Sec Policy wrote:If an arrest is not obviously valid, it follows standard escalation [...] Non-antag players may lose any OOC and IC protections if they choose this path and should consider ahelping if they believe they did nothing to warrant being arrested.
These two statements seem to conflict. If an invalid arrest follows standard escalation, then non-antags would be able to loot some of the officer's items. If a random player tries to stamcrit you with a baton, standard escalation would allow you to cuff them, take their baton and disabler, and then escape. But this is not allowed against officers, so it must not be standard escalation. If officers have metaprotections that afford them these special protections, then that makes perfect sense, but this would be an exception to normal escalation.Sec Policy wrote:In resisting arrest, non-antags should not loot officers and should not detain or incapacitate officers any longer than is necessary to escape or explain themselves.
To make this more concrete I'll use an example that is incredibly common as security:
Suppose you get a report or have reason to believe a non-antagonist (although their status as such isn't known to you) has committed a capital crime, and opt to arrest and search them. Suppose also you, despite due diligence, are operating on misinformation, so the arrest is invalid. You walk up to them and explain that they are under arrest for [invalid reason here]. They deny the accusations, as anyone would, and refuse a search, as they committed no crime to be searched for. You choose to pursue them. As is their right, the nonantagonist resists nonharmfully, and restrains you. They explain to you, restrained, that you are mistaken, and escape.
The officer has no reason to believe they are telling the truth, although it would be prudent to assume they are nonharmful since they didn't kill him, he still has reason to believe they committed a serious crime that he wanted to arrest them for earlier. After several more failed attempts to restrain them nonlethally, the officer decides to use lethals. They cuffed him, after all. What's more is they have "lost their OOC and IC protections by choosing the path of escalation instead of ahelping." Does this mean the officer can now lethal them, based on misinformation, and the non-antag isn't allowed to do anything more than to run away?
Suppose the officer is more cool-headed and opts instead to forgo lethals. Inevitably, he catches them, with the help of the rest of the security team, who heard the officer's cries for help while cuffed. The non-antag is then perma'd by the security team.
My question is basically this: how would this be handled administratively? If you spark a 20 minute chase over a crime you were suspected of, slipping and restraining officers all the while, it doesn't seem you'd be given much sympathy in an ahelp for being perma'd, and this is implied in the new escalation rules. But then what are your options here as a nonantagonist being pursued over misinformation, other than to ahelp and have admins artificially inform security you're innocent? This seems like a very bad solution and ruins the conflict and misinformation that's part of the game.