/tg/Station 13

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29640

[tl;dr needed]

TL;DR
Lawyer tries to break into cargo, gets shot, goes to HoS/HoP to get promoted to sec to get his revenge. When HoS + lawyer, now with sec gear and ID arrives at cargo, after short talk third party (cargo techie) shots at HoS without being provoked, lawyer flashbangs QM and banned cargo techie. Fight begins, lasts with breaks for zombies and healing for around 10-12 minutes, another cargo techie (this time as antagonist) comes in between, goes on killing spree and finishes lawyer that was fighting with banned cargo techie after HoS got shot in the arse. Cargo techie gets banned for killing lawyer that admin thought was security officer.

Now with TL;DR behind us, lets get to the spicy things:

• Can someone be responsible for death when the final blow (substantial one lets add to that) was dealt by antagonist?
• Can someone get security meta-protection by being promoted?
• Isn't asking to be promoted to security after being thrown out from a place and coming back in order to get revenge a way security officer should proceed?

We have one third party cargo techie that attacked HoS, we have another cargo techie that was antag that killed lawyer, we have guncargo that was roleplaying as russian mafia, we have lawyer that did everything in order to escalate situation.
In my opinion, it sounds like a shitshow that should end with note at worst for banned cargo techie, a note for third party cargo techie that shot HoS unprovoked and lawyer to show that they didnt deescalate when needed.

Also i decided to check their (lawyer) bans on CC and its quite interesting:
https://centcom.melonmesa.com/viewer/vi ... iousguy007

Agux909 wrote:https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=29640

[tl;dr needed]

Guncargo rose up and resisted arrest with lethal force

CRPL1000 wrote: [*]Can someone get security meta-protection by being promoted?

giving security meta-protection to someone that wasn't a roundstart sec officer and could very well be an antagonist seems incredibly silly to me

Honestly I'm mostly disappointed that neither sec nor cargo could get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually have guncargo and sec call a truce and take down the zombies.

If you're not going to fight zombies with your doomsday prep guns, literally why even have them?

Pandarsenic wrote:Honestly I'm mostly disappointed that neither sec nor cargo could get their heads out of their asses long enough to actually have guncargo and sec call a truce and take down the zombies.

If you're not going to fight zombies with your doomsday prep guns, literally why even have them?

blame rando who started ww1 by shooting captain franz ferdinand

Screemonster wrote:

CRPL1000 wrote: [*]Can someone get security meta-protection by being promoted?

giving security meta-protection to someone that wasn't a roundstart sec officer and could very well be an antagonist seems incredibly silly to me

If you know they’re not initially sec I would maybe buy this if you think something is up (but you’re going to have to convince me)

If you don’t know they’re not initially sec then I’m still going to be upset in the same way had you killed someone fnr but they’re an antag.

Mind you we’re talking about guncargo and by doing guncargo you should have a very good sense as to why an officer starts blue lasering you. If you haven’t done anything then you can obv resist whether they’re roundstart sec or not.

That's way too much nuance for the average jannie cobby
Just press the ban button because he attacked red man

CRPL1000 wrote:Can someone be responsible for death when the final blow (substantial one lets add to that) was dealt by antagonist?

No. You should only be responsible for the actions that you yourself commit. If you stamcrit someone, and they get murdered, you should not be getting ahelped for murder unless it is very clear you had the intention of stamcritting them so that they could be murdered by someone else.

CRPL1000 wrote:Can someone get security meta-protection by being promoted?

No. Meta-protections only apply because no shiftstart security officer is an antagonist. Midround security officers are just as likely antagonists as any other crew member. Hell, even the "obsession" midround antag for security officers and captain is a bad idea IMO. It messes with meta-protection by introducing the possibility that your arresting officer actually just wants you dead because it's his objective, which would give you valid reason to retaliate. But then there is reasonable suspicion against every officer making a simple arrest.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that whatever meta protections security has don't apply to HoP promoted security officers. This is also under the assumption that roundstart security officers, of course, have them as well.

How does this affect how you play? With the limited information you know in game, how would you tell them apart in reality?

If a security starts shooting disablers at you, are you quickly checking your PDA to double check they're not a shaft miner?

It's a little silly to ask since the way admins rule best is by trying to deduce whether with the information a suspect had, if they made a reasonable call. This seems fairly obvious in the case of "I killed someone with an emag", and that someone wasn't an antagonist, the killer should of course not get punished. Goes the other way with security--under your limited information, you are more likely to just assume every security officer you see has the meta protections.

Jaredfogle wrote:Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that whatever meta protections security has don't apply to HoP promoted security officers. This is also under the assumption that roundstart security officers, of course, have them as well.

How does this affect how you play? With the limited information you know in game, how would you tell them apart in reality?

If a security starts shooting disablers at you, are you quickly checking your PDA to double check they're not a shaft miner?

It's a little silly to ask since the way admins rule best is by trying to deduce whether with the information a suspect had, if they made a reasonable call. This seems fairly obvious in the case of "I killed someone with an emag", and that someone wasn't an antagonist, the killer should of course not get punished. Goes the other way with security--under your limited information, you are more likely to just assume every security officer you see has the meta protections.

In this instance, the guys in cargo did have the knowledge that this dude that came back to them was a lawyer, and not a roundstart sec officer, having had a fight with them before.

So if some dude gets in a fight with me as not-security, then goes away, comes back dressed as security with access that I have no idea how he obtained, that can muddy the waters a bit and move the situation from "officer is doing a legitimate arrest so I can't really fight back" to "I have cause to suspect this guy, if not actually an antag, is just here picking to continue the earlier fight and got promoted to do it so I have no idea if I'm about to get round-removed if I don't defend myself"

Screemonster wrote: In this instance, the guys in cargo did have the knowledge that this dude that came back to them was a lawyer, and not a roundstart sec officer, having had a fight with them before.

I'll take your word for it, I read the TL;DR like I would hope everyone else did. No forum post deserves a scrollbar.

EDIT: Oh wait the TL;DR does say that, I guess I didn't read that either

I took the time to read the OP in that ban appeal thread but that was about as much as I was willing to invest in addition to writing this post.

So it sounds like the guns they got for 'cosmetic purposes' were actually going to be used for validhunting purposes to kill the chemist if he turned out to be a traitor, which then lead to security attention for detaining another crewmember and the following shitshow.

Brick Carr buys guns and armour every round that he's QM because he can. If you have the intention of using them against crewmembers as a self-appointed vigilante squad and that attracts security attention you shouldn't take that as permission to shoot security. I wouldn't blame them for running away to avoid being brigged but you shouldn't be using lethals on security for doing their jobs. Or really fighting security at all as a non-antag.

That said it sounds like they line-toed to the best of their ability, acted in accordance with how their crew-aligned characters might in a situation where they're trying to avoid jail, had fun, created an interesting story and all they had to do was make one security force's round miserable to accomplish this. If not for needing to ruin the rounds of security to make it happen it would be the type of thing you'd want to see encouraged in this often boring game. It seems the underage European teenagers on Terry take out their boredom and angst on security a lot.

The real solution to this problem is to end guncargo (which is unfair to both security and antags) by making the guns come without firing pins. Because otherwise rational actors like Brick Carr will continue to exploit it for their own benefit which will lead to inevitable conflicts with security where once again cargo acts in its own best interests of not spending 20 minutes in a room with nothing to do and ruins their rounds, creating a bunch of work for the admins and getting these rational actors banned.

cacogen wrote: It seems the underage European teenagers on Terry take out their boredom and angst on security a lot.

Bruh.

NOOOOO YOU CANT HAVE FUN YOU HAVE TO CARGO RP

i was just saying the truth

No, you’re just talking out of your ass

but i've been there enough to know what they're like

This doesn’t mean that you can understand the situation correctly

to be fair, it takes an extremely high iq to understand the average terry player

Super Superiority Complex Cuckogen

I’ve read about 10 messages from cacogen and I know exactly what he’s like, so much so that i know in advance what he’s going to say

Flatulent wrote:I’ve read about 10 messages from cacogen and I know exactly what he’s like, so much so that i know in advance what he’s going to say

that's like saying you know what noise a whoopee cushion is going to make

how many whoopee cushions can a peanut thread hold

This should've been simply left as an IC issue tbh, not even a note. The whole deal is reduced to the lawyer inciting escalation by asking to be promoted just to abuse being sec, to be able to have his revenge against cargo. Next time be more creative and organize a questionable trial against them?

Another case of an admin not doing the proper investigation when applying a ban, then being unwilling to go back on their word fully when they are clearly in the wrong.

Usual disclaimer, my opinion, not the admins' general opinion or policy.

Can someone be responsible for death when the final blow (substantial one lets add to that) was dealt by antagonist?

Kind of circumstantial but I'd say yes to a varying degree. Naturally if you just slapped him twice and he died, that wouldn't be your problem. If you do a significant amount of damage to them before an antag comes by and mercs them, then yes, you're somewhat culpable.

Can someone get security meta-protection by being promoted?

Depends on the situation but, in this case, absolutely not.

Isn't asking to be promoted to security after being thrown out from a place and coming back in order to get revenge a way security officer should proceed?

Absolutely fucking not. He should have had sec handle the matter, not request a promotion just so he could go fuck with them.

Agux909 wrote:Another case of an admin not doing the proper investigation when applying a ban, then being unwilling to go back on their word fully when they are clearly in the wrong.

Mistakes are gonna happen, this is why ban appeals exist. Admins aren't perfect.

Vekter wrote:

Agux909 wrote:Another case of an admin not doing the proper investigation when applying a ban, then being unwilling to go back on their word fully when they are clearly in the wrong.

Mistakes are gonna happen, this is why ban appeals exist. Admins aren't perfect.

No I agree with you on that. Note is still there to stay though, when the one that should've been punished was the lawyer/sec. Again, why is the tech left with a note if what they did was IC justified? I sincerely ask, since it all points to Fatal being confused and making a mistake, right? Why not remove the note then?

Think of this one as a way worse scenario than the one MSO switched the ban to the officer that ahelped the clown for killing them.