Apply the security using contraband ruling on LRP

[TheRex9001]

”Sec should make best efforts to store contraband quickly, and only use it when appropriate situations arise. Wielding traitor gear during arrests threatens a sec officer's meta protections.” Is the current ruling, it is however specific to MRP and I feel like the last part of ”Wielding traitor gear during arrests threatens a sec officer's meta protections.” would be interesting to have on LRP. Security is already plenty strong and them using a ton of traitor gear usually leads to all tension going out the window as every antag is steam rolled, this would discourage that and a bit more of a risk element to using those items.

[dragomagol]

Huh, I thought this was already a thing on LRP. I think it would make sense to add.

[DaydreamIQ]

I suppose its probably worth mentioning the rule does tend to get bent a lot. Usually if there's a stationwide threat sec get a pass on reaching for the nearest esword. But since almost all antags on lrp can murder without cause, would that make them all stationwide threats?

[iamgoofball]

Huh, I thought this was already a thing on LRP. I think it would make sense to add.

good luck getting this past your fellow headmins

[Higgin]

”Wielding traitor gear during arrests threatens a sec officer's meta protections.”

makes sense to me

part of the metaprotections working relies on making yourself recognizable as and behaving like the people who get the metaprotections.

act like an antag, risk getting treated like an antag. this was basically the default back in the days of antag sec - you didn't use the shit without knowing you risked getting mis-ID'd as a baddie. it's worth keeping in mind that the move away from this has been part of what makes successfully disguising as sec so potent as an antag - even without a secHUD of some sort, a lot of people will give benefit of the doubt where using the gear of the enemy should have a natural tradeoff.

[MooCow12]

Its already in the rules, act like an antag get treated like an antag, crewmembers have no way of telling if a sec officer with an esword isnt a tot who put on sec gear. we dont have sec huds or a coordinated team to cross reference who you are and if you really are who you are dressed as.


It also doesnt help that sec gear is.....some of the least "yep thats definitely antag" armor in the game to the point where even antagonists find it favorable, would you as a heretic or traitor rather wear syndiemodsuit/armored robes or a sec id and jumpsuit and armor? One will have everyone look directly at you with a fluoride stare while the other outfit will still give you some armor and only make you appear suspicious (but not valid) to anyone with sec huds.

[britgrenadier1]

Voiding metaprotections is weak sauce since people are always gonna resist anyway. Sec on mrp run around with tot gear and don’t care since non antags aren’t gonna murder sec mains for arresting them even if they somehow manage to successfully turn a fight around.

I think this rule doesn’t change much in practice on mrp. You could slot it in to LRP just fine.

[ekaterina]

Reducing security player freedom like this is lame and serves no purpose.

[iwishforducks]

i dont see how this isn't already handled by "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" - you're risking your metaprotections by wielding traitor gear. it's an ic issue from there on out

[TheRex9001]

i dont see how this isn't already handled by "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" - you're risking your metaprotections by wielding traitor gear. it's an ic issue from there on out

I’d stand to agree with you but it feels weird that this is covered already by a headmin policy ruling but it only applies to MRP for some reason.

[iwishforducks]

i dont see how this isn't already handled by "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" - you're risking your metaprotections by wielding traitor gear. it's an ic issue from there on out

I’d stand to agree with you but it feels weird that this is covered already by a headmin policy ruling but it only applies to MRP for some reason.

The existence of said policy on MRP should NOT mean that the policy doesn't exist on LRP. (generalized statement, because i think a lot of policy on mrp is just rephrasing lrp policy when you get into the gruts of it. mrp policy's existence itself is weird.)

If you go to the rules page, under security policy, it states the following:

2. Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.

Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists.

The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.

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. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

So, yeah, "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" for security is in policy.

This is honestly just tapping into the issue of having separated server policies: the misconception that if MRP rules state something, that means it must not be in policy on LRP. No shade to you, though, I think the whole "separated policies for different servers" ends up causing confusion for everybody involved.

[TheRex9001]

i dont see how this isn't already handled by "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" - you're risking your metaprotections by wielding traitor gear. it's an ic issue from there on out

I’d stand to agree with you but it feels weird that this is covered already by a headmin policy ruling but it only applies to MRP for some reason.

If you go to the rules page, under security policy, it states the following:

2. Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.

Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists.

The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.

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. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

I don't think people think rule 4 applies to security, at least not this part in my experience. I want it here for clarification which is kinda the point of headmin rulings, but I'd be fine with this going away from MRP (the using contraband part) since its sorta baked into the main rules like you have pointed out (assuming this is more obvious to people than it is in my experience).

[Vekter]

I like this from the perspective that it makes no sense that Security would use contraband because it's Syndicate gear and they wouldn't be permitted to do that unless they need to. I also like it from the perspective of power scaling, because I feel like one antag dying shouldn't screw over all the other ones because the sec officer found North Star on someone's body.

That being said, I also feel like most of those reasons only really apply to MRP, so I don't know if it's really necessary on LRP.

[Archie700]

The reason it doesn't feel like this is applied to LRP as much as MRP is people are less likely to retaliate against sec using it due to old culture rules.
Also powergaming on LRP is less restricted compared to MRP.

[TheLoLSwat]

losing your metaprots isn’t really a thing for lrp sec because unless you’re a super validhunter rules lawyer + metagrudger you aren’t gonna attack the HOS who is using an ebow/esword combo to kill a heretic. Sec also aren’t gonna attack eachother after sharing an open uplink. I try not to use it personally but it’s really fun giving open uplinks to low hour officers during a tough shift

[TypicalRig]

The "act like an antag get treated like one" isn't even really the setback people think it is because sec/heads (the people usually with the antag loot) on LRP will just kill you if you attack them over them being dressed in antag gear under the assumption/excuse that the attacker is the evil one. People use the loot all the time in the open with no downsides.

Not to say I'm for or against the policy, but the bar for IC justification for things sec vs antag related is already so low that if passed it'd probably just give admins more of a headache to enforce it. It would probably be more time efficient to change code so that it's harder to turn antags into instant loot pinatas (cheap ways of having their gear blow up on death like ops, DNA weapon locks, etc) than to bring it to a policy, if the end goal is restricting crew use of antag gear tbh.

[kieth4]

If a security officer is using antag gear their metaprotections are at risk. Obvs contextual. Players should not be seeking out members of security with traitor gear to kill but if you get attacked by a sus guy in an infiltrator modsuit, kill him, and he happens to be sec it's gucci it's w/e.