Security doesn't have chemistry with an assistant

[Dax Dupont]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=35337

Not really sure how you're supposed to verify it unless shit is broken still. Having a circular saw is at least some evidence he's been in medbay or maybe cargo.

[CPTANT]

I do wonder what the point of the precedent that brig times are IC is when it is going to be ignored every time because the admin feels it wasn't IC after all.

[kieth4]

sec arrest for minor crimes mfs when sec arrests for minor crimes:

I feel like this is just a singular example of why I would never want to force people to play in a certain way e.g viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35283&start=50

Every admin has their interpretation of how they view these situations. The seccie's only crime, in this case, was believing the wrong person potentially. In a deception game is this not to be expected? He got brigged for 5m which isn't the end of the world regardless.... feels like a very weird note to drop IMO and I think if the policy gets actually hit in (well it is in now right? so I guess it's more like going forward) we will see more situations like this

[Itseasytosee2me]

I think these actions were completely undeserving of a ban and justifiable within the rules.

That said, this should be denied because its a felinid security main.

[CPTANT]

I think these actions were completely undeserving of a ban and justifiable within the rules.

That said, this should be denied because its a felinid security main.

It's not a ban, it's a note. Which it also shouldn't be.

[Pepper]

The banning admin's response didn't even try to acknowledge that his ruling is in direct contradiction of established security policy. All sentences less than 10 minutes are an IC issue. Doc really said "This guy attacked me in chemistry with a saw", the officer stripped the guy and found a bloody saw. What more investigation do you need, especially for a short brig sentence like that?

Does the headmin team really think brigging someone for 5 minutes over having a weapon is an 'extrme and sadistic' thing?

[TheBibleMelts]

The banning admin's response didn't even try to acknowledge that his ruling is in direct contradiction of established security policy. All sentences less than 10 minutes are an IC issue.

are you talking about the security policy that starts with this?



ic issues stemming from what may be a break of rule 1 still warrant notes to establish what might be a players habit of breaking said 'don't be a dick' rule.

as i said in the appeal, they've had issues in the past with this manner of playstyle and want both them and future administrators looking into adminhelps to be aware that they should not be backsliding into old habits.

[saprasam]

shouldve just done this tbh

[Pepper]

The banning admin's response didn't even try to acknowledge that his ruling is in direct contradiction of established security policy. All sentences less than 10 minutes are an IC issue.

are you talking about the security policy that starts with this?

Brigging someone for 5 minutes is not being a dick, even if the arresting officer is wrongfully imprisoning you. Rule 10 applies here. Sometimes you just lose.

[Itseasytosee2me]

It may be true that Sun Catton is a dick and an unfun security officer both to play alongside and against.

However this is still a bad note, as their actions here are explicitly protected. If you wanted to note them for being a dick, you should have just noted them for being a dick.

[TheBibleMelts]

It may be true that Sun Catton is a dick and an unfun security officer both to play alongside and against.

However this is still a bad note, as their actions here are explicitly protected. If you wanted to note them for being a dick, you should have just noted them for being a dick.

i did though.

[Timonk]

I'm gonna try this in one of my rounds

[8bot]

always good to see a redshirt getting punished for their misdeeds

[EmpressMaia]

shouldve just done this tbh

i was the person that brigged that mime i remember this

[Capsandi]

This ban(note) is terrible. I hate that the safe thing for officers to do is to catch and release anyone who isn't vaild and even if "the player in question is actually shitsec routinely trust me bros"(I wouldn't know cuz idk stunbaton's playstyle) I still don't like that the only recent administrative action concerning this is to note for a 5 minute sentence.

Also quoting the only other post in the thread in its entirety when there is no question as to who you are replying to is madness.

[Constellado]

Is this MRP or LRP? I know some people used to (maybe still do? I don't know, might be better now.) complain about security that does not talk to people who is in cuffs in manuel. I have seen people get arrested, they ask why they were arested and get 0 response from the warden. Its atrocious really. This case its a bit different though. The player that got noted did actually talk to the player. Mind you, they were in a cell at this point, and they did not confirm the crimes or ask questions, which i guess could count as a borderline issue for MRP?

Thing is, In my opinion it's NOT a dick move to put a player in the brig for 5 minutes after said player was dragged in by another player saying: "they broke into chem and attacked me with a saw". Yeah, fine, he did not ask questions which is annoying, but in my opinion it is not worth a note. Especially since he did talk to the player atleast (I also do not think saying "Assistantism is a SEVERE crime" as a rule 1 breaking sentence...) If its MRP, maaybe it could be a verbal warning saying to investigate more, but I do think its too much for a note, especially if its the first time they brigged a person without asking questions.

If this is on LRP this is just a shitty note and should not exist.

[britgrenadier1]

is having a bloody (or not bloody) circ saw on you really not enough probable cause to believe someone has broken in to medical? Seriously? What was the seccie meant to do? Brig the guy and then take a trip to medical to verify? Bring them both into the interrogation room?

[8bot]

is having a bloody (or not bloody) circ saw on you really not enough probable cause to believe someone has broken in to medical? Seriously? What was the seccie meant to do? Brig the guy and then take a trip to medical to verify? Bring them both into the interrogation room?

brig em for like 2 minutes (still cringe) but following space law sentences additively is truly wretched.

[GPeckman]

It may be true that Sun Catton is a dick and an unfun security officer both to play alongside and against.

However this is still a bad note, as their actions here are explicitly protected. If you wanted to note them for being a dick, you should have just noted them for being a dick.

i did though.

Nothing in the note actually does say that though. I'll break it down piece by piece:

Warned about serving punishments harsher than warranted for with the information they were given in the round.

Nothing about being a dick here, just the punishment apparently being too harsh for the evidence available.

In this instance, 30 seconds into their shift as security, had a lockered assistant dropped off in front of the brig with a statement from the locker-dragger that they'd tried to break into chemistry and attack them.

Just establishing facts here.

They accepted this as absolute fact and the assistant spent around 7-8 minutes in the brig, in addition to having several of their items taken.

Again, nothing here about the sec player acting like a dick. The emphasis is on the time the assistant spent in the brig. The items being taken thing is too vague to really draw conclusions from; it could just as easily be confiscated contraband.

Warranted or not, you should put some minimal effort into verifying something like this before, in your own words, giving someone the 'shitsec' routine.

This section implies that the issue is a lack of due diligence. Whether or not due diligence was done, it has nothing to do with being a dick

Claimed possession of a circular saw was the information they needed to confirm the locker-draggers claims of a crime, citing it as contraband.

More establishing facts.

In conclusion, nothing in the note is about being a dick, all of it is about the sec player being too harsh and/or not gathering enough evidence.

Regarding the harshness, the rules say that brig sentences under 10 minutes are an IC issue. Full stop. Regarding the evidence thing, here is my understanding of the situation. The chemist accuses the assistant of attacking them with a saw. The sec player detains and searches the assistant, and finds a bloody saw. That seems like plenty of evidence to me. If you disagree, then I'm curious to know what you would have done instead. Is there some other piece of evidence that the sec player should have found? Or would you have just told the chemist "not enough evidence, too bad" and let the assistant go?

[TheBibleMelts]

It may be true that Sun Catton is a dick and an unfun security officer both to play alongside and against.

However this is still a bad note, as their actions here are explicitly protected. If you wanted to note them for being a dick, you should have just noted them for being a dick.

i did though.

Nothing in the note actually does say that though. I'll break it down piece by piece:

Warned about serving punishments harsher than warranted for with the information they were given in the round.

Nothing about being a dick here, just the punishment apparently being too harsh for the evidence available.

In this instance, 30 seconds into their shift as security, had a lockered assistant dropped off in front of the brig with a statement from the locker-dragger that they'd tried to break into chemistry and attack them.

Just establishing facts here.

They accepted this as absolute fact and the assistant spent around 7-8 minutes in the brig, in addition to having several of their items taken.

Again, nothing here about the sec player acting like a dick. The emphasis is on the time the assistant spent in the brig. The items being taken thing is too vague to really draw conclusions from; it could just as easily be confiscated contraband.

Warranted or not, you should put some minimal effort into verifying something like this before, in your own words, giving someone the 'shitsec' routine.

This section implies that the issue is a lack of due diligence. Whether or not due diligence was done, it has nothing to do with being a dick

Claimed possession of a circular saw was the information they needed to confirm the locker-draggers claims of a crime, citing it as contraband.

More establishing facts.

In conclusion, nothing in the note is about being a dick, all of it is about the sec player being too harsh and/or not gathering enough evidence.

Regarding the harshness, the rules say that brig sentences under 10 minutes are an IC issue. Full stop. Regarding the evidence thing, here is my understanding of the situation. The chemist accuses the assistant of attacking them with a saw. The sec player detains and searches the assistant, and finds a bloody saw. That seems like plenty of evidence to me. If you disagree, then I'm curious to know what you would have done instead. Is there some other piece of evidence that the sec player should have found? Or would you have just told the chemist "not enough evidence, too bad" and let the assistant go?

just calling someone a dick in a note doesn't help anybody. i laid down the actions that I thought were boundary toeing in the note, and said why I thought that to be the case. they had a player dragged to them lockered up, with two stories presented. they asked no questions, assaulted the player, and then used more dialogue to taunt them than to clarify a confusing situation that they encountered 30 seconds into their shift. i don't think it was warranted to go the extra mile to aggravate the tider without first putting any effort into questioning the situation.

[Kendrickorium]

>30 seconds into their shift as security, had a lockered assistant dropped off in front of the brig with a statement from the locker-dragger that they'd tried to break into chemistry and attack them. They accepted this as absolute fact and the assistant spent around 7-8 minutes in the brig, in addition to having several of their items taken.

stopped reading, very based sun

this ban/note reeks of something i'd see on hippy
PROTIP FOR ADMINS AND PERHAPS SOME HEADMINS IF A SHITTER AHELPS AND IS OBVIOUSLY A SHITTER YOU CLOSE THE AHELP WITH THE BIG OL "IC ISSUE" STAMPED AT THE BOTTOM

[Stabbystab]

What kind of bullshit note is this, this guy got off easy for attacking a doc and only got a 5 minute brig sentence. Tbm please for the love of all that is holy remove this note.

[Itseasytosee2me]

It may be true that Sun Catton is a dick and an unfun security officer both to play alongside and against.

However this is still a bad note, as their actions here are explicitly protected. If you wanted to note them for being a dick, you should have just noted them for being a dick.

i did though.

You didn't note them for a dickish playstyle. You noted them for an incident in which they didn't break any rules.

[AlamoTurtle]

I'll pitch in and also say "euch". It's a bad note, namely for the part where Wolfmoy mentioned it's inactionable for under 10 minutes, let alone 5, and as this isn't exactly being a dick to an assistant who was already being problematic, this note has no solid basis to stand on. If security has to start considering whether other players imprisoned someone in a locker 6 minutes prior to arrest and to tell the doctor "well you already brigged him for that long so let him go", there'd be a lot of brigs being revolted against. I'd rather we not punish officers for doing what they have with limited in-game information as per the purpose of a deception game, especially the unfortunate officers who latejoin without knowing what's going on, instead of people for causing conflict in medical or doctors trapping said conflict-starters in gbj lockers for minutes at a time.

[8bot]

choosing to play security is the same as choosing the "i wish to ruin the round for people, i wish to destroy all traces of fun" option (unlockable only if you get the secret code)
people thought the joker option was the clown but no it's being a redshirt

[kieth4]

It may be true that Sun Catton is a dick and an unfun security officer both to play alongside and against.

However this is still a bad note, as their actions here are explicitly protected. If you wanted to note them for being a dick, you should have just noted them for being a dick.

i did though.

Nothing in the note actually does say that though. I'll break it down piece by piece:

Warned about serving punishments harsher than warranted for with the information they were given in the round.

Nothing about being a dick here, just the punishment apparently being too harsh for the evidence available.

In this instance, 30 seconds into their shift as security, had a lockered assistant dropped off in front of the brig with a statement from the locker-dragger that they'd tried to break into chemistry and attack them.

Just establishing facts here.

They accepted this as absolute fact and the assistant spent around 7-8 minutes in the brig, in addition to having several of their items taken.

Again, nothing here about the sec player acting like a dick. The emphasis is on the time the assistant spent in the brig. The items being taken thing is too vague to really draw conclusions from; it could just as easily be confiscated contraband.

Warranted or not, you should put some minimal effort into verifying something like this before, in your own words, giving someone the 'shitsec' routine.

This section implies that the issue is a lack of due diligence. Whether or not due diligence was done, it has nothing to do with being a dick

Claimed possession of a circular saw was the information they needed to confirm the locker-draggers claims of a crime, citing it as contraband.

More establishing facts.

In conclusion, nothing in the note is about being a dick, all of it is about the sec player being too harsh and/or not gathering enough evidence.

Regarding the harshness, the rules say that brig sentences under 10 minutes are an IC issue. Full stop. Regarding the evidence thing, here is my understanding of the situation. The chemist accuses the assistant of attacking them with a saw. The sec player detains and searches the assistant, and finds a bloody saw. That seems like plenty of evidence to me. If you disagree, then I'm curious to know what you would have done instead. Is there some other piece of evidence that the sec player should have found? Or would you have just told the chemist "not enough evidence, too bad" and let the assistant go?

just calling someone a dick in a note doesn't help anybody. i laid down the actions that I thought were boundary toeing in the note, and said why I thought that to be the case. they had a player dragged to them lockered up, with two stories presented. they asked no questions, assaulted the player, and then used more dialogue to taunt them than to clarify a confusing situation that they encountered 30 seconds into their shift. i don't think it was warranted to go the extra mile to aggravate the tider without first putting any effort into questioning the situation.

This feels like you're punishing someone for something that doesn't entirely matter.

The way that it comes off is that someone lost the social game (they believed someone else) and they're being noted for being wrong.

The investigation was also fine, what do you want security to do? If a guy says "I was attacked with a saw" and you check the attackers bag and he has a saw. That is the verification. You cannot prove who is right and wrong you can only pick a side, to reiterate, it feels like he picked the wrong side and is punished for this. 5m is might be a bit of the high end (still ic) but the guy was being weird so I fully understand why the guy went with 5m in brig.

Role-playing as an asshole also isn't entirely against the rules and I don't think the line was crossed here really

[GPeckman]

just calling someone a dick in a note doesn't help anybody.

You don't have to outright call them a dick. Just put something like "This is a rule 1 ban for xyz" in the note and suddenly there's much less confusion.

i laid down the actions that I thought were boundary toeing in the note, and said why I thought that to be the case. they had a player dragged to them lockered up, with two stories presented. they asked no questions,

The chemist accused the assistant player of attacking them with a saw, the sec player found a bloody saw in the assistant's backpack, and the assistant didn't even deny attacking the chemist, they just claimed that it was alright because the chemist supposedly took their money.

assaulted the player,

If one hit with the circular saw is really that bad then put it in the note. Right now, it feels like you're doing the exact same thing you accused the sec player of doing:

nowhere in this do i see you IC'ly bring up contraband, and i suspect you only raised that point retroactively during the adminhelp to try and convince me you weren't being a dick

It looks like you're retroactively trying to find things to justify the note that should've been included in the note in the first place if they were really that important.

and then used more dialogue to taunt them than to clarify a confusing situation that they encountered 30 seconds into their shift. i don't think it was warranted to go the extra mile to aggravate the tider without first putting any effort into questioning the situation.

The assistant immediately ran away instead of cooperating and then proceeded to mald about the chemist player in a way that seriously blurred the line between OOC and IC. That seems like plenty of reason to take of the kid gloves to me.

[dendydoom]

i haven't looked into this one at all (no idea what round it even is) so i don't feel comfortable commenting on whether it's valid or not but my true concern is for how sec players will see this and parse this ruling. sec being punished for believing someone's story and brigging someone for a sentence squarely still within the "good faith" zone has weird optics for people who are unsure of how to approach sec and how they should wield their authority.

like some others have said i would be interested to know what the "good ending" of this sort of situation would look like - what was the player doing that pushed it from "acceptable" to "note because we don't want to see this behaviour"? how much of a dick does someone have to be before sec are allowed to deviate from standard operating procedure and perform some experimental police work on a detainee? are these 2 things related? that is, if the detainee really did act like a shitheel and the sec officer found clear evidence of it through a perfect investigation, would they then be entitled to fuck around with a prisoner? or is this generally a thing we don't like with sec now?

these are not all questions for tbm, just general thoughts and feelings after dipping my toes into this.

[CPTANT]

We have reached the point where security doing their job is considered being a dick.

This isn't a court of law, sec has to make decissions with the information they have. And yes if you have contraband, don't deny the charges, resist the arrest and tell people to die then people are more inclined to judge against you.

Also abusing rule 1 to overrule something that has clear precedent is extremely poor form.

Shit note. 0/10.

[conrad]

*looks

YOU'RE SUPPOSED

TO PUT NUT

IN THE TITLE

WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM

[Bepis]

secnut doesn't have chemnut with an assnut

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Im a little unsure what the actual specific reason for this note is. The note itself says one thing (none of which is against standard operating procedures and some of which is kinda inaccurate), the admin says another in the peanut, and a third thing in the actual appeal response.

What *is* the rule 1 being a dick issue that is apparently the note reason despite not being in the note reason?

[Hans]

Does TBM hate security players?

[CPTANT]

choosing to play security is the same as choosing the "i wish to ruin the round for people, i wish to destroy all traces of fun" option (unlockable only if you get the secret code)
people thought the joker option was the clown but no it's being a redshirt

You have to be 18 to play on this sever.

[AsbestosSniffer]

Bad note for reasons already described above.

[conrad]

secnut doesn't have chemnut with an assnut

THANK YOU

[BonChoi]

So sad that I got to this peanut after the note was removed but as a person who plays sec fairly often I hate this so much, so glad that me getting bwoinked for not opening a full fledged investigation on every shitter that gets dragged to the brig will be on my mind now.

[dirk_mcblade]

Bad note. Sec officers don't have an ooc requirement to be fair if the punishments are less than 10 minutes and the nerve of rule 1ing one for brigging an assistant is amazing.

[DaydreamIQ]

Just another prime example of why we should outright ban greyshits for making everyone around them miserable

[dirk_mcblade]

"you didn't give due process to an assistant" - an actual headmin

[Timonk]

i found a better peanut name:
HES PULLING HIS CLOCK OUT

[Rageguy505]

Space station 13 is a game built on misinformation

[chocolate_bickie]

I think these actions were completely undeserving of a ban and justifiable within the rules.

That said, this should be denied because its a felinid security main.

Oof, thanks for pointing that out.

I was siding with the appeal but now I don't think it was harsh enough.

[MrStonedOne]

[2023-11-21 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "Go do your job rete" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "give me my money back too" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "this guy broke into chem and attacked me with a saw" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "YOU STOLE MY CASH" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "good GOD dude" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "i have a normal amount of credits" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (123,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "I just want my fucking money back." (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,128,5))

Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.

[GPeckman]

Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.

I mean, even if we ignore the fact the assistant tried to run instead of cooperating, there's still an issue. There is no rule requiring security officers to investigate every single alleged minor crime.

[Kendrickorium]

[2023-11-21 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "Go do your job rete" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "give me my money back too" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "this guy broke into chem and attacked me with a saw" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "YOU STOLE MY CASH" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "good GOD dude" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "i have a normal amount of credits" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (123,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "I just want my fucking money back." (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,128,5))

Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.

i'm assuming the guy was acting like a fucking asshole, got layed out on the floor by acco for it, then had his money stolen

also what a great thanksgiving thread where we can all come together in our opinions for once

[Redrover1760]

Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.

I mean, even if we ignore the fact the assistant tried to run instead of cooperating, there's still an issue. There is no rule requiring security officers to investigate every single alleged minor crime.

Well actualllyy

Yeah, there is. Its the new fucking policy made by the headmins literally no one likes and that needs to be revisited and removed as soon as possible.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35283

[kieth4]

[2023-11-21 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: 02:36:25.881] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "Go do your job rete" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: 02:36:32.939] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "give me my money back too" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: 02:36:33.411] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "this guy broke into chem and attacked me with a saw" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: 02:36:37.500] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "YOU STOLE MY CASH" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: 02:36:46.759] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "good GOD dude" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (125,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: 02:36:47.954] GAME-SAY: Tjatpbnj/(Acco) "i have a normal amount of credits" (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (123,127,5))
[2023-11-21 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: 02:36:53.407] GAME-SAY: Pepperoni Playboy/(Turbo Junior) "I just want my fucking money back." (Fourth Floor Aft Hallway (124,128,5))

Did the security officer even attempt to ask about this thou?

Security officers should not be assuming the assistant is in the wrong because they are an assistant, that is meta and ooc. TBM was right here and you all are just ignoring the context that is inconvenient to your reeee'ing.

it sounds like both could have needed to be brigged. one for simple theft and the other for trying to murder death kill over simple theft.

What makes this an ooc issue, it's ic. Homie complains about an assistant seccie looks at it, seems sus, puts him away within a fine ic time limit. (Under 10m punishments are ic)

I don't really think it needed admin evolvement imo

He believed the chemist over the assistant like how in society you'd believe a person with a job over some hobo. I wouldn't entirely say it's an ooc belief but an ic one that has developed over time due to the nature of the station.

You put more credence to some jobs over others and that's fine because it's rp and society

[GPeckman]

Well actualllyy

Yeah, there is. Its the new fucking policy made by the headmins literally no one likes and that needs to be revisited and removed as soon as possible.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35283

That is a proposal thread, its not policy yet and hopefully the headmins won't implement it.

[Redrover1760]

Well actualllyy

Yeah, there is. Its the new fucking policy made by the headmins literally no one likes and that needs to be revisited and removed as soon as possible.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35283

That is a proposal thread, its not policy yet and hopefully the headmins won't implement it.

Incorrect. Scroll partway through. It is policy.

This is being addressed with the updated Rule 5 rework we're taking a crack at. Sec should generally be following rule 1, not allowing tiders/antags to get away with whatever unless there's some kind of roleplay, and doing their job to some extent. If you don't want to handle crimes, don't play security. Reasons for a secoff to not do their job if it benefits the round quality can be handled under rule 0 (letting an antag go 'by mistake' to keep the round interesting, accepting a bribe to be elsewhere when someone is hacking into tech storage, etc.)

Admins should not be banning secoffs for "not doing enough" if they're at least trying or have a roleplay reason for not handling something. This could be more of an issue in the case of "Hey admins I called for a nearby officer to help me and they watched a tider beat me to death."

Cheshify - Wrote it
TBM - Sounds Good
Fikou - Approved