""""" their poor relationships with those sec teams.

Sure, "non-antag players may lose any OOC and IC protections if they choose this path and should consider ahelping if they believe they did nothing to warrant being arrested," but who wants to risk it just to find out chameleon kit, or changeling, or get a "Handled/IC/Valid" response to their ahelp without further details?

On the flip side
sinfulbliss wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:29 am If they're a nonantag there is roughly a 0% chance they will listen to you explain the reason for the arrest, turn around, and let you arrest them. At best they will argue with you and then resist the arrest afterwards regardless. The only time asking is feasible is for simple searches, like a bag search or something, almost never for arrests. You can and should explain after the arrest though.
I don't feel like this is true either. A lot of the time, if a sec officer comes up and goes, "Hey, you stole X, right?" I'll just kind of go "Yeah that was me, but I swear there were mitigating circumstances" or whatever, and if they ask me to come to the brig, I generally figure they're not shitcurity and it'll be an interesting conversation at the least.
(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: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by sinfulbliss » #639777

Pandarsenic wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 7:06 am
sinfulbliss wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:29 am If they're a nonantag there is roughly a 0% chance they will listen to you explain the reason for the arrest, turn around, and let you arrest them. At best they will argue with you and then resist the arrest afterwards regardless. The only time asking is feasible is for simple searches, like a bag search or something, almost never for arrests. You can and should explain after the arrest though.
I don't feel like this is true either. A lot of the time, if a sec officer comes up and goes, "Hey, you stole X, right?" I'll just kind of go "Yeah that was me, but I swear there were mitigating circumstances" or whatever, and if they ask me to come to the brig, I generally figure they're not shitcurity and it'll be an interesting conversation at the least.
There is no arrest there. An arrest is where a player is cuffed and brought to brig, usually to be searched or serve brig time for a crime. On Manuel I can see this as more common though since players are non-confrontational and admins are harsher on tiding and such. But on LRP you will not solve anything explaining the situation before stunning, unless you had no intention of brigging them in the first place.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Timberpoes
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Byond Username: Timberpoes

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by Timberpoes » #639782

sinfulbliss wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:29 am First it states that, although harmfully retaliating isn't okay, against a VALID arrest nonantags "do not have to simply give up and allow the arrest to happen." Okay, so you can resist a valid arrest as a nonantag if you want.
Then it states, " Resisting or retaliating against arrests without good reason may break Escalation Policy and be handled administratively." So, you still risk breaking rules if you don't have "good reason."

This is a clear contradiction. First it states resisting a valid arrest nonharmful is in the spirit of the game (no one wants to be arrested, that makes sense). Then it states you need a reason to resist the valid arrest. If you know the arrest is valid, what possible reason would you have apart from "I don't want to be arrested"? Very confusing.
Non-antagonists should not harmfully resist or retaliate against valid arrests. They may instead non-harmfully escape or avoid the arresting officer in the spirit of the game. Those two sentences go together.

If an arrest is not obviously valid, it follows standard escalation. Resisting or retaliating against arrests [in general, whether they were valid or otherwise] without good reason may break Escalation Policy and be handled administratively. These two sentences go together.

There are actually a number of scenarios where an officer is valid to arrest you and you are valid to resist that arrest due to the incomplete information we understand players operate with. If you deem that the arrest is obviously not valid, you can resist it under standard escalation - but if you made the wrong call then you may lose OOC protections (admins are not guaranteed to step in if you REALLY make the wrong call) and resisting an arrest will certainly strip you of some IC protections (possibility you may now be treated as an antag). So you better be pretty sure before you choose the resisting arrest path as a non-antag.

If sec mistreat non-antags without good reason, they're held responsible for their actions too. But that's also covered elsewhere in the rules and in policy.
sinfulbliss wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:29 amThe second thing I take issue with is this part: "When dealing with minor crimes where there are no realistic threats present, communicating the intent and the reason for an arrest to the player lowers confusion and makes it less likely a non-antag player may validly resist the arrest."

I presume this means communicating the intent before the arrest, because obviously after the arrest they can't resist since they're cuffed. If that's what it's suggesting, I completely disagree this is the right way to play. I've tried doing this as sec a good bit, and I found one of two things happen: 1) if they're an actual antag, you are now much more likely to be killed since they have the chance to attack you while you're explaining the arrest to them, or 2) if they're nonantag, they will argue with you about the arrest and resist anyway.

If they're a nonantag there is roughly a 0% chance they will listen to you explain the reason for the arrest, turn around, and let you arrest them. At best they will argue with you and then resist the arrest afterwards regardless. The only time asking is feasible is for simple searches, like a bag search or something, almost never for arrests. You can and should explain after the arrest though.
When you communicate is up to you, but until you communicate there's a chance the player doesn't know a. That you're arresting them instead of being a griefing shitsec or whatever, and b. Why you're arresting them.

If the player gets free before you communicate that to them or if they out-robust you on the arrest, there's a chance they'll take the escalation route. If you had the opportunity to communicate and should have taken that chance, there's a possibility an admin may rule it as an IC issue if you get robusted and escalated on.

The most obvious time this applies is petty crimes like graffiti, possessing drugs or hacking into random non-secure areas in parts of maint or whatever. Crimes are so minor that silent-baton-cuff is quite disproportionate as a response. This goes extra where there's no obvious threat to you so you can afford to go "Hey, dipshit. Stop hacking into cargo. If you keep it up I'll drag your ass to the brig".

If they run away, who cares? Speak to the warden over comms or get 'em set to wanted and the next time you can probably just go straight in for the wordless arrest because they ran away when you challenged them before. Or give chase and play the cat and mouse game!

It's less necessary for a person committing more major non-rulebreaking crimes. Being silently swarmed by security should be pretty obvious to someone who's like, hacking into the AI upload or a head of staff office or open-carrying antag gear. You probably don't *need* to communicate the arrest at all, even afterwards. But it can't hurt to do so when you get the opportunity and helps keep up your own security protections if they are a non-antag.
/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
wesoda25
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by wesoda25 » #639784

Mothblocks wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:26 am Even though I can sympathize with the thinking, you must admit that you can't really expect the term who pushed with a majority vote to also repeal with a majority vote. You will have far better luck waiting a term or two
I’m honestly just confused by this message maybe I misunderstand it. This ruling was made behind closed doors and the community wasn’t given a chance to weigh in on it, I would certainly hope those in service of it (the community) would be willing to review their stance upon hearing what people have to say.

To expand upon what I said earlier (and willfully ignore what sinful said), a large part of my argument here stems from the fact that this is a video game(!!). We do not need or want lengthy rules wherever possible (as if anyone reads but the most basic before playing, if at all). I feel as if a major problem with escalation is that there’s this emphasis on codifying every little scenario which only fuels rule lawyers (as seen here). We should not be needlessly making our rules even more bloated to cater to this sort of person. Admins exist to fill in those cracks, and ironically enough what happened in this situation was a perfect example of how things should happen: the admin made a ruling, clearly explained it, and left things IC. If a player’s misunderstanding of the rule leads to a break then admins can note or maybe ban if there’s history. Really this is just an appeal to reason and simplicity, because I do not think you guys are achieving anything with this.
[this space reserved]
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by sinfulbliss » #639785

Timberpoes wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 7:36 am If an arrest is not obviously valid, it follows standard escalation. Resisting or retaliating against arrests [in general, whether they were valid or otherwise] without good reason may break Escalation Policy and be handled administratively. These two sentences go together.
That clears it up, thanks.
Timberpoes wrote:If the player gets free before you communicate that to them or if they out-robust you on the arrest, there's a chance they'll take the escalation route. If you had the opportunity to communicate and should have taken that chance, there's a possibility an admin may rule it as an IC issue if you get robusted and escalated on.
This makes sense as well. Being in a valid conflict without your metaprotections can be quite fun as sec as well, I think almost all these situations are more fun being resolved IC, except when one party gets RR'd or seriously impacted in a bad way as a result.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by Mothblocks » #639787

wesoda25 wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:32 am
Mothblocks wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 6:26 am Even though I can sympathize with the thinking, you must admit that you can't really expect the term who pushed with a majority vote to also repeal with a majority vote. You will have far better luck waiting a term or two
I’m honestly just confused by this message maybe I misunderstand it. This ruling was made behind closed doors and the community wasn’t given a chance to weigh in on it, I would certainly hope those in service of it (the community) would be willing to review their stance upon hearing what people have to say.
Ya that's fair enough, we discussed this and ironed out a lot of kinks within admin bus but not anything from community
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 <<<
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by sinfulbliss » #639794

wesoda25 wrote:I feel as if a major problem with escalation is that there’s this emphasis on codifying every little scenario which only fuels rule lawyers (as seen here). We should not be needlessly making our rules even more bloated to cater to this sort of person.
I love getting accused of rules-lawyering when my goal is trying to find out exactly how a rule works and when it applies to understand it better.

I also disagree that our rules are bloated. SS13 servers all have elaborate sets of their own rules, which people scroll through initially (at best), and at worst learn overtime and by trial-and-error. The rules are less for the players than they are for the admins who enforce them, IMO. Having detailed and understandable rules creates a unification in the stuff admins bwoink (and know to bwoink) over. Other servers have messier rules, and run things more with admins "filling in the cracks" as you put it. What happens is every admin fills these cracks in differently, and has different views about what cracks even need filling in. This leads to people getting banned for something that another admin wouldn't even have bwoinked for, and having little to no recourse because at the end of the day it's the admin's decision. I've played on servers like that and it's extremely frustrating - this way is better.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Imitates-The-Lizards
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2021 2:28 am
Byond Username: Typhnox

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by Imitates-The-Lizards » #640040

If this is the "weigh in on this new sec policy" thread, I 100% support the policy as written. Non-antags take FAR too many liberties with fighting security and command doing valid arrests, and it's one of several reasons there are practically zero security players on Sybil. Anything that helps to clamp down on the bullshit security players have to deal with is fully welcomed by me.
Image
Image
cybersaber101
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2019 1:30 am
Byond Username: Cybersaber101
Location: Canada, eh?

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by cybersaber101 » #640043

New additions to policy are already hidden enough in the forums and in a ban appeal is extra hidden, is the wiki updated? do players check the wiki every 2 weeks when some head admin adds new policy?
The same poster, over and over and over and over and over and-
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by Mothblocks » #640046

cybersaber101 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 7:31 am New additions to policy are already hidden enough in the forums and in a ban appeal is extra hidden, is the wiki updated? do players check the wiki every 2 weeks when some head admin adds new policy?
They were added to the main wiki page, one on the front and one in security policy.
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 <<<
User avatar
mrmelbert
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:26 pm
Byond Username: Mr Melbert

Re: Reword/remove the new addition to sec/escalation policy

Post by mrmelbert » #644196

We do not plan on removing the addition we made.

In large, we think that it's an area of the rules (security policy specifically) which is incredibly nuanced, and the added clarification (for new players, for players similar to that which spawned the ruling) helps.

We think the added precedents can help give security players an idea of when they can be escalated upon by non-antags during an arrest (and how to avoid it), while also giving non-antags an idea of when it's valid to resist an arrest and escalate back against the officer.

Mothblocks - Don't really mind
MrMelbert - Reject proposal
Timberpoes - Reject proposal
Admin: December 2020 - Present
Code Maintainer: December 2021 - Present
Head Admin: Feburary 2022 - September 2022
Youtube Guy: sometimes


Image
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users