Restrict Combat Mech Construction to Red/Delta Alert

[Stiix]

Recently I've noticed combat mechs such as gygax, durand, or savannah being built without any call for it, leading to station-threat antagonists having the floor wiped with them. Why are robotocists able to easily outgun security on any alert level without any threats present?

Let's take an example from a round that just ended: Durand, three anti-melee plates, three repair droids, scatter gun and LMG VS Debri Devourer Blob. The durand comes down, is attacked by a blob zombie, blobbernaut, and 2-3 blob tiles consistently, never goes below half integrity, fights them back, and by the time they're at the blob core, they're back to full health. The blob rerolled twice during this time and never got EMP. No one else was even fighting the blob actively, they were still preparing. The robotocist just had a durand on stand by and apparently had another half-constructed, before the blob announcement was made.

Second idea: Restrict all combat mechs (durand, gygax, savannah, phazon, paddy) to being only legally operated by security. Noncombat mechs would be fine for anyone or a specific department to operate because they have a use beyond kill thing. ((ripley:haul crates and tanks)(clarke:mine)(odysseus:heal crew))

Personally, I think it would be something good to enforce on all servers, but especially on MRP.

First time making a policy thread, let me know if I've made any errors on formatting.

[Yobrocharlie]

Nuh uh

[NecromancerAnne]

Sec and the RD are welcome to police it if they wish. I don't see any reason we should have any hard and fast rule about it, it is entirely an IC issue.

[RedBaronFlyer]

As Nerco said, seems like an IC issue. RD can either handle it themselves or get security to rough up robotics if they're causing an issue.

[Vekter]

Nah, this sounds lame. The threat of mech retaliation makes antags have to think twice about going loud and anything that poses a threat to boring-ass "lol I kill everyone" antag mains is fine by me.

I would possibly support requiring approval from command/sec to build them on MRP but outright restricting them would be awful.

[EmpressMaia]

Pretty sure we already have a precedent of outfitting a mech army FNR (on mrp atleast) aslong as they aren't making tens of combat mechs FNR its just job content. If an admin DOES see a robo mass producing a mecha army they should feel free to send an appropriate threat :3

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I fully disagree, making and working on big, cool mechs is damn near the entire job fantasy of a roboticist. I don't think they get made every shift (half the time they don't is mostly due to lack of resources, but still), and like Vekter mentioned, they have a much needed deterrence effect, and are one of the few things that can fight certain antags like blobs and rampant murderboners.

I was in the shift mentioned in the OP, and while I agree that the blob got wrecked in a perhaps unfair manner, I'd like to remind you that you will sometimes lose in this game, and to be honest, the blob did not play it perfectly either. Their resource node spacing was not optimal, so they didn't maximize their output, and although they did surround the mech a few times to wail on it, they failed to stockpile enough resources to take it out, and they failed to envelop it with more than one blob thickness to ensure it could not break out prior to breaking. To put it bluntly - the blob skill issued.

[Vekter]

Pretty sure we already have a precedent of outfitting a mech army FNR (on mrp atleast) aslong as they aren't making tens of combat mechs FNR its just job content. If an admin DOES see a robo mass producing a mecha army they should feel free to send an appropriate threat :3

This is correct, it's covered under RPR 7. Personally, I do not balk at one or two combat mechs As A Treat, but if you're building more than that, there better be a good reason.

I would be fine with an alternative of needing to ask the RD or command for permission to build one, but I don't really feel like this needs to change right now on MRP.

I super don't think it needs to change on LRP. There's no reason for it while rule 4 exists.

[TheBibleMelts]

finishing mech construction should trigger a mid round antagonist roll

[Timonk]

finishing mech construction should trigger a mid round antagonist roll

*finishes constructing 5 aplus at the same time*

[iansdoor]

Let's take an example from a round that just ended: Durand VS Debri Devourer Blob.

This is all I needed to read. Debris Devourer Blob does all of 5 brute damage. Part of the blob is adaption to match your incoming threats. 400 health mech with some base resistance that scale up to like 84% melee resistance. 5 damage turns into .8 damage after all is said and done.

[Bmon]

i think mechs just need to be super turbo nerfed... the recent rework of slot/armour slots buffed the shit out of them

that does mean that this is more of a code issue than a policy one

[Ezel]

if blobs only had a certain strain that would cause emps

[Jacquerel]

if blobs only had a certain strain that would cause emps

to be honest my understanding is that the ideal anti-blob mech strategy is just to put a gun with 50000 ammo on it and never be near the blob in the first place, mech reloading essentially never needs to happen with the kind of ammunition reserves they can carry

...which is also a code issue to be clear

[NecromancerAnne]

You can wipe out most blobs with just a PKA strapped to a ripley, it's not particularly difficult to kill blobs and EMP blob doesn't really help.

[RedBaronFlyer]

Standing super far away and shooting it with anything has been a pretty solid anti blob strategy for as long as I’ve been playing. The same applies to using emitters on it.

[SkyMonster]

I consider it mostly an IC issue that the Captain, HoS and RD need to take into consideration. RDs and Robos who wish to construct combat mechs should at the very least be co-operating with the HoS, and ideally sending the first off the line to security in good faith. I like to enforce the latter as an RD, as well as ensuring they are all fitted with a tracker beacon (except in the presence of a Malf AI). However I do realise it's never that simple. As RD I have had Roboticists veer into self-antag behaviour when told that they cannot produce combat mechs. You usually end up being the 'bad guy' to your department for "ruining their fun"/"doing their job". Just another symptom of people not respecting Heads of Staff unless they are meta-friends.

I don't have quantitative data but I've always felt that Blobs are extremely weak on MRP and aren't a great example to use when discussing balance of crew equipment. They tend to function as a coup-de-grace against an already crumbling station. I suppose that could be seen as an acceptable state for the Blob as an antagonist. Perhaps EMP in particular could do with a buff? It is trivial to stand back and pepper them with ballistics.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I personally view an RD saying "dont build mechs" to a roboticist without a good reason (I need the points for something else right now / we have no mats / etc) as being more or less on the same level as the CMO telling the chemists they're only allowed to make meds in the chemlab. Its not surprising that people don't want to respect your IC authority when you use it in a "don't do the normal routine fun things you want to do. why? because authority, i say so" manner. You're not the roboticist's boss, you're roleplaying the robotcist's boss, and if you roleplay as a jerk tyrant / pencilpusher you're gonna get pushback from your department.

[Vekter]

I personally view an RD saying "dont build mechs" to a roboticist without a good reason (I need the points for something else right now / we have no mats / etc) as being more or less on the same level as the CMO telling the chemists they're only allowed to make meds in the chemlab. Its not surprising that people don't want to respect your IC authority when you use it in a "don't do the normal routine fun things you want to do. why? because authority, i say so" manner. You're not the roboticist's boss, you're roleplaying the robotcist's boss, and if you roleplay as a jerk tyrant / pencilpusher you're gonna get pushback from your department.

I agree, but that's entirely an IC issue and should be handled as such.

It's on the same level as paperwork HoP - I view it as a completely valid way to roleplay that job, but you're probably going to piss off people doing it.

[SkyMonster]

I personally view an RD saying "dont build mechs" to a roboticist without a good reason (I need the points for something else right now / we have no mats / etc) as being more or less on the same level as the CMO telling the chemists they're only allowed to make meds in the chemlab. Its not surprising that people don't want to respect your IC authority when you use it in a "don't do the normal routine fun things you want to do. why? because authority, i say so" manner. You're not the roboticist's boss, you're roleplaying the robotcist's boss, and if you roleplay as a jerk tyrant / pencilpusher you're gonna get pushback from your department.

Yeah and I don't mind them doing it if they are being responsible.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I personally view an RD saying "dont build mechs" to a roboticist without a good reason (I need the points for something else right now / we have no mats / etc) as being more or less on the same level as the CMO telling the chemists they're only allowed to make meds in the chemlab. Its not surprising that people don't want to respect your IC authority when you use it in a "don't do the normal routine fun things you want to do. why? because authority, i say so" manner. You're not the roboticist's boss, you're roleplaying the robotcist's boss, and if you roleplay as a jerk tyrant / pencilpusher you're gonna get pushback from your department.

I agree, but that's entirely an IC issue and should be handled as such.

It's on the same level as paperwork HoP - I view it as a completely valid way to roleplay that job, but you're probably going to piss off people doing it.

well yeah, thats kinda the point. Jerk RD who won't let robos make mechs is valid and the robos being mad over it and bypassing/undercutting him is valid, so it seems weird to also say admins should ban roboticists who dont ask sec for permission?

[Diasyl]

I think this is just an RD issue.
RD must oversee their subordinates and their department.

If a Roboticist builds combat mechs FNR (especially on MRP) the RD must ask them why, and at minimum enforce them to put a beacon on them.
If they deny - as per RP Rule 3 RD can do anything about this, from warning to demoting the Roboticist.
But most RDs are just negligent so this is why you always see them.

Subordinates are left doing anything for too long, Heads should actually exercise their power more, especially on MRP due the same RP Rule 3!

3. Chain of command and security are important.
If you're in the Chain of Command or in Security, you're expected to put in the effort and do your job as a departmental leader.

If you're not in the Chain of Command, your department head is your boss and they can fire you. Security officers can arrest you for stealing or breaking into places. Demotions and short brig sentences for actions that would get you fired or arrested in real life are roleplay opportunities.

Also precedent number 3 of it

You are allowed to disobey a superior's order with appropriate in-character roleplay reasoning. Complete disregard for the chain of command as a member of security is not tolerated.

[Vekter]

well yeah, thats kinda the point. Jerk RD who won't let robos make mechs is valid and the robos being mad over it and bypassing/undercutting him is valid, so it seems weird to also say admins should ban roboticists who dont ask sec for permission?

I never said "We should absolutely do this", I said "I would support this if the headmins think OP has a valid concern".

[MooCow12]

If rd and security are allowed to police it then what level are roboticists allowed to pursue it.

RD being your head of staff is one thing but a random security officer telling you not to pursue your own job content that directly benefits you opens up red flags to escalation that could toe the line of ic issue and administrative action needed.


Even more so considering that security would (likely) be effectively breaking into your department to destroy your job content as a response to you ignoring them. Something that many players I think would be comfortable treating like any other breakin.

[NecromancerAnne]

If you build a mech, and sec choose to come demolish it because it is a weapon and they don't want you to have it, and you retaliate lethally in that mech, you are in the wrong. It it not mandatory for you to have a combat mech as part of your role as a roboticist, even though it is something you can make.

It is a legitimate aspect of being security to remove dangerous/restricted weapons from players and combat mechs would be regarded as such since it is not only a weapon, but makes you actively harder to arrest and can be used for significant station destruction. If you have taken lengths to make yourself unable to be arrested (by being in a mech and refusing to leave it) and also resist arrest, you could be killed and it is your fault. If you kill a security officer trying to get you out of the mech, you'll probably face OOC repercussions.

Does this happen at all? Not often, nobody really cares until you actively start causing problems in a mech. Mechs are useful, and dealing with them difficult. But it is something that could happen and generally favours security if they act within reasonable bounds regarding a mech. If you don't like it, you'll just have to deal with it. It is maybe less reasonable to destroy a mech during a blob or nuclear crisis, for instance, since you have a legitimate reason to have it and it could be regarded as actively harming crew survival by destroying it. But that's a specific context.

[MooCow12]

If you build a mech, and sec choose to come demolish it because it is a weapon and they don't want you to have it, and you retaliate lethally in that mech, you are in the wrong. It it not mandatory for you to have a combat mech as part of your role as a roboticist, even though it is something you can make.

It is a legitimate aspect of being security to remove dangerous/restricted weapons from players and combat mechs would be regarded as such since it is not only a weapon, but makes you actively harder to arrest and can be used for significant station destruction. If you have taken lengths to make yourself unable to be arrested (by being in a mech and refusing to leave it) and also resist arrest, you could be killed and it is your fault. If you kill a security officer trying to get you out of the mech, you'll probably face OOC repercussions.

So a shaft miner with a power miner holo is valid because its dangerous and it makes them hard/impossible to arrest? Especially if that power miner is combat oriented?

Every reason for sec to want to destroy a mech is also valid for most power miner types especially the ones capable of mass murder

If you build a mech, and sec choose to come demolish it because it is a weapon and they don't want you to have it, and you retaliate lethally in that mech, you are in the wrong. It it not mandatory for you to have a combat mech as part of your role as a roboticist, even though it is something you can make

this part specifically im having trouble with some of the wording and would like clarification

So they can demolish the mech to prevent you from having it even if its in storage (robo bay)? And if you get into the mech to lethal them with it its a rule break? Is that an exclusive case? Can you lethal them without getting into the mech since they are breaking into your department?

[DaBoss]

I don't like the mech issue either BUT I don't think banning them on sub-red alert is the way to go. The problem with mechs are more that they don't have good counterplay, and are mechanically very shallow for everyone except the person building the mech. So I see it as more of a code issue with mechs being unfun than a policy issue with them being too common - all this change would do is kick the can down the road and we'd still have the exact same unfun scenarios play out when the red alert happens. Which let's be real, wouldn't change anything in OP's story since blob alerts would be a green light to build mechs (pretty fast if research is done and there's a glut of materials, which there always is post arcmining).

So in short - mechs should be changed mechanically rather than in policy.

The security issue is off topic and all I'm going to say about it is that escalation policy is very clear about how non-antagonists can respond to security action.

[MooCow12]

The security issue is not off topic if a leading proposal is to have security police the construction of mechs in an ic manner which is entirely abnormal since in no other instance can you proactively (no context/prior events) confiscate job content within its own department, the only similarity is kudzu/botany mobs but thats because on their own/in a vacuum they are likely to bust out while a combat mech sits in dormant just like any other tool or weapon until used.

Whats the consensus of unfinished combat mechs? Are roboticist allowed to leave one unfinished and store it or are security still allowed to destroy what could soon result in one without retaliation.

[NecromancerAnne]

So a shaft miner with a power miner holo is valid because its dangerous and it makes them hard/impossible to arrest? Especially if that power miner is combat oriented?

Every reason for sec to want to destroy a mech is also valid for most power miner types especially the ones capable of mass murder

True to its name, you can mine using a power miner. So it is actually something that contributes to their job. Miners, in general, have a job that involves them fighting monsters. So in this case, it is a tool and a part of their job. If they can make a case for it, miners have every excuse to possess weapons as long as they're applied to their job because their job involves combat, and their roundstart gear includes a lot of very lethal weapons.

this part specifically im having trouble with some of the wording and would like clarification

So they can demolish the mech to prevent you from having it even if its in storage (robo bay)? And if you get into the mech to lethal them with it its a rule break? Is that an exclusive case? Can you lethal them without getting into the mech since they are breaking into your department?

You need to read the policy on resisting arrest

Non-antagonists 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-antagonist 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-antagonists should not loot officers and should not detain or incapacitate officers any longer than is necessary to escape or explain themselves.

As part of security policy, you can use space law to justify an action as a valid arrest/action and maintain metaprotections so long as you're informed about that reasoning as well and it aligns with a section of space law. They can't just break your mech while you're not looking, but they can tell you they're breaking your mech and then do it, and it's legitimate if they feel it is either a restricted or prohibited weapon under space law and you have no reason to possess it. If they make it clear why, it's valid. And it doesn't matter how you choose to retaliate, in the mech or out of it; if its lethal, and the arrest is valid, you shouldn't be doing that.

You obviously don't have to sit there and take it, but do not be surprised if by making yourself increasingly harder to arrest nonlethally, any defense you might have if they are forced to use lethal force because they can no longer use nonlethal force due to your actions in resisting arrest has made that impossible is not going to be entertained.

The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

Hulks are the biggest and longest standing example of where there isn't a choice of nonlethal compliance for the officer to arrest you, so officers can freely utilize lethal force immediately in an arrest attempt. Hulks are strictly immune to nonlethal weaponry. So it is no longer a reasonable option, thus leaving only lethal options to bring you in. If you're the hulk in this equation, that's a choice you made by becoming a hulk (usually), so the fault is on you if they have to do this. Mechs are also a means to make you immune to nonlethal arrests (if you're in them). And the only way to usually get you out of that mech is lethal force. Once you're out, they probably should go back to making a nonlethal arrest, but frankly it really depends on how they're feeling since it has escalated to the point they had to use lethals anyway.

You could still absolutely and freely run away in the mech, hide it, whatever is necessary that you feel is the means to keep it. But you can't kill them if the arrest is valid.

[MooCow12]

You are free to resist as lethally as you want as long as youve done nothing wrong and can prove sec are in the wrong voiding their metaprotections …. especially in your own department the question im trying to ask is at what point are security in the wrong for breaking into your department to destroy something.


So if security bust into your department to destroy something of yours without a valid reason they lose metaprotections


By losing metaprotections they are now a tider that busted into your department and escalated against you


What do you do with an assistant that breaks into your department and destroys your shit?

Nothing you quoted conflicts with that ideal i have


Now ill ask again, if the mech is not complete and simply being stored to be finished later when the time comes can security escalate by destroying the parts that have potential to be completed and do they retain meta protections by doing this



The only thing im trying to find out is at what point do you believe sec lose their metaprotections and how far they are allowed to see into the future


We are not arguing yet im just trying to figure out where your stance is

[Not-Dorsidarf]

(Its worth noting that sec ONLY have metaprotection when arresting you for an obviously valid reason. If they decide to just trash the department and break all of Science's very expensive work, that's escalation and they get no more protection than a greytider does. Only the threat of intense brutal murder by the rest of the still-metaprotected sec department is protecting them at that point)


That said, if you really are worried about sec being pathetic baby men as the roboticist, simply do not put guns on your mech until there's an emergency. They can't do shit. A mech is not a weapon, or restricted, and is 100% in your wheelhouse to have as the roboticist. Mounting guns to it doesn't take 10 minutes and require 10s of thousands of materials to be in the ORM unlike making one from scratch.

[NecromancerAnne]

That's only sorta true. A combat mech without any arm equipment can't do much of anything. But a mech with arm equipment attached, no matter what that equipment might be, can punch down walls and objects, punch people (even hard stun if it is a durand) and generally engage in a bit of the ol' mech fu.

Even if the equipment itself is not a weapon, the mech becomes a weapon due to combat mechs having built in melee mechanics that are quite destructive. Even HONKs are both combat mechs and highly destructive.

And it is ultimately still an IC issue in my view. I don't necessarily believe combat mechs specifically are something a roboticist requires for their progression. Utility mechs, maybe, but combat mechs don't much of anything of benefit for roboticists other than making them stronger in a fight, unlike a mining Ripley or Clarke, or an Odysseus to help heal patients being worked on. If Security, the RD or the Captain don't want you having combat mechs because they don't want roboticists having potentially a weapon, that's something they can engage you about. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Will it happen? Probably not. I don't think i've seen much conflict come about from mechs that wasn't more focused on resource wastage than actual possession.

[MooCow12]

Okay but do you think security can escalate over an unfinished mech and retain metaprotections because if they cant we have a compromise thats consistent with other things like unfinished explosives

[DATAxPUNGED]

I think it'd be interesting to make it so building mechs (or AIs, for that matter) without explicit permission of a higher up to be illegal under space law. It gives a precedent for security to stop you if they so wish, incentivizes roleplay and also lets people still ignore it to make their cool mech if they so wish (and are ready for the potential consequences)

[Not-Dorsidarf]

That's only sorta true. A combat mech without any arm equipment can't do much of anything. But a mech with arm equipment attached, no matter what that equipment might be, can punch down walls and objects, punch people (even hard stun if it is a durand) and generally engage in a bit of the ol' mech fu.

Even if the equipment itself is not a weapon, the mech becomes a weapon due to combat mechs having built in melee mechanics that are quite destructive. Even HONKs are both combat mechs and highly destructive.

And it is ultimately still an IC issue in my view. I don't necessarily believe combat mechs specifically are something a roboticist requires for their progression. Utility mechs, maybe, but combat mechs don't much of anything of benefit for roboticists other than making them stronger in a fight, unlike a mining Ripley or Clarke, or an Odysseus to help heal patients being worked on.

mm, not sure I dont like the "Well this isnt required for your progression" being the decider, since basically nothing robotics makes has any progression value. Borgs? They dont benefit your progression. Utility mechs? They don't benefit your progression except to combat mechs. Combat mechs? They don't benefit your progression. MOD suits? They don't benefit your progression.

[technokek]

(Its worth noting that sec ONLY have metaprotection when arresting you for an obviously valid reason. If they decide to just trash the department and break all of Science's very expensive work, that's escalation and they get no more protection than a greytider does. Only the threat of intense brutal murder by the rest of the still-metaprotected sec department is protecting them at that point)


That said, if you really are worried about sec being pathetic baby men as the roboticist, simply do not put guns on your mech until there's an emergency. They can't do shit. A mech is not a weapon, or restricted, and is 100% in your wheelhouse to have as the roboticist. Mounting guns to it doesn't take 10 minutes and require 10s of thousands of materials to be in the ORM unlike making one from scratch.

factually untrue. I have been told by multiple admins that even the combat mech parts are contraband and can be confiscated while retaining meta protections.

[MooCow12]

If that becomes the norm then i guess roboticists should rush to finish and equip their mechs then go space ruins exploring with them to dodge the consequences while simultaneously justifying their mech to complete a purpose.

[NecromancerAnne]

mm, not sure I dont like the "Well this isnt required for your progression" being the decider, since basically nothing robotics makes has any progression value. Borgs? They dont benefit your progression. Utility mechs? They don't benefit your progression except to combat mechs. Combat mechs? They don't benefit your progression. MOD suits? They don't benefit your progression.

Literally everything you have listed is either the primary gameplay loop and responsibility of roboticists or can have inherent utilitarian benefits to their responsibilities/progression, all with their own progression tracks and rewards that can feed back into each other and can absolutely make you better at your job. The only thing without general utilitarian benefit within their job or helping their progression is combat mechs because of the narrow focus of their use, but they're still a form of progression and do have a use when applicable. It doesn't help your argument if what it almost boils down to is that there s no inherent value or progression in the role except combat mechs, which is untrue.

You are not lacking for things to do as roboticist, and there is always projects to work towards as one. Any amount of time in the role will demonstrate that.

What I'm discussing is that we have roles whose own gameplay involves handling their departmental direction, or keeping the station from getting out of control as sec. If the RD, Captain or Sec say not to have a combat mech without an obvious use, then they're within their rights. And that's just a part of the conflict of interest that exists in the game. Much like how sec can confiscate you having a gun or sec gear, or heads telling you not to create dangerous things in your role if there isn't an obvious benefit (like, say, the CMO saying not to make meth/bombs to the chemists, the CE saying not to make emtiter chains down the halls or some other ridiculous bullshit that engineers get up too, or the rare instance where the QM says not to order guns as cargo).

[MooCow12]

I would say implants are the only thing that actually make roboticists better at their job and even then some of them are also not only combat capable but actually can mainly be used for that (surgical toolset is robust for causing bloodloss)

But implants are not guaranteed for roboticists because they are locked behind two players unless you somehow become an android / augmented person by yourself or use slime person


If they had use for money and by extension a reason to sell things their job would be alot less open ended but they dont so pretty much anything and everything is what you choose to use it for, yes you can make borgs and modsuits but to what purpose? To support the station? Sure but its not direct progression for yourself its to make the round last longer which benefits you by increasing the chances youll get to combat mechs.

But combat mechs also fall under that bit of open endedness, they can be used to benefit the roboticist directly alot more than most things they have access to, it increases their capabilities to control their domain while also putting thorough space exploration on the table since combat mechs are much easier to maintain and the only thing youd have to worry about is power and oxygen.





Also are arguements made in this thread on the basis of MRP or both LRP and MRP , so far everything i said is only with LRP in mind.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

What I'm discussing is that we have roles whose own gameplay involves handling their departmental direction, or keeping the station from getting out of control as sec. If the RD, Captain or Sec say not to have a combat mech without an obvious use, then they're within their rights. And that's just a part of the conflict of interest that exists in the game. Much like how sec can confiscate you having a gun or sec gear, or heads telling you not to create dangerous things in your role if there isn't an obvious benefit (like, say, the CMO saying not to make meth/bombs to the chemists, the CE saying not to make emtiter chains down the halls or some other ridiculous bullshit that engineers get up too, or the rare instance where the QM says not to order guns as cargo).

While that's not really what was being said here, I think it is in fact unreasonable (but in the ic "i am playing an asshole boss", to which people can be grouchy/direspectful subordinates) for heads to tell people not to do their job for no reason, and that comparing it to engineers shooting emitters down hallways is deliberately ridiculous hyperbole. I think it's really unreasonable (and grounds for say, the RD to get the captain to demote them) for security officers to go over the heads of the other department to try and shut down robotics in their own department for no reason other than "I don't want you to". If the robo is wandering around causing trouble then that's a different matter, but that's not at all the discussion here.

[MooCow12]

I think it's really unreasonable (and grounds for say, the RD to get the captain to demote them) for security officers to go over the heads of the other department to try and shut down robotics in their own department for no reason other than "I don't want you to". If the robo is wandering around causing trouble then that's a different matter, but that's not at all the discussion here.

So basically sec need evidence from either captain/hos/relevant department head that they are allowed to confiscate your job content.

Relevant department head consent = no contest
Captain/Hos = either overrules the other department head even if they don't consent or in the case of Hos as a security officer you are just being loyal to your direct higher up.

But if no proof of any higher ups consent to confiscating your job content = no meta protections?



Actually in the case of HOS vs the will of another department head I think it would be entirely an IC issue regardless of the sec officer overescalating or the roboticist since its a grey area of who over-rules who in the department of say the RD. Meaning both security and the player who is having their job content taken away are both shielded from the admin's wrath.

But that situation would require the player being served evidence that Hos wanted their job content taken away & they got any signs that their department head wants the opposite.


Then there comes alot of hypothetical context situations like if your own head siccs security on you to confiscate your job content I think any evidence that your own head was evil in the first place would invalidate security's meta protections since they are just being used as pawns by someone who is bad.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Then there comes alot of hypothetical context situations like if your own head siccs security on you to confiscate your job content I think any evidence that your own head was evil in the first place would invalidate security's meta protections since they are just being used as pawns by someone who is bad.

Don't security being used as unknowing pawns by someone who is bad keep their metaprotections as long as they're still acting in good faith with standard procedures etc? It just counts as the standard being arrested for a crime you didnt do thing.

[Higgin]

[...]

[...]

What I'm discussing is that we have roles whose own gameplay involves handling their departmental direction, or keeping the station from getting out of control as sec. If the RD, Captain or Sec say not to have a combat mech without an obvious use, then they're within their rights. And that's just a part of the conflict of interest that exists in the game. Much like how sec can confiscate you having a gun or sec gear, or heads telling you not to create dangerous things in your role if there isn't an obvious benefit (like, say, the CMO saying not to make meth/bombs to the chemists, the CE saying not to make emtiter chains down the halls or some other ridiculous bullshit that engineers get up too, or the rare instance where the QM says not to order guns as cargo).

anne marks up well here what we call the dilemma of dual-use. sussing out intent and trying to apply in-game safeguards, keeping track of what people are doing, and either helping or trying to foil those efforts are the core of the social deduction aspect of the game.

policy saying "don't play the game until red/delta (if they get swiped) (even if it's for no raisin but to make mechs)" is not the way. it makes making combat mechs any earlier an unambiguous tell or a rulebreak when it should be a valid set of ingame choices on everyone's part how to handle it. it loops things back to ahelps at the cost of people playing the game.


if people are upset about the predominance of mecha or want to put in more in-game means of controlling them, that's fine - consider instead nerfing them or adding something like a cardswipe system or program for the RD (or the dastardly person who took their ID) to lock the techs or options on the exofab (if it's linked to the silo, or unhacked, or what have you. get creative.)

Don't do balance through policy, and don't strip out interesting choices.

[TheLoLSwat]

just cry to sec / captain about the mechs being made (and add some hints that they are nefarious) enough and they'll raid robotics which is enough for the roboticist to go into the mech and use it on sec which in turn will see the mechs destroyed