/tg/Station 13

viewtopic.php?p=687166#p687166

What do we think? tl;dr refusing to respond to a minor threat using your words (ie "silent arrests") voids your metaprotections as sec while doing so cements them.

I think this is pretty good. I'm worried it might slide the game further into a state where "actually fighting people is the point of the game" is a norm but I think it's an efficient way to handle the problem. What better way to disincentivize it?

Waiting for seccie mains to start macro-ing phrases like "YOU ARE UNDER ARREST FOR B&E"

Very awesome ruling, POG. Use words or be treated like everyone else. Sec policy 6 was always really vague and the entire bottom paragraph of it basically said nothing so glad to see it updated with something more concretely useful too.

Big
bigger then that
Big Pog.
Super happy to see this kind of change especially coming from the player headmin himself. This kind of change is a long time in the making. It's a bad sign that when a ling transforms into a secoff they have to start killing more to stay in character, I can only pray that this will cut back on the redtide.

It's almost like security has had a one button voice line for "Halt" this entire time that no one bothers to use.

I think its really good but if greyshiters abuse it to just shove secs mid arrest i hope they get yeeted and deleted

HeyHey wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:55 pm It's almost like security has had a one button voice line for "Halt" this entire time that no one bothers to use.

Bold of you to imply that this has ever worked

We should replace the voice function of the sec gas mask with a function that, when enabled, will read out the most recent security record of the next person you point at. This would have the added benefit of further encouraging sec to do proper record keeping.

Cheshify wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 10:25 pm

HeyHey wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:55 pm It's almost like security has had a one button voice line for "Halt" this entire time that no one bothers to use.

Bold of you to imply that this has ever worked

The point isn't that it works and they halt, the point is that it shows the seccie is conducting an arrest and not just an antag disguised as a seccie about to ownzone them. Not sure if it'd qualify as the sort of "communication" this policy asks for but it'd be better than a completely wordless arrest.

zxaber wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 10:37 pm We should replace the voice function of the sec gas mask with a function that, when enabled, will read out the most recent security record of the next person you point at. This would have the added benefit of further encouraging sec to do proper record keeping.

This is a good idea, but instead of pointing at the person it should only be enabled for people with a wanted status. If two or more wanted people are within your view, it'll repeat the most recent record of the person you're the closest to.

I'm happy that the bar for sec in terms of communication is a bit higher as it's frustrating to get the silent treatment and attacked by sec without knowing why. That being said, the ruling is a bit iffy in regards to what constitues low vs high threat and needs to be altered to stop misunderstandings in more chaotic rounds. "Obviously revs, cult, malf AI, nuke ops and the like are all high threats." But like, for example... confirmed revolution, or suspected revolutions? It's an important distinction because it's so easy to send the entire sec team into a paranoid frenzy on LRP over a revolution that doesn't actually exist. I can count the number of times I've gotten random mindshielded over revs that never existed on more than two hands. Normal procedure in an LRP confirmed rev round is to wordlessly stun and mindshield in bulk. Does this void their metaprots if it's only a suspected revolution?

In all seriousness, this is a good change. I see (ICly and Adminning) security officers having literally no reason for arresting someone beyond "they were set to arrest".

I'm all in favor of this change. I remember when I was being a shitter on manuel and smashing the queue line glass on icebox with an air tank, the HOP (I seem to recall it being Broly or Box or something, but idk) called security after I refused to stop. Fifteen seconds later, an officer walked up, wordlessly batoned me, then dragged me away to the brig. This was a shift that was basically a green shift, so it wasn't like there was a threat requiring them to do that.

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 am I'm all in favor of this change. I remember when I was being a shitter on manuel and smashing the queue line glass on icebox with an air tank, the HOP (I seem to recall it being Broly or Box or something, but idk) called security after I refused to stop. Fifteen seconds later, an officer walked up, wordlessly batoned me, then dragged me away to the brig. This was a shift that was basically a green shift, so it wasn't like there was a threat requiring them to do that.

You were smashing up the glass line, and are wondering why an officer dragged you away? Could you please clarify?

As a sec player I have no problem with this, especially if doing so cements my protections as sec. I don't feel like I should have to fight a war with a player across a whole round for doing my job, and I've seen that happen for valid arrests. Most recently I had a player who shall remain anonymous cut sec's telecomms twice because I tried arresting them for blocking off the tram. I'm kinda curious about cases where I'm not able to get a word off such as I see them in the hallway and point at them and they just ignore it or whatever. My thought is that if they run off when a sec officer is pointing at them then the intent to talk is pretty obvious and not stopping lessens the requirement to ask to arrest.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 10:48 pm

Cheshify wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 10:25 pm

HeyHey wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:55 pm It's almost like security has had a one button voice line for "Halt" this entire time that no one bothers to use.

Bold of you to imply that this has ever worked

The point isn't that it works and they halt, the point is that it shows the seccie is conducting an arrest and not just an antag disguised as a seccie about to ownzone them. Not sure if it'd qualify as the sort of "communication" this policy asks for but it'd be better than a completely wordless arrest.

I think I'd give the benefit of the doubt, especially if the sec officer explicitly told them why they were bringing them in after detaining them. Remember, the point isn't to make sec read out a paragraph of bullshit before actually trying to detain someone, it's to get them to effectively communicate with the person they're detaining.

Ideally though, if it's just someone set to arrest for something like B&E or vandalism, something as simple as "Hey, [name]. I need to talk to you." would be just fine by me.

I don't know why people play to win so hard in the first place. On Manuel, unless it's like a shootout, I always am like "You're under arrest for XYZ" and then talk to them. It's not hard.

From an IC perspective it makes infinitely more sense, but more importantly, from an OOC perspective it's way better. It gives them a chance to run away, which keeps WAYY more interesting from a sportsmanship and story standpoint.
Why just do the most efficient thing? It doesn't gain you anything, except making the stories of the round worse.

Anyways yes this is a good change.

i've found that for awhile now clearly stating "I am going to fucking remove your head if you keep doing this" has not only very often stopped thing from happening, but has put me in the clear with admins when the person who kept doing the thing ahelps me for killing them

for instance, if i had simply said "Lucy you stupid fucking annoying crustacean, if you do not stop shoving me while I am attempting to arrest this person, I am going to remove your head", i might not have been slapped with a note for removing her head.

THAT'S ME. THAT'S ME IN THE ANNOUNCEMENTS. THAT'S. ME!!!!!!

Still riding the high from this policy thread fellas.

No longer will the silent seccies be able to BITCH and CRY to the admins when they are retaliated against like everyone else.

No longer will the MRP-leaning supportmin be able to buzz in our ears when we dare raise a fist against the almighty NRP shitsec batong jockey.

I knew good things would happen when you combine a 900 hr HoS player with a rule scholar in a headmin term.

Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:00 am i've found that for awhile now clearly stating "I am going to fucking remove your head if you keep doing this" has not only very often stopped thing from happening, but has put me in the clear with admins when the person who kept doing the thing ahelps me for killing them

I hate doing this because it feels so clearly like covering one’s tracks specifically for the purpose of if you’re ahelped. There’s lots of other ways to do this but it feels sort of lame and kinda messes up immersion yknow.

It’s best when it’s part of the natural RP like a real threat though.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 10:33 am

Kendrickorium wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:00 am i've found that for awhile now clearly stating "I am going to fucking remove your head if you keep doing this" has not only very often stopped thing from happening, but has put me in the clear with admins when the person who kept doing the thing ahelps me for killing them

I hate doing this because it feels so clearly like covering one’s tracks specifically for the purpose of if you’re ahelped. There’s lots of other ways to do this but it feels sort of lame and kinda messes up immersion yknow.

It’s best when it’s part of the natural RP like a real threat though.

Whenever someone flees from me as sec I point at them for this reason.

Can't claim I didn't chase you for 5 minutes when point logs have coords.

TypicalRig wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 12:15 am I'm happy that the bar for sec in terms of communication is a bit higher as it's frustrating to get the silent treatment and attacked by sec without knowing why. That being said, the ruling is a bit iffy in regards to what constitues low vs high threat and needs to be altered to stop misunderstandings in more chaotic rounds. "Obviously revs, cult, malf AI, nuke ops and the like are all high threats." But like, for example... confirmed revolution, or suspected revolutions? It's an important distinction because it's so easy to send the entire sec team into a paranoid frenzy on LRP over a revolution that doesn't actually exist. I can count the number of times I've gotten random mindshielded over revs that never existed on more than two hands. Normal procedure in an LRP confirmed rev round is to wordlessly stun and mindshield in bulk. Does this void their metaprots if it's only a suspected revolution?

My advice to any sec wondering this question is to nag your heads to go to code red and remove all doubt.

but generally speaking for most people "suspected" is always given too much credence in the heat of the moment then it will get after the fact, so keep that in mind and try not to lean into it.

vect0r wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:12 am

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 am I'm all in favor of this change. I remember when I was being a shitter on manuel and smashing the queue line glass on icebox with an air tank, the HOP (I seem to recall it being Broly or Box or something, but idk) called security after I refused to stop. Fifteen seconds later, an officer walked up, wordlessly batoned me, then dragged me away to the brig. This was a shift that was basically a green shift, so it wasn't like there was a threat requiring them to do that.

You were smashing up the glass line, and are wondering why an officer dragged you away? Could you please clarify?

I was saying that I got wordlessly arrested. I'm not saying that I didn't know why I got arrested. There's a big difference between someone conducting an arrest, and someone running up, batoning you, and dragging you to the brig wordlessly. The station wasn't dealing with a dire threat, or any threat, really. Which makes the security officer's conduct particularly egregious, even if my behavior was borderline LRP shittery.

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 4:01 pm

vect0r wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:12 am

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 am I'm all in favor of this change. I remember when I was being a shitter on manuel and smashing the queue line glass on icebox with an air tank, the HOP (I seem to recall it being Broly or Box or something, but idk) called security after I refused to stop. Fifteen seconds later, an officer walked up, wordlessly batoned me, then dragged me away to the brig. This was a shift that was basically a green shift, so it wasn't like there was a threat requiring them to do that.

You were smashing up the glass line, and are wondering why an officer dragged you away? Could you please clarify?

I was saying that I got wordlessly arrested. I'm not saying that I didn't know why I got arrested. There's a big difference between someone conducting an arrest, and someone running up, batoning you, and dragging you to the brig wordlessly. The station wasn't dealing with a dire threat, or any threat, really. Which makes the security officer's conduct particularly egregious, even if my behavior was borderline LRP shittery.

Please rp with me while I act as a griefing ape.

Sec should have handed you over to the HoP for 'fun of the workplace hazard variety' since you were already told to stop and refused.

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:35 pm
Please rp with me while I act as a griefing ape.

Sec should have handed you over to the HoP for 'fun of the workplace hazard variety' since you were already told to stop and refused.

This is a roleplaying game. If you're not here to roleplay, go elsewhere.

At the very least security has to confirm whether the person they're going to arrest is critical enough that they don't have to give a warning.

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:43 pm

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:35 pm
Please rp with me while I act as a griefing ape.

Sec should have handed you over to the HoP for 'fun of the workplace hazard variety' since you were already told to stop and refused.

This is a roleplaying game. If you're not here to roleplay, go elsewhere.

Bruh, do you really think if sec started talking to this man his responce would be an eloquent debate of the validity of vandalism as a tool for social justice?

Here's an example from a recent Terry round I played.

I a pAI in robotics. 3 times someone starts breaking in while my creator is there. I speak to each of them. The most responce I got out of them was a an engineer screaming then running, grabbing what they wanted, then running out There's like 10 lines of me begging them to use their words as they were breaking in.

Another engineer left the door bolted open and electrified. None were antags.

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:50 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:43 pm

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:35 pm
Please rp with me while I act as a griefing ape.

Sec should have handed you over to the HoP for 'fun of the workplace hazard variety' since you were already told to stop and refused.

This is a roleplaying game. If you're not here to roleplay, go elsewhere.

Bruh, do you really think if sec started talking to this man his responce would be an eloquent debate of the validity of vandalism as a tool for social justice?

Here's an example from a recent Terry round I played.

I a pAI in robotics. 3 times someone starts breaking in while my creator is there. I speak to each of them. The most responce I got out of them was a an engineer screaming then running, grabbing what they wanted, then running out There's like 10 lines of me begging them to use their words as they were breaking in.

Another engineer left the door bolted open and electrified. None were antags.

Bro, this isn't fucking Bay, alright? I'm not saying you have to have a long, drawn-out conversation about something. I'm saying you can do the bare minimum of telling someone you're arresting them before doing it.

If someone beats your skull in because you didn't tell them you were taking them in, I'm not helping you.

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 4:01 pm

vect0r wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 2:12 am

RedBaronFlyer wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 am I'm all in favor of this change. I remember when I was being a shitter on manuel and smashing the queue line glass on icebox with an air tank, the HOP (I seem to recall it being Broly or Box or something, but idk) called security after I refused to stop. Fifteen seconds later, an officer walked up, wordlessly batoned me, then dragged me away to the brig. This was a shift that was basically a green shift, so it wasn't like there was a threat requiring them to do that.

You were smashing up the glass line, and are wondering why an officer dragged you away? Could you please clarify?

I was saying that I got wordlessly arrested. I'm not saying that I didn't know why I got arrested. There's a big difference between someone conducting an arrest, and someone running up, batoning you, and dragging you to the brig wordlessly. The station wasn't dealing with a dire threat, or any threat, really. Which makes the security officer's conduct particularly egregious, even if my behavior was borderline LRP shittery.

No need to be mean about it.
I just wanted to clarify what was going on. Personally, if you are in the middle of doing a crime it should be pretty clear why you are getting arrested, but we can have different thoughts on this, and that's what makes us human <3.

vect0r wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:23 pm No need to be mean about it.
I just wanted to clarify what was going on. Personally, if you are in the middle of doing a crime it should be pretty clear why you are getting arrested, but we can have different thoughts on this, and that's what makes us human <3.

Sorry, it was mean of me. I'm kind of bad at reading text so I didn't know if you were joking or not. Again, my issue wasn't that I got arrested. I fully understood why I would get arrested. My issue is with the way it went.

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:35 pm Please rp with me while I act as a griefing ape.

I mean to be fair after I got arrested, I went back, repaired the glass wall and grille, and apologized.
Also, unironically, yes. I would expect some roleplay on the MRP server. specially from security, who generally seem to be expected to perform to a higher standard. Although it doesn't have a fifty-page backstory, what I did would fall under "IC conflict." Like if a botanist refused to give the chef food, or the chef/medbay charged for their services, or the barkeep stole one of the chemistry machines and won't give it back.

For example, around two months back, medbay and security had several non-lethal fights because the HOS was being a shitter, and the CMO was denying security any sort of medical treatment in retaliation. It eventually turned into security using lethals in retaliation after several of their attempts to storm the medbay non-lethally failed.

Sec should have handed you over to the HoP for 'fun of the workplace hazard variety' since you were already told to stop and refused.

And I would have welcomed that sort of thing since it would have been interesting. I fully knew what could happen after the HOP warned me with a disabler and then fired a shot at me when I kept hitting the glass. It would have been more interesting than a wordless arrest. If I'm going to act like an idiot, I fully intend actually to deal with the consequences (be it an arrest, a demotion, etc). I'm not one of those people that goes soulless in the brig because of a two-minute brig sentence. I'm not complaining that I got arrested. I 100% understand WHY I got arrested. I'm complaining about the "walk up and wordlessly baton me" arrest, as silent arrests are boring as shit.

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:35 pmBruh, do you really think if sec started talking to this man his responce would be an eloquent debate of the validity of vandalism as a tool for social justice?

Lets go over some hypothetical scenarios:

• If I ran?

Okay, they could chase me. Disabler shots down a hallway and especially a maint tunnel take their toll on most unarmored targets. If I somehow got away, they could just put an arrest warrant out on me and nab me whenever I poked my head out again.

• If I fought back?

Okay, baton me once or twice, and I'm disabled.

• I fight back with an actual weapon?

Retreat while firing a disabler/pepperspray, or whip out your baton to keep the target away. Either try to get bystanders to help (they tend to on Manuel) or wait for other sec officers to come help (and they surely would because they're not doing much on a greenshift) Or just try to take them down with your baton then.

Here's an example from a recent Terry round I played.

So three things:
I'm sorry that happened, that sucks.
This was on manuel, where that kind of behavior is far less common. (though assistants running into departments where the door has been left open still happens)
I wasn't actually breaking into the HOPs office. Just smashing a barrier glass. See the spoilered section below.

I fully expect security to just start batoning and sorting out shit after the fact when it comes to breaking and entering or active assault or whatnot. This was, at worst, vandalism.

A story told in five panels:

Baron posted a very good example of a bad Sec interaction. Here's an example of a good one on LRP:

(An officer sees an assistant breaking a window.)
Officer: "Stop that or I'm arresting you."
Assistant: "No."
Officer: *Arrests the assistant.*

That's it. That's a completely valid interaction. It's that simple.

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:50 pm Here's an example from a recent Terry round I played.

Your mistake was expecting roleplay on Terry.

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:43 pm

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 5:35 pm
Please rp with me while I act as a griefing ape.

Sec should have handed you over to the HoP for 'fun of the workplace hazard variety' since you were already told to stop and refused.

This is a roleplaying game. If you're not here to roleplay, go elsewhere.

Goes both ways though. What's his reason in a roleplay sense for smashing the windows? What's Joe Schmo's reason for shoving every sec officer. From a roleplay perspective, it doesn't make much sense to shove the corporate security.

Cheshify wrote: ↑Wed May 24, 2023 9:30 pm Waiting for seccie mains to start macro-ing phrases like "YOU ARE UNDER ARREST FOR B&E"

Pretty much this also sec can say something to provoke a response and then stun baton while the other party is typing.


Thats the only thing im worried about this policy change, sec not communicating with you but at you right before running you down and then possibly getting metaprotection for it (we will have to wait and see but im hoping admins are able to get enough info to be able to tell the difference)

Let me state this for the record: I can recollect on one hand how many times security personnel not talking enough has negatively impacted my experience.
Contrary to this, I don't think there are enough hands in the universe to count where non-security personnel have negatively impacted my experience to the point of me comitting suicide, because the rancid level of shittery, grief and null-RP has completely demotivated me to engage in any sort of decent RP (on manuel, no less).

If you think tolerating serial shitters is acceptable while finding the issue with the security officers reciprocating their aggression and neglect for the game in kind, then truly, the issue has always been you all along.


With secure regards
-BONERMASTER

Actually bonermaster`s post did remind me that security do tend to BM alot especially after they cuffed their victim.

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:17 pm
Bro, this isn't fucking Bay, alright? I'm not saying you have to have a long, drawn-out conversation about something. I'm saying you can do the bare minimum of telling someone you're arresting them before doing it.

If someone beats your skull in because you didn't tell them you were taking them in, I'm not helping you.

And I'm saying this rule only protects the people who flee everytime you try to talk to them, then claim you never told them why they were being arrested.

I literally always tell people they are wanted before I arrest. But there is a notable group of players who use your type bubble as an excuse to flee.

Even before this ruling I have taken to pointing at arrestees, then chatting out why I am arresting them after they fled the room cos they say you never told them why they were being arrested, omitting the fact they never gave you a chance.

this rule will be rolled back within 2 terms

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:56 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:17 pm
Bro, this isn't fucking Bay, alright? I'm not saying you have to have a long, drawn-out conversation about something. I'm saying you can do the bare minimum of telling someone you're arresting them before doing it.

If someone beats your skull in because you didn't tell them you were taking them in, I'm not helping you.

And I'm saying this rule only protects the people who flee everytime you try to talk to them, then claim you never told them why they were being arrested.

I literally always tell people they are wanted before I arrest. But there is a notable group of players who use your type bubble as an excuse to flee.

Even before this ruling I have taken to pointing at arrestees, then chatting out why I am arresting them after they fled the room cos they say you never told them why they were being arrested, omitting the fact they never gave you a chance.

Okay, so what? Why do you NEED to arrest the person who’s wanted for a minor crime (which this policy only applies to) in the most optimal possible way without giving them a chance to respond?

And how exactly does the policy protect them? You can STILL wordlessly arrest them. All it means is that they’re allowed to retaliate normally against you if you choose the wordless approach.

I'm dubious about this rule. I think there's no harm in trying it out. There's so many Terry tiders that are more robust than most players that I think this'll result in loads of sec getting killed for doing valid arrests

WineAllWine wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:05 am I'm dubious about this rule. I think there's no harm in trying it out. There's so many Terry tiders that are more robust than most players that I think this'll result in loads of sec getting killed for doing valid arrests

All they have to do is stop and state like “yo your prints were on bridge” or anything and then they can’t be retaliated against lethally. It doesn’t seem like a big ask.

It’s sort of failRP for an officer to just randomly tackle someone down and cuff them AND expect the admins to protect them in doing that IMO.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:09 am

WineAllWine wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:05 am I'm dubious about this rule. I think there's no harm in trying it out. There's so many Terry tiders that are more robust than most players that I think this'll result in loads of sec getting killed for doing valid arrests

All they have to do is stop and state like “yo your prints were on bridge” or anything and then they can’t be retaliated against lethally. It doesn’t seem like a big ask.

It’s sort of failRP for an officer to just randomly tackle someone down and cuff them AND expect the admins to protect them in doing that IMO.

That's enough time for a tider with a stunprod to stunlock you. I think stun > handcuff > then ask questions now that you're safe seems reasonable.

As I say maybe this will be okay, but I doubt it

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:56 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:17 pm
Bro, this isn't fucking Bay, alright? I'm not saying you have to have a long, drawn-out conversation about something. I'm saying you can do the bare minimum of telling someone you're arresting them before doing it.

If someone beats your skull in because you didn't tell them you were taking them in, I'm not helping you.

And I'm saying this rule only protects the people who flee everytime you try to talk to them, then claim you never told them why they were being arrested.

I literally always tell people they are wanted before I arrest. But there is a notable group of players who use your type bubble as an excuse to flee.

Even before this ruling I have taken to pointing at arrestees, then chatting out why I am arresting them after they fled the room cos they say you never told them why they were being arrested, omitting the fact they never gave you a chance.

Just say "Hey, stop!" Or something when they run. That makes it clear you're trying to communicate and they're bailing on you.

Vekter wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:17 am

chocolate_bickie wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 11:56 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 6:17 pm
Bro, this isn't fucking Bay, alright? I'm not saying you have to have a long, drawn-out conversation about something. I'm saying you can do the bare minimum of telling someone you're arresting them before doing it.

If someone beats your skull in because you didn't tell them you were taking them in, I'm not helping you.

And I'm saying this rule only protects the people who flee everytime you try to talk to them, then claim you never told them why they were being arrested.

I literally always tell people they are wanted before I arrest. But there is a notable group of players who use your type bubble as an excuse to flee.

Even before this ruling I have taken to pointing at arrestees, then chatting out why I am arresting them after they fled the room cos they say you never told them why they were being arrested, omitting the fact they never gave you a chance.

Just say "Hey, stop!" Or something when they run. That makes it clear you're trying to communicate and they're bailing on you.

The time it takes to type "Hey stop!" is probably longer than it would take a tider to get out of your view

why are people so against manhunts that any time any security gameplay loops get brought up the very first counter argument is "what if they run away????"

manhunts are 99% of the time more interesting than whatever the hell you were going to do instead. there are countless ways to find the guy you are looking for. security tools are great for catching the guy running away. finding the perp is never hard even with a disguise, as it will always just be the next guy with a gasmask and no ID you see in the hall.

set a trap or do a sting operation or something. stop being boring with how you arrest people.

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:09 am All they have to do is stop and state like "yo your prints were on bridge" or anything and then they can't be retaliated against lethally. It doesn't seem like a big ask.

It's sort of failRP for an officer to just randomly tackle someone down and cuff them AND expect the admins to protect them in doing that IMO.

That does remind me of a good interaction I had with security a short while back. I had a shift where I found a stun baton lying on the ground. Around 30 seconds later, someone comes running up to me, yelling it was theirs. I hand it over to them, and they run off. Around ten minutes later, an officer walks into the cargo bay and tells me that my prints were found in relation to a crime. They ask me to come down to the brig with them and I accepted. They cuffed me and brought me to the brig, searched my satchel, asked a few questions, then sent me on my way when it was clear I had no involvement outside of holding the baton for a moment.

I do realize that LRP and Terry, in particular, are completely different beasts, though. I do not have enough hours on Sybil to say how well that would go there (I presume not great)

Basically, similar to how one really shouldn't bust out a bone saw or a knife in response to being shoved, security should (ideally) have a sort of escalation with arrest. If someone is known to be carrying around a revolver and they're wanted for mag dumping someone, then yeah, you should probably be ready to use maximum force just short of shooting them right in the face (unless command has signed off on such an action). If it's just a petty crime, then treat it as such.

I understand I'm basically just armchair policy discussing though. As I basically only play Cargo Tech.

BeeSting12 wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 9:41 pm Goes both ways though. What's his reason in a roleplay sense for smashing the windows? What's Joe Schmo's reason for shoving every sec officer. From a roleplay perspective, it doesn't make much sense to shove the corporate security.

Fair point, I didn't have a good RP reason. The only thing I really had was a feud with HR as I screamed "DOWN WITH THE MAN" after some heads of staff had been intruding into cargo, so yeah, it was admittedly just being a dickhead.

I do think that there's a difference between extremely minor and petty vandalism, and griefing, though. I picture griefing more like throwing a firebomb to torch someone's workplace or spacing the room. Something that causes shitloads of damage and completely fucks their job up almost irreversibly. Like, busting into botany and smashing all their hydroponics for no reason would be griefing, in my opinion. If something can be fixed in ten seconds, then it's probably not griefing.
Insert Tyrion Lannister "Nothing someone says before the word "but" really counts" here.

I see IC conflicts all the time that start off because someone was just being annoying or whatnot. My previously mentioned story about security having a feud with medical was entirely spurred by IC conflict created by some people being dicks to each other ICly. In particular, the HOS that shift was a Manuel regular that is somewhat notorious for starting feuds ranging from a few guys to, in that instance, entire departments, due to the fact that their behavior tends to agitate some.
(also because some people 100% metagrudge them, unfortunately)

I didn't think a throwaway story would have this much discussion. My bad.

blackdav123 wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 1:30 am why are people so against manhunts that any time any security gameplay loops get brought up the very first counter argument is "what if they run away????"

manhunts are 99% of the time more interesting than whatever the hell you were going to do instead. there are countless ways to find the guy you are looking for. security tools are great for catching the guy running away. finding the perp is never hard even with a disguise, as it will always just be the next guy with a gasmask and no ID you see in the hall.

set a trap or do a sting operation or something. stop being boring with how you arrest people.

There's a tendency for certain players to view that if you're not 100% doing the meta at every waking instance, then you're doing the job wrong. I think it tends to be the most noticeable in security and antagonist mains.* For instance, almost every round there's a nightmare the security checkpoint at arrivals gets broken into, and at the very least, the headset is stolen.

*yes, yes, I know you can't 'main' antagonist, but you basically can on Manuel. A fair portion of the people on Manuel seemingly don't have most, or any types, of antagonist enabled. I kind of wish we had statistics for that kind of thing.

Vekter wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2023 9:25 pm Baron posted a very good example of a bad Sec interaction. Here's an example of a good one on LRP:

(An officer sees an assistant breaking a window.)
Officer: "Stop that or I'm arresting you."
Assistant: "No."
Officer: *Arrests the assistant.*

That's it. That's a completely valid interaction. It's that simple.

Officer: "Not so fast! You stand before Gerrard, guardian of the treasure chest of the Mayan temple, and I will make sure to pr—hey!"
Assistant: *Shoves the officer.*
Detective: "Oh fuck this, I'm off!"
Officer: "Hey, what… What are you doing?! Hey, plea—he—"
Assistant: *Throws the officer into a pit of lava.*

This is 100% the sort of policy that needs to be tested out before launching

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:49 am Okay, so what? Why do you NEED to arrest the person who’s wanted for a minor crime (which this policy only applies to) in the most optimal possible way without giving them a chance to respond?

And how exactly does the policy protect them? You can STILL wordlessly arrest them. All it means is that they’re allowed to retaliate normally against you if you choose the wordless approach.

I'm not saying arrests have to be optimal. I'm saying you can't tell some players why they are being arrested cos they flee as soon as they see you.