Antags, Security and Admin Policy

Wyzack · Post by **Wyzack** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:41 pm #256373

Bottom post of the previous page:

So this is a discussion that i think we have needed to have for a while, not only related to our game policies but the type of game we want this to be. While I felt compelled to make this thread after the little snafu this morning with Elynia's note for impersonating security, thread here, it is not i think the only reason we need to talk about it.

history lesson wall of text spoilered

Spoiler:

Cut to current day. Because of these exemptions and lax restrictions on sec we have seen a few fallout effects. Security has this sort of weird OOC meta trust which in my opinion has become very unhealthy for gameplay. As seen in that note appeal if an antag successfully impersonates someone from security (in my opinion a difficult and interesting way to use your traitor round) they become nigh untouchable because people are too afraid to retaliate against obvious shitsec due to fear of admin repercussions. This also means that nonantag sec are able to get away with more flagrant acts of shitcurity, as they will likely not get any OOC intervention due to sec having more leeway and everyone being too afraid to retaliate IC.

This also causes secondary problems such as a lack of minor IC crime, people are less willing to fuck about and get in conflicts that do not fly to murder on either side as non antags for fear of overwhelming security repercussions and being labelled a shitter. This has been the status quo for long enough now that it is becoming more accepted as the norm by admins and players alike, and i really really truly believe that this is seriously hurting the game and making it less fun overall.

I am a firm believer in less admin intervention/more IC resolution of conflicts, but regardless of how you feel about these things i think that at the very least it is worth trialing security and captains in antagonist roles again. In a game that was built on paranoia, mistrust and imperfect information people having more OOC guarantees about things really takes away from the experience and causes administrative nightmares. Sorry for the fuckhueg wall of text.

TL:DR please consider bringing back antagonist security and headroles, I really believe that it will cause an increase to the quality of gameplay once the initial shock has passed

Post by **Cobby** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:42 pm #256497

I'll start marking every issue revolving sec as IC and tell them to fight back next time.

R E S I S T

elyina · Post by **elyina** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:48 pm #256503

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:I'll start marking every issue revolving sec as IC and tell them to fight back next time.

R E S I S T

See this is the problem. Every arrest/search attempt becomes "oh shit am I about to die", and dealing with the crew on those terms as sec is just a whole different ballgame. A really nasty one.

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:29 pm #256516

danno wrote:Yeah, what's the point if you're not trying to defuse the conflict that drives the game as fast as possible and at every opportunity?

Because if they make trouble I can just kick their shit in.

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:40 pm #256525

elyina wrote:See this is the problem. Every arrest/search attempt becomes "oh shit am I about to die", and dealing with the crew on those terms as sec is just a whole different ballgame. A really nasty one.

75% of career assistants already treat it as such

cedarbridge · Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:44 pm

elyina wrote:
ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:I'll start marking every issue revolving sec as IC and tell them to fight back next time.

R E S I S T

See this is the problem. Every arrest/search attempt becomes "oh shit am I about to die", and dealing with the crew on those terms as sec is just a whole different ballgame. A really nasty one.

A lot of this. As a player and an admin when I hear Beats McGrey screaming hits head off "oh my god sec is killing me" when they're being arrested for literally anything I know immediately the sort of player they are. If we add antagsec, it becomes really hard to tell the difference between "shitter getting arrested for starting shit" and "about to legitimately be murdered by a traitor."

I'm also personally divided on the "officer tazed me so now I get to e s c a l a t e" thing. On the one hand, I don't want players going in with the expectation that sec cannot be retarded and is somehow composed of boyscouts just because they're unable to become roundstart antags. On the other hand, the idea of greyshirts starting shit with security and then roping them into the race to murder that our current "escalation" theme has been turning into leaves a real nasty taste in my mouth. I'd wager that most proponents of wanting to be able treat arrests as a step in escalation are the sort of serial abusers that sec already has to deal with more than they should.

From a scilicon perspective, I don't think I've personally ever treated sec as blameless in any case. Scilicons under ASIMOV are detatched from spesslaw and antag status anyway. A nukeop dying on your watch is just as bad as a greyshirt dying on your watch. If security is executing people, that's something the AI and borgs already have to be concerned about. No AI should ever be thinking "well, its ok because X is a traitor anyway." Scilicons get their own policies because they're functionally played differently from every other role on the station. Scilicons are already suspcious of sec and heads of staff because they're the most likely to do stupid things and harm humans on the pretense of "law enforcement" or "gotta kill the antags guise."

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:47 pm #256578

I think both sides here have really valid points so I'm going to contribute nothing to the discussion and raise my post count

I think if sec is going to be able to roll antags again, then changes need to be made specifically for the role - say, if you roll sec traitor, you can't buy X items from the uplink, for reasons. Being sec gives a massive advantage already, so being able to buy adrenals or whatever just strikes me as bullshit and unfun for most other players on the receiving end - I'm in favor of encouraging interesting interactions between antags and crew and I personally feel (though I know many disagree with me) that murderboning is not interesting. If there's more thought put into it beyond readding sec roles to the list, I would be in favour of giving it a shot

Post by **Armhulen** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:55 pm #256584

Why should they even get an uplink? They're sec.

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:36 am #256628

Armhulen wrote:Why should they even get an uplink? They're sec.

I didn't want to go that far in my post for fear of being shit on but yeah that's not an awful suggestion - could be explained away with "we don't want to risk your cover so you're on your own kiddo"

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:55 am #256633

the note that sparked this was pretty dumb in the first place seeing as antagonists are exempt from rule one. honestly having antagonist security sounds like an unnecessary headache that would make security more cancerous than it already is. if we were higher RP, maybe, but most players are likely to play security for the antagonist and then murderbone when they get it.

edit: oh, and we had antag detective for a while. pretty much everyone agreed it was cancer

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:46 am #256650

BeeSting12 wrote:the note that sparked this was pretty dumb in the first place seeing as antagonists are exempt from rule one. honestly having antagonist security sounds like an unnecessary headache that would make security more cancerous than it already is. if we were higher RP, maybe, but most players are likely to play security for the antagonist and then murderbone when they get it.

edit: oh, and we had antag detective for a while. pretty much everyone agreed it was cancer

Antags aren't 100% immune to rule 1.

BeeSting12 · Post by **BeeSting12** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:32 am #256663

cedarbridge wrote:
BeeSting12 wrote:the note that sparked this was pretty dumb in the first place seeing as antagonists are exempt from rule one. honestly having antagonist security sounds like an unnecessary headache that would make security more cancerous than it already is. if we were higher RP, maybe, but most players are likely to play security for the antagonist and then murderbone when they get it.

edit: oh, and we had antag detective for a while. pretty much everyone agreed it was cancer
Antags aren't 100% immune to rule 1.

4. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

Not trying to rules lawyer here, it's just that rule 4 literally says antagonists can do whatever short of bug abuse, metacomming, OOC/IC, IC/OOC, and spawn camping. So yeah that note was completely invalid.

TheNightingale · Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:43 am

Steelpoint wrote:I think in the games current state we would lose more than we gain from antagonist security.

The pros

Distrust of Security: Security personal would no longer enjoy the near universal trust that the crew places on them.

Crew Feat of Retribution: With antagonist security, crew members would be fearful of antagonising officer for fear that they are interfering with a traitor officer, who would have no qualms with escalating the situation, and likely getting away with it.

Security More Contained: With the loss of Security trust, we would see security being less able to access areas of the station they don't have access to and people will be far more wary of security inside their departments.

I don't see any of these as good things... people already resist arrest enough without adding "but the officer might be a traitor, that means I can kidnap her for trying to arrest me" into the mix.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:05 am #256677

It'll exacerbate the situation.

I'm not in full agreement in antag security, at least not in the current game atmosphere and balance

cedarbridge · Post by **cedarbridge** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:26 am #256692

BeeSting12 wrote:Not trying to rules lawyer here, but I'm going to proceed to rules lawyer.

There is standing precedent for antags who needlessly draw out rounds (functional violation of rule 1, though usually enforced via rule 0) etc receiving some sort of censure. Usually that comes in the form of something that ends the round and probably kills the antag in the process. That we don't ban for it is beyond the point. Additionally, notes do not correlate to bans. Vast amounts of our notes database has no relation to any specific ban. Notes are merely admin observations about behavior that the admin objects to or warnings given for actual rulebreaking. So, unless the note contains something that is objectively false, saying the note is "invalid" is incorrect.

Yakumo_Chen · Post by **Yakumo_Chen** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:24 am #256700

I don't think I'd keep playing security if I knew I was going to have an even more frustrating time dealing with corrupt officers that I can place zero trust in. It's already really, really obnoxious to deal with HoP-promoted officers (or people who steal uniforms) because I have zero trust on them not being antag and just using the position for free valids with fewer repercussions because they have a red shirt. Also because officers have fear easier access to the armory and it's an easy excuse to just kill sec then murder the entire rest of the station.

Haevacht · Post by **Haevacht** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:36 am #256713

If antag sec comes back I am literally never trusting anyone in red. If I submiut it's got a chance of being to someone who will kill me now, so I won't.

Antagsec is fucking dumb.

Post by **Arianya** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:49 am #256735

Strongly disagree with the return of antag sec, for reasons many others have already noted.

Also, people seem to be shitting on security officers who "think its their job to neutralize all antags", but this is quite literally their role in several game modes. If you're not trying to kill/stop the nukies in nuke ops, you are objectively doing your job poorly. Most of the accusations of shitsec that I've seen also come from team conversion antags where you either act like an asshole as security or you lose, straight up.

With mulligans and mid-round traitors, sec traitor would just become too messy, especially considering our already low population numbers for the role which will only suffer more when you get killed and stuffed in a locker by the warden because "lol antag".

Also, I find it kinda funny that everyone complaining about that note appeal fails to bring up SK's post where he makes it clear that the person was basically doing low pop murderboning and had a past history of it, but don't let that get in the way of "muh sec antags"

elyina · Post by **elyina** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:29 am #256749

Also, I find it kinda funny that everyone complaining about that note appeal fails to bring up SK's post where he makes it clear that the person was basically doing low pop murderboning and had a past history of it, but don't let that get in the way of "muh sec antags"

Killing ~5 people cannot be classified as a murderbone and I certainly don't have a history of murderboner or validhunting. Sweaterkittens simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Don't slander me m8

Post by **Arianya** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:32 am #256751

elyina wrote:
Also, I find it kinda funny that everyone complaining about that note appeal fails to bring up SK's post where he makes it clear that the person was basically doing low pop murderboning and had a past history of it, but don't let that get in the way of "muh sec antags"
Killing ~5 people cannot be classified as a murderbone and I certainly don't have a history of murderboner or validhunting. Sweaterkittens simply doesn't know what they're talking about. Don't slander me m8

Killing ~5 people in a round of 15 vs Killing ~5 people in a round of 80 is kinda a big difference m8.

But regardless, this isn't Appeals 2.0 so I'll leave it at that.

Post by **oranges** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:39 am #256769

I feel like you have to kill at least 50% of the crew for it to be a murderbone, otherwise there is enough crew to bring the dead back into the round.

5/15 is 33%, which is probably acceptable levels of casulties for a round

kevinz000 · Post by **kevinz000** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:01 pm #256775

beerobot wrote:I feel like you have to kill at least 50% of the crew for it to be a murderbone, otherwise there is enough crew to bring the dead back into the round.

5/15 is 33%, which is probably acceptable levels of casulties for a round

Uhhhhh....

Reece · Post by **Reece** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:43 pm #256789

I think numbers are a secondary issue of murderbone. If I free the sing and dump a beacon at cargo then station is GGno re along with most people in it. But I see that as less a problem than killing all of science (like five guys) for purely shits and giggles. Generally so long as you add to the drama of the round it's generally good. A murderer who makes the rogue AI bolt departments and then announce that everyone inside is gonna be murdered in three minutes is still murdering, but he's making it more entertaining and dramatic.

peoplearestrange · Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:06 pm

Kor wrote:1) Antagonist security would be a fucking nightmare with the way the balance of the game has changed (adrenals, for example). Traitor HoS buying two adrenals, grabbing the armory, and killing literally everyone would get old very quickly.

2)The years and years of "people who commit minor IC crime deserve CDB style enforcement, security is always right" would make it difficult for both admins and players to adjust to killing security being a very viable and even desirable reaction to them acting suspicious. It'd be messy for a while rules and culture wise.

I know the threads moved on a bit since this post but it works well with what I want to say.

Firstly I fully understand why we wouldn't want to enable murderboning. HOWEVER by actively shaping the tools to such a specific degree we also remove the ability for "Shenanigans". This has been one of the major, recent, downfalls of antags.
Antags are ultimately there to cause tension and paranoia and spice things up a little, giving lots of options allows for experimentation and emergent gaming.
THAT SAID recent additions and changes to items have all been fair overpowered on their own or simply only aggressive attack items that simply can only ever benefit "loud" antags.

Getting back on topic, I actually think sec antag could be enjoyable given the games current state. The issue is that HoS (or all heads as a whole) aren't really all that enjoyable to be antag. I know that sounds counter to what people would think, but once you play a head traitor once you've played them all. Its easy, way too easy, to just do what you want and get away with practically anything as people assume heads are doing it for a valid reason.
Although it is exactly this point that would lead to a horrible transition period of sec antag. Everyone will assume the security executing someone in public is valid in there methods. Essentially a free pass.

The other issue with all of this is the recent heavy handedness of punish IC issues with bans/warnings. It means people are less likely to try things and are less likely to WANT to do some stupid gimmick that could end up hilarious. This however is an admin policy issue that I think should probably be addressed separately.

TL:DR Antags are there to create conflict, but equally that conflict has to be obtainable, as murderboning is always just a too easy fall back. I say give sec antag a chance to mix things up.

onleavedontatme · Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:28 pm

How come death currently has the least consequences it has ever had in the history of /tg/ (dozens of ghost respawn roles, short rounds, two servers) but admins are more concerned and strict about people dying than ever to the point that someone being in crit is an OOC offense.

Post by **Armhulen** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:34 pm #256856

kevinz000 wrote:
beerobot wrote:I feel like you have to kill at least 50% of the crew for it to be a murderbone, otherwise there is enough crew to bring the dead back into the round.

5/15 is 33%, which is probably acceptable levels of casulties for a round
Uhhhhh....

hmmmm

Doctor Pork · Post by **Doctor Pork** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:37 pm #256860

ShadowDimentio wrote:Becausae at any moment for any reason they could kill anyone and everyone.

It's like leaving a bomb in the hall. It's not armed, so it's not gonna hurt anybody to leave it there.

Ladies and Gents. Exhibit A.

Valids more important than roleplay.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:44 pm #256865

Doctor Pork wrote:
ShadowDimentio wrote:Becausae at any moment for any reason they could kill anyone and everyone.

It's like leaving a bomb in the hall. It's not armed, so it's not gonna hurt anybody to leave it there.
Ladies and Gents. Exhibit A.

Valids more important than roleplay.

Its roleplay fatigue more than anything.

Whenever I play as the HoS I try and give players the benefit of the doubt in situations where doing so won't immediately threaten me or the station.

But the problem is that a majority of the time, this comes back to harm me in one way or the other. Weather it be the traitor goes for a second attempt on my life, or they do something to massively endanger the station or something akin.

When the outcome of taking action X almost always results in Y, you start to no longer take action X.

peoplearestrange · Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Then you need a break from the game. Thats a burnout issue, not a common player issue.

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:40 pm #256881

If you played more often in sec roles you would realize this is a common occurrence with giving antags leeway.

Burnout is best described, in my opinion, when people just altogether stop playing sec.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:41 pm #256882

I literally just got back from a six month SS13 break.

It ain't burnout, its common sense.

If I stick my hand in fire I get burned, same analogy with antags. Maybe if I douse water all over my hand I'll be fine for a while, but I'll still get burnt eventually.

peoplearestrange · Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:55 pm

Ok fair enough, I take it back. I'll do my best to play more sec and see how I like it.
I still think antag sec should be tested for a bit maybe.

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:09 pm #256914

Kor wrote:to the point that someone being in crit is an OOC offense.

are admins actually doing this?

Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:57 am

BeeSting12 wrote:
cedarbridge wrote:
BeeSting12 wrote:the note that sparked this was pretty dumb in the first place seeing as antagonists are exempt from rule one. honestly having antagonist security sounds like an unnecessary headache that would make security more cancerous than it already is. if we were higher RP, maybe, but most players are likely to play security for the antagonist and then murderbone when they get it.

edit: oh, and we had antag detective for a while. pretty much everyone agreed it was cancer
Antags aren't 100% immune to rule 1.
4. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.
Short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

Not trying to rules lawyer here, it's just that rule 4 literally says antagonists can do whatever short of bug abuse, metacomming, OOC/IC, IC/OOC, and spawn camping. So yeah that note was completely invalid.

I agree with you and you are right

However, always recalling the shuttle when everybody is already dead or whatever starts making it a rule 0 issue

Grazyn · Post by **Grazyn** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:23 am #257457

We are already at the lowest point in the cycle of security trust/appreciation, go read the escalation thread, people are saying that they want to resist arrest against sec just like they would resist against any other player trying to stun them, and admins agree with them. They want paranoia? Just give it to them

>an officer trying to taze me is exactly the same as an assistant doing the same thing, how am I supposed to know he's not going to kill me?
>I'm going to disarm them, stun them, and eventually kill/space them if they keep harassing me, this is just regular escalation
>"But officers can't be antags, why would you always assume they want to kill you? It's not the same thing"
>They can be lings. And we all know that even non-antag sec goes around randomly arresting people with impunity, I'm not gonna make it easier for them
>"Alright, let's make them able to get antag then, at least you have a reason to act this way and sec players will also be hampered by a traitor in their midst"
>No because people should trust security
>??????? does not compute

Post by **Fatal** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:42 am #257466

Our playerbase is not suitable for sec antag, it wasn't last time and it still isn't

Last time, sec traitors (or even fucking lings), would just arrest you, drag you to a dark corner and kill you, which then meant people fought back like fuck against being arrested every round, causing awful problems for non-antag sec, everyone would jump on your cuffed guy in an attempt to free him from your grasp

There may be the odd occasion where someone does something interesting as antag sec, but it's a rare occurance, most just use it as free weapons to murder with

The game needs some sort of grounding force, to try and keep things stable, and it's tough enough as sec sometimes without the added bullshit that antag sec causes, the only redeeming point of sec is that you CAN trust your comrades, and for those who don't WANT to play as a traitor, and actually play sec properly, what does this add for them? There's already enough fear for security being a big red loot pinata in 9/10 rounds as it is

Doctor Pork · Post by **Doctor Pork** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:11 pm #257545

PKPenguin321 wrote: I agree with you and you are right

However, always recalling the shuttle when everybody is already dead or whatever starts making it a rule 0 issue

FUCKING. THIS.

Pascal125 · Post by **Pascal125** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:42 pm #257556

Look, The "Greytide" read: Greyshirts are already bad enough. We don't need more reasons for people to mistrust and fuck with Security.
Not untill that stuff gets sorted out, anyways. And it likely never will. As fun as being paranoid of even security was, it'll just make people even less likely to play it then they already are.

Post by **Cobby** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:04 pm #257560

Doctor Pork wrote:
PKPenguin321 wrote: I agree with you and you are right

However, always recalling the shuttle when everybody is already dead or whatever starts making it a rule 0 issue
FUCKING. THIS.

So then if you're only going to have it to where explicit situations are disallowed by antags and it's NOT going to be at the admins discretion [because SK is getting a lot of trash for what I think is a note about their general behavior sparked by the incident rather than noting particularly for that incident], then why not just make it hard-lined in the rules?

Not-Dorsidarf · Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am

If sec antag gets put back in, the warden and HoS, being the armory dweebs, should definitely be exempt. Otherwise its just going to be a joyous circle of complete horseshit killing sprees.

bandit · Post by **bandit** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:25 am #258135

Fatal wrote:Last time, sec traitors (or even fucking lings), would just arrest you, drag you to a dark corner and kill you, which then meant people fought back like fuck against being arrested every round, causing awful problems for non-antag sec, everyone would jump on your cuffed guy in an attempt to free him from your grasp

People still do this because this is a graytide thing, not a sec antag thing. Have you ever tried to arrest literally anyone in a populated area?

ShadowDimentio · Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:22 am

Steelpoint wrote:
Doctor Pork wrote:
ShadowDimentio wrote:Becausae at any moment for any reason they could kill anyone and everyone.

It's like leaving a bomb in the hall. It's not armed, so it's not gonna hurt anybody to leave it there.
Ladies and Gents. Exhibit A.

Valids more important than roleplay.
Its roleplay fatigue more than anything.

Whenever I play as the HoS I try and give players the benefit of the doubt in situations where doing so won't immediately threaten me or the station.

But the problem is that a majority of the time, this comes back to harm me in one way or the other. Weather it be the traitor goes for a second attempt on my life, or they do something to massively endanger the station or something akin.

When the outcome of taking action X almost always results in Y, you start to no longer take action X.

When most antags are playing as "how many dudes can I dunk before I get dunked" shit-talking sec players for playing the same way is fucking dumb.

I'm not some faggot running around the halls executing the clown for having a S balloon, I'm patrolling maint and if I see you holding a power sink you're getting tazed and thrown in perma because 99 times out of 100 me just taking the sink and releasing you ends with you stabbing me to death as revenge the first chance you get.

bandit wrote:
Fatal wrote:Last time, sec traitors (or even fucking lings), would just arrest you, drag you to a dark corner and kill you, which then meant people fought back like fuck against being arrested every round, causing awful problems for non-antag sec, everyone would jump on your cuffed guy in an attempt to free him from your grasp
People still do this because this is a graytide thing, not a sec antag thing. Have you ever tried to arrest literally anyone in a populated area?

I have, occasionally you'll get some white knight trying to save the traitor you just bagged from your grasp.

The last time it happened it took me five minutes of heated pursuit to finally bag the escaped traitor again, and the next time I saw the white knight they got shot dead as penance for meddling in affairs they didn't understand.

Aiding and abetting carries the same punishment as the crime. Ironically, I got bwoinked shortly later from the guy crying to admins about how he got murdered by shitcurity when he dindu nuffin, and after I said he had interfered with sec business and saved an antag from me I'm fairly certain he got chewed out by the admin for wasting his time.

I'm cool with there being more allowance to resolve things IC like this under the pretense that I'm still 100% allowed to shoot crew for fucking with me as I do my job of carting off traitors.

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:32 am #258158

If a crewmember takes it upon themselves to rescue or drag away someone who is being arrested by security, I consider it within my rights to charge them with the same level of punishment as the person they liberated.

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:39 am #258160

It is the most baffling and stupid shit ever.

I had a non antag lawyer drag away and release a guy that was emmaging everything actually ahelp when he got charged with the same punishment as the guy they liberated. (Death)

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:43 am #258161

Unrelated people obstructing justice are the actual honest to god worst form of greytider

Haevacht · Post by **Haevacht** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:23 am #258184

Qbopper wrote:Unrelated people obstructing justice are the actual honest to god worst form of greytider

Unless it's assistants helping assistants because I mean there's loyalty there you just have to expect.

D&B · Post by **D&B** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:26 am #258186

Haevacht wrote:
Qbopper wrote:Unrelated people obstructing justice are the actual honest to god worst form of greytider
Unless it's assistants helping assistants because I mean there's loyalty there you just have to expect.

Oh yeah, of course I understand.

That's why you use the same airlock to throw them out. Together in life and death, so and so

Haevacht · Post by **Haevacht** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:31 am #258187

D&B wrote:
Haevacht wrote:
Qbopper wrote:Unrelated people obstructing justice are the actual honest to god worst form of greytider
Unless it's assistants helping assistants because I mean there's loyalty there you just have to expect.
Oh yeah, of course I understand.

That's why you use the same airlock to throw them out. Together in life and death, so and so

Naturally. And if you pin em both in the brig they get the same sentence. They/we don't deserve mercy for doing it, but you gotta expect the greys to help each other.

Post by **Arianya** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:23 am #258231

The people who always get my goat with their "minor IC crime" are the ones who act all shocked and surprised when you actually brig them for their shit, and no matter what timer you give them they'll complain its too long.

Like, I can atleast respect the assistants who know they did the crime so they do the time.

Qbopper · Post by **Qbopper** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:09 pm #258301

Arianya wrote:The people who always get my goat with their "minor IC crime" are the ones who act all shocked and surprised when you actually brig them for their shit, and no matter what timer you give them they'll complain its too long.

Like, I can atleast respect the assistants who know they did the crime so they do the time.

You have no idea, we see this shit in ahelps all the time

>I broke into the cap's office for the spare and got dunked by the HoS, can you bwoink him???

Steelpoint · Post by **Steelpoint** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:14 pm #258304

The day you could do whatever you want to someone who breaks into Caps office at round start was a glorious day indeed.

Considering we are going this far off topic, it seems this discussion has run to a halt, at least to the contents of the OP.

Perhaps Security Antag may be, imo, more viable if we see a combat rework and make stuns less ggnore.

CPTANT · Post by **CPTANT** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:33 pm #258311

Steelpoint wrote:The day you could do whatever you want to someone who breaks into Caps office at round start was a glorious day indeed.

Considering we are going this far off topic, it seems this discussion has run to a halt, at least to the contents of the OP.

Perhaps Security Antag may be, imo, more viable if we see a combat rework and make stuns less ggnore.

Yes even though it is still stated literally in the precedents that it is ok.

6. Players who attempt to break into the captain's office, head of personnel's office, or the bridge at or near roundstart for no legitimate reason put themselves at risk for being legitimately killed by the captain, heads of staff, or security.

I decided to test that as HoS and I dumped an assistant who broke into captains office and punched the captain at roundstart out of an airlock.

Then I got an admin tirade about how it it wasn't ok, and not fun for the other party bla bla.