[<Iain0>] Ekaterina von Russland - bwoinked over a bag search

[ekaterina]

BYOND account: Ekaterina von Russland
Ban/note type : Note
Ban/note length: Infinite
Ban/note reason:

► Show Spoiler

As a security officer, observed some activity in virology, notably the viro and an assistant in there together along with the possibility of them creating various potentially harmful viruses and decided to drop down to viro and did a bag check. There's no real legal issue on viro inviting a friend in to give a tour to, nor really with them making bad stuff as long as its contained. Apparently was not aware of the "requires probable cause" clause on bag searching, which during discussion they accepted this might be impactful in this case if that was the policy (which I assert it is). Asked to respect this policy until/if anything overrides this requirement.

Time ban was placed: 2024-02-24 00:59:28
Server you were playing on when banned: Terry
Round ID in which ban was placed: 224481

Why are you making this appeal?: The ban/note is not against the rules

Iain0 believes bag searches require probable cause even on LRP. I have seen no indication of this anywhere in the rules page, security rules page, or headmin precedents page. This is only referenced in the (not policy) standard operating procedure page.

Thus, from the headmins, I seek the following:

• If this policy actually exists, for it to be put somewhere in the security rules page;
• If this policy doesn't exist, for Iain0 and company to be told as much;
• In either case, for the note to be removed given that no such policy was listed anywhere at the time of the round in question

Furthermore, cause did exist. Upon investigating virology, we found viruses with non-neutered bad symptoms in two culture bottles, thus prompting the bag search. It was a skill issue on my end not bringing this up during the ahelp, it was overshadowed by the absolute joke that being bwoinked over a bag search is.

I did (and still do) not believe this routine interaction would've gotten any attention had it not been another admin, Iansdoor, to be the one to ahelp. Thus, unless the policy above does exist, in which case the actions in question would be explained, I would also like the headmins to look into:

• Whether Iansdoor exploited his admin status to get me bwoinked as OOC retaliation for a normal IC search against his character and his friend's character
• Whether Iain0 acted on personal bias against me over my public opinion about him in the last headmin election

I already had a lengthy talk with Iain0 over ahelps so I do not expect him to change his mind, unless the new bit of context changes things for him. Both of us want headmins to provide clarity on the existence, or lack thereof, of the policy in question.

[iain0]

My submitted basis is the current part of rule 4 that states

Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so.

Additionally the security level alerts will remind you of policy:

From my perspective, inviting a friend into your workplace to show them your job isn't inherently a security matter (much as RL may differ here I don't think we want to stamp out the social aspect this would curtail), additionally creation of a harmful virus by virology is in its self fine and part of the job, provided it isn't released. So until it is, I believe you lack probable cause here.

[TheBibleMelts]

11. You are able to request that head admins review an appeal that is unable to come to an amicable resolution, however you are not entitled to a review occurring. Efforts must still be made by both you and the banning admin to resolve an appeal regardless of the request for reviewal.

regardless of your ticket, you have not made such attempts at a resolution in this thread itself.

Thus, from the headmins, I seek the following:
If this policy actually exists, for it to be put somewhere in the security rules page;
If this policy doesn't exist, for Iain0 and company to be told as much;
In either case, for the note to be removed given that no such policy was listed anywhere at the time of the round in question

iain0 has provided this above.

[dendydoom]

to add to this,

Whether Iansdoor exploited his admin status to get me bwoinked as OOC retaliation for a normal IC search against his character and his friend's character
Whether Iain0 acted on personal bias against me over my public opinion about him in the last headmin election

i have personally checked the tickets in this incident and found nothing to suggest anything out of the ordinary going on. so far there isn't anything that would require headmin intervention in this, please try to resolve it as per the regular procedure.

[TheBibleMelts]

Furthermore, cause did exist. Upon investigating virology, we found viruses with non-neutered bad symptoms in two culture bottles, thus prompting the bag search. It was a skill issue on my end not bringing this up during the ahelp, it was overshadowed by the absolute joke that being bwoinked over a bag search is.

i'd also like to say that minimizing the issue to being only about a bag search itself isn't very representative of the issue with the action. if you'd found probably cause to believe that these people were traitors, this would have been a bag search and a swift execution/permabrigging. it is in the interest of fairness and not treating the game like a round of mafia that we do not allow the above situation to play out at the absolute slightest amount of provocation.

[ekaterina]

My submitted basis is the current part of rule 4 that states

Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so.

As I understand it, this rule is intended to stop "valid hunting" among crew members, not normal security stuff. The implications of it applying to security would be ridiculous, can you imagine not being able to patrol maint as sec?
This is also inapplicable to the situation since there was nothing "preemptive" about it. They were being suspicious and got searched.

Additionally the security level alerts will remind you of policy:
sec level blue.PNG

A mirror of the standard operating procedure roleplay suggestion is not a reminder of policy any more than a book of space law would be a reminder of policy.

regardless of your ticket, you have not made such attempts at a resolution in this thread itself.

Having a headmin ruling on whether this policy exists (which is what I was looking for at this initial stage, I know Iain0 has to deny the appeal before you'll rule on the appeal itself) would speed that up, because then we wouldn't be arguing over whether it exists to begin with.

iain0 has provided this above.

He has not. He has provided his own personal interpretation which he had already provided in the ticket. What I'm looking for is a general ruling so that other people won't be blindsided by this in the future, or, if one exists, for it to be added to a relevant rules page.

i have personally checked the tickets in this incident and found nothing to suggest anything out of the ordinary going on.

I thank you for looking into it.

i'd also like to say that minimizing the issue to being only about a bag search itself isn't very representative of the issue with the action. it is in the interest of fairness and not treating the game like a round of mafia that we do not allow the above situation to play out at the absolute slightest amount of provocation.

I've never played mafia so I am not sure that I understand what this is intended to mean.

[Timberpoes]

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/ter ... ptions.txt
The security level alerts are set by the headmin team in game_options.txt. Their restrictions are regularly are enforced by admins - which is to say they are policy. That policy is communicated in an IC manner so players have more IC basis to resist unwarranted searches.

Attempts to argue this point are not likely to be successful since searching other players has been tied into the alert text and probable cause since 2016. While the alert text has changed over time, admin enforcement in line with it has not.
Examples:

Spoiler:

Note - LRP - 2023-10-22 - Performed a bag check on the CMO because "ian was killed and i wanted to make sure one of my heads wasn't a traitor". Advised that they require probable cause in a crime to perform bag searches.
Note - LRP - 2022-03-14 - Warned - As security, decided to search the bartender to check if they were a heretic because "he reported a fucking rupture". Someone reporting suspicious activity is not even vaguely probable cause to search them.
Note - LRP - 2021-11-06 - Heard there were lings, tried to subdue a random person for a BZ test. Yelled LING mid fight, which got that innocent person lynched by an assistant. Please don't search/bz test people without probable cause, and please don't accuse them of being antagonists without proof as it tends to get people killed.
Note - LRP - 2020-10-16 - Randomly stunned and searched someone because they were in maint with a gas mask. This note will only be kept here a week for short term reference. When asked about it they said "can we question people in maint and search if they refuse to answer?" So they should have a good understanding on probable cause in the future
Note - LRP - 2016-07-20 - Arrested a random chemist in the hall and searched them (found tome, executed them). Chemist had worked loyally all shift and was leaving chemistry for the first time. Metacide insisted code blue allowed "random searches" and then switched his excuse to "Well it was cult" for his probable cause. The cult was suicided/AFK and never initiated a single aggressive act all shift long. Despite arguing with me for 20 minutes, they should hopefully understand that Code Blue + Knowing the roundtype doesnt let you grab people out of the halls for no reason unless there's an actual emergency.
Note - LRP - 2016-06-30 - Warned that on code blue you need probable cause to search and a random search requires code red. EDIT: Right after I placed this note they went and got security level elevated to red.

[Timberpoes]

viewtopic.php?p=566820#p566820
2020 - References to random searching have been removed from game_options.txt. The only acceptable time for it is during crisis situations, such as late into a cult round, where choosing not to stun and search someone is likely to lead to your quick death.

The policy post removing random searches from the game_options.txt in 2020, and the discussion around searches and alert levels.

[ekaterina]

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/ter ... ptions.txt
The security level alerts are set by the headmin team in game_options.txt. Their restrictions are regularly are enforced by admins - which is to say they are policy. That policy is communicated in an IC manner so players have more IC basis to resist unwarranted searches.
viewtopic.php?p=566820#p566820

2020 - References to random searching have been removed from game_options.txt. The only acceptable time for it is during crisis situations, such as late into a cult round, where choosing not to stun and search someone is likely to lead to your quick death.

Thank you, Timberpoes, for providing clarity as usual.

Given that the question of whether the policy exists has been resolved, and that dendydoom's investigation found no evidence of bad faith on Iansdoor or Iain0's part, I believe the only remaining issues are:

• alert level search restrictions being policy not being stated anywhere other than a 4 year old thread on the forums. It would be appropriate for it to be put in the security rules page;
• and whether this search met the standard of probable cause

What is the standard of probable cause on tg?

[Timberpoes]

Probable cause is solidly an IC standard. Establishing probable cause to search is always going to require some reasonable assumption or suspicion of misdeeds. Reasonable is anything that is not unreasonable.

By way of examples:
Seeing unneutered negative symptom bottles around virology with nothing else worrying - it's unreasonable to assume that means the virologist is up to no good, because there only time it matters what symptoms are neutered is when the final virus is completed and distributed. Their lab, their workspace, their rules on having unneutered negative symptom bottles lying around.

However, this can change as simple facts change. If while in virology you got radio reports of a bad virus spreading in the crew, searching them could become reasonable. You may not even need any evidence beyond bad virus causing problems - although you'd still need more evidence to treat them as an antag.

Similarly for toxins. Someone in there making maxcaps isn't suspicious any more than a virologist in a lab with negative symptoms is. But when TTVs are going off around the station, whoever was or is in toxins is going to be a prime suspect and there's plenty of cause to search them in that event.

Finally, when extenuating circumstances come in - revolution winning is the key one - even something as simple as not being mindshielded is good probable cause and an immediate arrest and search can be reasonable. But on a normal shift, not being mindshielded isn't probable cause and it's unreasonable to search someone on that basis...

Unless it's a manifested sec officer without a mindshield, which is so out of the ordinary that it may be reasonable to search them!

[vect0r]

My submitted basis is the current part of rule 4 that states

Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so.

As I understand it, this rule is intended to stop "valid hunting" among crew members, not normal security stuff. The implications of it applying to security would be ridiculous, can you imagine not being able to patrol maint as sec?
This is also inapplicable to the situation since there was nothing "preemptive" about it. They were being suspicious and got searched.

Additionally the security level alerts will remind you of policy:
sec level blue.PNG

A mirror of the standard operating procedure roleplay suggestion is not a reminder of policy any more than a book of space law would be a reminder of policy.

regardless of your ticket, you have not made such attempts at a resolution in this thread itself.

Having a headmin ruling on whether this policy exists (which is what I was looking for at this initial stage, I know Iain0 has to deny the appeal before you'll rule on the appeal itself) would speed that up, because then we wouldn't be arguing over whether it exists to begin with.

iain0 has provided this above.

He has not. He has provided his own personal interpretation which he had already provided in the ticket. What I'm looking for is a general ruling so that other people won't be blindsided by this in the future, or, if one exists, for it to be added to a relevant rules page.

i have personally checked the tickets in this incident and found nothing to suggest anything out of the ordinary going on.

I thank you for looking into it.

i'd also like to say that minimizing the issue to being only about a bag search itself isn't very representative of the issue with the action. it is in the interest of fairness and not treating the game like a round of mafia that we do not allow the above situation to play out at the absolute slightest amount of provocation.

I've never played mafia so I am not sure that I understand what this is intended to mean.

Just as a note, since viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35665 went into effect you can quote space law in your ahelp defense.

[iain0]

Thanks to everyone for their contributions while I was offline, this largely ties down most of the ticket to just the bit about "probable cause" I believe.

This ; effectively you should have reason to believe the player is a "probable cause" of something (specifically a criminal something under your remit).

There is no crime here, there is nothing to be the probable cause of.

Far as I'm concerned, creation of an actual harmful virus distributed to monkeys (contained viro monkeys) for research purposes is covered under the viro job, and the "WIP" for any positive virus typically contains one or more active negative symptoms (I always neuter as the last part of making a virus). Both of these really make the mere existence of virology samples no more interesting than ordnance having made a TTV inside ordnance.

The presence of the assistant was noted in your ticket as likely being a tider, question is, how far you're going with this assumption ; they're not a tider, they're invited, there's no signs of struggle, either on camera, or after the time it takes you to walk down there and force entry via the AI, no-one is complaining, and if you think they "Might be a tider" then your job is to ask. Over radio, in person if you really must for some reason, and when you find out there's no issue, you have no further remit and leave them alone. You only get to go straight to action if you're "certain" they're a tider, and there's nothing here to back that, including that the viro obviously has no issues here (since they invited them in).

Bottom line being, no crime, thus no probable cause?

Over to you to make a counter case I think, for this is where the differences first start to create consequences.

[ekaterina]

[probable cause nuance explanation]

Thanks, Timber.

There is no crime here, there is nothing to be the probable cause of.

The distribution of deadly viruses is not only a crime but a highly destructive, near-instantaneous capital crime. It is not reasonable to argue that we should wait until everyone's dying to space AIDS to investigate suspicious activity in virology.
Creating bad viruses is the first step in infecting the crew, even if it is not, in and of itself, doing that. While it may not lead to an arrest in itself, it is a reasonable starting point for an investigation, including a search for contraband that would indicate whether this is the intent or not. In addition, the fact that the power shut off moments after I mentioned on sec radio that these two were in virology made me think that the AI had seen something bad and shut off the power for that reason, compounding my suspicion.

I always neuter as the last part of making a virus

It's been a while since I played viro, but, If I recall correctly, I neutered bad symptoms early, even started by creating neutered cultures of the two starting negative symptoms. I guess these different approaches might affect whether we see this as normal or not.

[iain0]

Bad viruses on the loose are not all that, but this is just opinion. Maxcaps are devastating. Either way you don't get to go arrest people for doing their jobs and experimenting/researching in their fields. Yes, like it or not, you have to wait for something bad to happen. Resonates a bit with adminning honestly where you watch someone do something that you're almost certain is bad faith but if you jump the gun you leave margin to be wrong, sometimes you have to wait for something to actually happen. Probable cause still requires a crime and there still isn't one, only your concern over how bad a crime would be. And you're welcome to that opinion but it's still not a crime, literally their job, and thus there is no probable cause for the bag check.

You might be right that neutering earlier when the hit chance is higher makes more sense, I only really cure things and knock up lazy beneficial things as CMO on quiet shifts, I don't even really know what negative neuters are best and largely just go with the first thing I find that spawns self resp. None of these approaches is against the law however.

[ekaterina]

Bad viruses on the loose are not all that, but this is just opinion.

Bad viruses can make an entire round unplayable in the blink of an eye, and all you need is virus food to make an airborne high resistance lethal virus.

Either way you don't get to go arrest people for doing their jobs and experimenting/researching in their fields.

Ok? Did you copy this strawman from the peanut thread? No people were arrested "for doing their jobs", and being investigated and being arrested are not the same thing.

Probable cause still requires a crime and there still isn't one, only your concern over how bad a crime would be.

You might have perfect vision of what's going on as an admin, but I don't, as a player. I had reason to believe crime might be going on and I investigated it.

Would I be right in understanding that your point is that "might be going on" is not enough, and that we'd need the belief that crime "is going on" for a bag search?

[iain0]

I had reason to believe crime might be going on and I investigated it.

As in you believe a criminal act is taking place right there and then, or you believe something is setting up a future criminal act? Either way, clarify and provide evidence.

[ekaterina]

I had reason to believe crime might be going on and I investigated it.

As in you believe a criminal act is taking place right there and then, or you believe something is setting up a future criminal act?

Both. Respectively, that this out of place assistant might be coercing the virologist, and that they might be preparing to distribute a deadly virus.

Still waiting for an answer here:

Would I be right in understanding that your point is that "might be going on" is not enough, and that we'd need the belief that crime "is going on" for a bag search?

[iain0]

Cool, well, as we've covered, there clearly isn't any coercion going on given their behaviour combined with the time window between you seeing them on cams and walking down there. Certainly you can just ask and not default to assuming. So no bag search authorised here.

Secondly that they might distribute a deadly virus is pre-empting an antagonist and against the rules, and is also not probable cause of a crime thus doesn't qualify for a bag search.

Either way the bag search is a no go, and thus the note.



Here's the bottom line for you on how this all works.
SS13 is a game where everyone goes to their space station job and everything goes horribly wrong.
No-one wants to play "ekat solves the game 5 minutes in and nothing happens for the rest of the round". The things going wrong are EXPECTED to go wrong, it's what the game IS for everyone else.
This is (partly) why there is a rule about not pre-empting antags, and thats exactly what you're trying to do here (even though no-one actually is an antag).

Try understand why that rule exists, why its bad for the game, and stick to the rule in future.




Unless you have any other grounds on which to validate your bag search, I remain of the opinion this bag search is invalid and thus your note is valid.

[ekaterina]

Certainly you can just ask and not default to assuming

I neither assumed there was nor that there wasn't. I investigated. And I most assuredly cannot "just ask" before I am actually there to ensure the possible victim's safety - that would be the earliest possible point I could've concluded there was no coercion, after already being there.

Secondly that they might distribute a deadly virus is pre-empting an antagonist and against the rules, and is also not probable cause of a crime thus doesn't qualify for a bag search.

I feel like we're going in circles:

My submitted basis is the current part of rule 4 that states

Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so.

As I understand it, this rule is intended to stop "valid hunting" among crew members, not normal security stuff. The implications of it applying to security would be ridiculous, can you imagine not being able to patrol maint as sec?

No-one wants to play "ekat solves the game 5 minutes in and nothing happens for the rest of the round". The things going wrong are EXPECTED to go wrong, it's what the game IS for everyone else.
(...) Try understand why that rule exists, why its bad for the game, and stick to the rule in future.

Ok? This is nothing new. That antagonists are necessary to move the round forward is a point I too have defended several times on the forums, I am aware of this. This is why I am a fan of an approach I often incorporate in my playstyle when traitors are caught early before they've had a chance to do anything significant: implanting and releasing. This is also why "solving the game in 5 minutes" doesn't have to mean "nothing happens for the rest of the round".

I remain of the opinion this bag search is invalid and thus your note is valid.

The main issue here is that the probable cause requirement isn't stated anywhere a player can be reasonably expected to both have read (like the rules pages) and not assumed it's just RP fluff text (like the announcement), only a forum thread buried by time.
At the same time, I acknowledge this isn't something you can personally fix, we'd need the headmins to add it to the wiki.

[iain0]

Yeah, you can maybe make a policy thread or something, maybe get an addition somewhere if you think it would be beneficial, but that's for another thread.

I'm going to continue to deny this (it largely being of the form 'now knows this' anyway, and thus valid to record), would you like me to raise it with headmins again?

[ekaterina]

Yeah, you can maybe make a policy thread or something, maybe get an addition somewhere if you think it would be beneficial, but that's for another thread.
I'm going to continue to deny this (it largely being of the form 'now knows this' anyway, and thus valid to record), would you like me to raise it with headmins again?

Yeah. If all I got from this thread was headmins adding the policy to the security rules page, I'd still be satisfied with that resolution.

[Cheshify]

Common sense is how we dictate reasonable cause and when it's okay to search people at random. We don't need to bloat the rules to accommodate for something that should be pretty obvious when the big "BLUE ALERT, DON'T SEARCH PEOPLE AT RANDOM" shows up. Probable cause isn't something we want to or need to rigidly define, because it can take trillions of forms all dependent on the round's context.
This is a common sense issue, and we're choosing to uphold the note.

Cheshify - Uphold
TBM - Uphold

[ekaterina]

Probable cause isn't something we want to or need to rigidly define

That makes sense, but it's also not what I was looking for. I was thinking of something simple like "Alert level bag search restrictions are enforceable".

[Vekter]

Probable cause isn't something we want to or need to rigidly define

That makes sense, but it's also not what I was looking for. I was thinking of something simple like "Alert level bag search restrictions are enforceable".

Policy changes must be done via a thread in the Policy Discussion subforum. If you want it added to the rules, you need to make a thread there.