/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

What is the appropriate response when security attacks you/abuses you/arrests you FNR for 20 minutes?

Adminhelping about cell times or false arrests is generally "IC issue," but retaliating violently will get you banned. If you retaliate non violently they'll "escalate" to murdering you or permabrigging you. They're allowed to break into anywhere they want, take what they want, etc. Nobody IC will care because everyone knows they can't be antagonists.

Is there an appropriate response other than rolling over and dying/letting the guy mess with your round?

And no this isn't just about that recent ban appeal, this has been something that's been bothering me for a while. We have a class of player who is more or less rules free yet it's bannable to retaliate or protect yourself.

Lumbermancer wrote:

imblyings wrote: some of our most notorious sec players played everything seemingly by the book and got banned for it in the end because it is abusable.

Name three of them.

you get one (1) for free from me(e) to make three and its cbd(ee)

rhymes just like

Atlanta-Ned wrote:

J_Madison wrote:Repukan, Tornadium, one other.

You should find better examples, because those suck.

Ah yes, the mighty mouse text sticking admin that expected me to have admin knowledge during a round where he marked me as a dick graces me with great judgement.

>tornadium
>sec by the book

Why is this thread continuing? Unless the admins choose to step in and handle incidents of abuse theres not much we can do

Its stupid but just go all 'non-aggression principle' on people who are hostile to sec fnr and put in policy that beside from IC interpesonal relationships, the crew (not metaplayers) have a working & generally peaceful collaboration with sec. Which then will escalate & hopefully iron out sec brutality because they Violate the NAP.

People like to carry stupid shit like stunprods & traitors should really be prepared with some sort of heat.

Atlanta-Ned wrote:

J_Madison wrote:Repukan, Tornadium, one other.

You should find better examples, because those suck.

they're the notably brutal ones that got bans relating to security.

None of them were banned from the server for being shitcurity. Shit sec players that got secbanned are common.
Moreso they were banned from the server for issues with admins instead of them being bad sec players.

But we're talking about getting banned for doing thing by the book and following Space Law. I do that, and every time I got bwoinked I came out on top because I know I'm Goodcurity.

Lumbermancer wrote:But we're talking about getting banned for doing thing by the book and following Space Law. I do that, and every time I got bwoinked I came out on top because I know I'm Goodcurity.

Last time i played det, i followed my policy to a point during a IC stressed round (i dont arrest people, i snoop around & take orders from warden/HOS) & got berated for not taking cuffs more than supposedly 'murdering' someone (which i defended my own case, but no admins actually presented evidence/witnesses who i noted like time logs which i can prove my admin note is falsely detailed & the issuing admin did not amend my note despite saying they would) same admin expects me to meta clone a IC unconfirmed criminal despite the admin knowing they are innocent and overrule the captain in bad taste & RP.

Now i have to break official det policy the admins set by taking cuffs & acting like a responsible officer under threat of further action now i have a admin note, because they disagree with their own standards or vary too much & aggressively chase these issue up.

Im a bit more ambigious on my sec reputation but i hear what you are saying lumbermancer.

The best detective I've ever seen (unfortunately I can't recall his name) was a guy who was patrolling with a camera and snapping photos of criminals and giving them to warden, without getting involved himself.

Lumbermancer wrote:The best detective I've ever seen (unfortunately I can't recall his name) was a guy who was patrolling with a camera and snapping photos of criminals and giving them to warden, without getting involved himself.

That's pretty good, but before it was patched out, you could monitor from the det office via the camera console & get concise picture shots of events as they were happening. To me the issue would be getting the camera stolen, but yeah thats what a det should be following up where relevant.

Investing in a news channel for uploading your photos also works additionally for a public P.I.

---

J_Madison wrote:None of them were banned from the server for being shitcurity. Shit sec players that got secbanned are common.
Moreso they were banned from the server for issues with admins instead of them being bad sec players.

This has been rattled around in a few points in this thread before. We could even say our admins are starting to travel in the direction of being notoriously disreputable because of conflicts, HG already has a bad rap but it might only be a matter of time before we have a huge fiasco in one form or another.

Can't comment on that. I've collected about two secnotes in all of 2016, none of which are bans.

Can't say I was following rules or being lenient. Playing as security is a standford prison experiment at it's finest, and I'm not well appreciated by a small number of people.

It's more of an issue of co-operating with an admin, being straightforward with your reasoning, and knowing your limits.

Dealing with it IC is more of an issue of whether you're wrong or not.
A lot of sec players have a short fuze and will quit playing sec if you try to step on them without looking at the argument properly. That's usually a hands off for all but the most experienced admins, unless they want to rule 0.

see;
Tornadium - apparently grudged by ausops. Difficult to work with guy but reasonable none the less. Banned by ausops over attitude issues.
Repukan/D&B - poor attitude to admins, defiant to admin requests (stop being so brutal to prisoners), banned for being defiant and being hard to work with.

There's only a few examples of players that literally played to make others' experiences worse, and none of them were banned for soley sec reasons.

In the current player climate sec either has to play hard and be shitcurity or play easy and get dunked. Neither option makes other people happy as you're either dragging their traitor ass to the execution room or pissing off deadchat by releasing the traitor that killed five people with a strip and ten minute sentence.

There isn't any solution to this. I try to be pretty good sec, but at the end of the day people wouldn't be happy even with the most transcendent sec team consisting of all the nicest, most robust people.

TheColdTurtle wrote:Sec is way too kill happy. So last night it was a Ling round, and gene ball made a FUCKING MEME VIRUS AGAIN GENE I SWEAR TO GOD, and disguised as mekhi and sprayed me with a virus ascan mekhi. So naturally I say over sec comms get mekhi right? Then I go to medbay and eventually fall into critical, and the Ling walks up to me and changes directly into me and starts to drag my body away. Mekhi the real one comes up and tries to help me and drag my body away, but sec then tried to stun him instead, leaving me to the ling. Mekhi eventually goes back to rnd and sec finds himself there and arrest and nearly kill him, while they don't even know why he was set to wanted.

I should of been a bit meaner and just set my flightsuit to boost and knocked every sec officer in the hallway into a wall :^)

>manlet weighing sub-40kg knocking people down

joggin' my noggin there

J_Madison wrote:Can't comment on that. I've collected about two secnotes in all of 2016, none of which are bans.

Can't say I was following rules or being lenient. Playing as security is a standford prison experiment at it's finest, and I'm not well appreciated by a small number of people.

It's more of an issue of co-operating with an admin, being straightforward with your reasoning, and knowing your limits.

Dealing with it IC is more of an issue of whether you're wrong or not.
A lot of sec players have a short fuze and will quit playing sec if you try to step on them without looking at the argument properly. That's usually a hands off for all but the most experienced admins, unless they want to rule 0.

see;
Tornadium - apparently grudged by ausops. Difficult to work with guy but reasonable none the less. Banned by ausops over attitude issues.
Repukan/D&B - poor attitude to admins, defiant to admin requests (stop being so brutal to prisoners), banned for being defiant and being hard to work with.

There's only a few examples of players that literally played to make others' experiences worse, and none of them were banned for soley sec reasons.

Funny, I don't recall ever playing to make the experiences of others worse. Unless you classify the purpose of security as making the experience worse for others.

My ban unfortunately had nothing to do with sec, That was shut down after the first round of bans when Scones lied in an attempt to ban/sec ban me because I "Ruined" his traitor round, thankfully he was deadmin'd. Unfortunately the whole thing started because (HBL's words not mine) I was simply too "good" at security and it was pissing people off enough to where it became an issue for the admins. By good I mean I had enough braincells to be able to spot suspicious behavior and I was robust enough to follow up on it. The round i mentioned earlier MSO had actually threatened to perma me because he thought I was metagaming, Obviously that wasn't the case because the four traitors I had detained that round were just blatantly obvious (Why else would you be returning to the security maint door 8+ times in a round).

The real issue however as you pointed out was attitude towards admins, It's a character flaw I don't pretend otherwise. Really if I'm spoken to like a piece of shit, Then I'm going to speak that way to you regardless of who you are. I don't like hypocrites and I'm pretty persistent. Not exactly the kind of person to lay down to someone on the internet on a power trip especially if it's over a grudge from another fucking game.

Funny thing is I didn't even toe the line 99.9% of the time. I can remember one incident where I was completely wrong (I mistakenly figured another player for a cultist due to lack of mechanics knowledge since the updates) and I owned up to that straight away. The rest of the bans that hit me were shitty and were overturned by the headmins because they agreed (Again in their own words, you can go look the threads up they still exist) that they bans were shitty.

The solution to the problem in question however is just simply to remove the security department. The current admin team isn't of a sufficient quality to fairly and correctly moderate security and it causes too many issues to really add much to the game. Sadly moderation relies on consistency and clear rules, when you had an admin team that is so disjointed that each one has their own particular interpretation and understanding of the rule then how the hell can you expect players to understand.

Really makes you go hmmmmm

Unfortunately Torn, that righteous attitude even if you're in the right was your downfall. It's regrettable this happened since I can't recall bad experiences playing with or against you. The same goes for Repukan.

Your attitude burnt bridges and made an uphill climb to get back on the server. You could probably still repair those bridges but they'll still have burn marks on them, and players and admins will remember the drama.

Easiest solution, remove sec like we removed secborgs

No way this can possibly backfire

Kor wrote:

I've seen you post this a few times, I don't exactly get the purpose of posting it repeatedly.

Yeah I kept persisting in calling out admin bullshit and hypocrisy because I knew it annoyed those admins involved that someone would dare question them. I don't really care about getting unbanned, it's a 2d byond game.

J_Madison wrote:Unfortunately Torn, that righteous attitude even if you're in the right was your downfall. It's regrettable this happened since I can't recall bad experiences playing with or against you. The same goes for Repukan.

Your attitude burnt bridges and made an uphill climb to get back on the server. You could probably still repair those bridges but they'll still have burn marks on them, and players and admins will remember the drama.

Well yeah I've acknowledged the first point, Sadly It's completely irreparable until the next admin team purge and reset.

If it comes down to

A. Playing on other servers

or

B. Sucking the dick of some preening teenager on a power trip by pretending that I feel remorse for daring to question them...

Well I'll just pick A rather than demean myself, I'm enjoying other servers and surprise surprise not a single administrative issue on any other server. It's not like my personality traits are anything new however considering I could name offhand 6-7 admins who speak to players the same way I do. It's just another case of double standards.

We're getting rather offtrack however.

I meant what I said, Security should be removed. At least until the standard of the administration team and the rules catch up. I'm noticing similar trends on other servers and they have a few effective ways of dealing with it. Most simply have hard set rules that are admittedly rather restrictive but it gets rid of the biggest problem this server has in my opinion.

Rules should never be down to individual admin interpretation. Clearly defined rules are required, Every admin needs to abide by those rules. Any line toeing gets shut down immediately.

Security should be removed.

This idea is so bad that I swear I lost 10 years of my life on seeing it.

Archie700 wrote:

Security should be removed.

This idea is so bad that I swear I lost 10 years of my life on seeing it.

Why?

The role of security as a centralized department is rather redundant outside of perhaps nuke ops. It doesn't add much to the round especially when there are next to no security in a lot of rounds.

Permabanned players writing essays about our policy despite the fact that even if it's changed it won't affect them is peak fucking policy forum.

captain sawrge wrote:Permabanned players writing essays about our policy despite the fact that even if it's changed it won't affect them is peak fucking policy forum.

Delayed flight, Trying to amuse myself.

I honestly do think removing security is a step in the right direction though.

Awiawi wrote:

captain sawrge wrote:Permabanned players writing essays about our policy despite the fact that even if it's changed it won't affect them is peak fucking policy forum.

Delayed flight, Trying to amuse myself.

I honestly do think removing security is a step in the right direction though.

It's not a step in the right direction. It's not even a step back.

It's a step directly into a bottomless pit.

Well, currently the people who actually have authority over the security department are the head of security and the captain. Neither of which has much incentive to keep shit security players in check however, so it requires the roleplayer actually handle sec in a way that an actual security force would act and not a valid hunting "gotta get that redtext" player would act.

Would it be possible to whitelist HoS or captain roles? it would be unpopular sure, but it would mean that the persons actually playing those two roles would be sure to be a player that does security the way the community wants security to be done. Probably the best bet would be whitelisting HoS, it has been done before on other servers with decent effect, and a station can survive without an HoS but often times struggles without a captain.

Dr_bee wrote:Well, currently the people who actually have authority over the security department are the head of security and the captain. Neither of which has much incentive to keep shit security players in check however, so it requires the roleplayer actually handle sec in a way that an actual security force would act and not a valid hunting "gotta get that redtext" player would act.

Would it be possible to whitelist HoS or captain roles? it would be unpopular sure, but it would mean that the persons actually playing those two roles would be sure to be a player that does security the way the community wants security to be done. Probably the best bet would be whitelisting HoS, it has been done before on other servers with decent effect, and a station can survive without an HoS but often times struggles without a captain.

It would simply encourage people to play security less.

No one wants to listen to someone on a power trip while playing a video game. There are reasons that HoS/Captains are mostly ignored.

The idea of whitelisting HoS while half the rounds there isn't even a HoS is laughable.

captain sawrge wrote:Permabanned players writing essays about our policy despite the fact that even if it's changed it won't affect them is peak fucking policy forum.

I'm not even close to being tornadium though?

Awiawi wrote: I meant what I said, Security should be removed.

>When you agree with torn on something but you want everyone to have guns to prevent violations of the NAP

oranges wrote:

Awiawi wrote: I meant what I said, Security should be removed.

>When you agree with torn on something but you want everyone to have guns to prevent violations of the NAP

People freely order guns from cargo anyway, some smuck will at some point go to extreme lengths to either emitter open, bash to death or steal a discarded sec ID just to open crates non-antag. I really hope that we dont have to enforce CM like roleplaying restrictions on what guns people have *acceptably* in jobs to stop hoarding.

Usually that person is the QM enacting thier NAP rights and sec won't really stop until somebody gets hurt or they get called out as shitters at the ends of the pendulum between laidbacksec & aggrosec.

Jump onto a High RP server that isn't military based, and guns are very rare & actually most deaths are accidents, enviromental based or robust hand to hand combat.

proud kaesong kosmonaut here, just putting in my two cents from my experiences in eve online and being a preening teenager here, line-toeing does have to be removed immediately to keep the game fun for all and you can see a perfect self-referencing example in this thread right now :^)

Players just need to ahelp more so it comes to the attention of admins and admins may need to check in a bit more in adminbus. Admins rely on player reports for the most part and while admins probably do their everliving best to have a "shit happens, it's a game stop being mad" attitude in players, players need to find a balance in being chill and also telling admins about problems when they face them. Admins also need to talk more about the bans they place in IRC. It's not because they can't make autonomous decisions but informing other admins of recent decisions in the only communication channel they are obliged to be in can only be helpful. Forming a collective knowledge base that's synced up as much as possible with experience on different situations will help admins deal with the unpredictable nature of the game and new situations that get thrown at them all the time. To do that, admins have to talk to each other a bit more.

imblyings wrote:
Players just need to ahelp more

IC issue, hey isn't this the player the got A-helped like 10 times this week? Naw we don't keep track of that IC issue.

Jembo wrote:

imblyings wrote:
Players just need to ahelp more

IC issue, hey isn't this the player the got A-helped like 10 times this week? Naw we don't keep track of that IC issue.

AKA - I dont dislike that player enough to act against them in a ahelp and call it out as IC "man up, its only a game" and then throw it to 1 loose opinionated & otherwise unconnected admin on IRC for that time period.

Jembo wrote:

imblyings wrote:
Players just need to ahelp more

IC issue, hey isn't this the player the got A-helped like 10 times this week? Naw we don't keep track of that IC issue.

This is an issue, I don't like it either. The decision to make 10min timers IC was made just after SoS reamed security and the pendulum was swinging back pretty hard. Keeping track of this via notes should be done, I agree.

My issues have been when I get the silent treatment and get thrown into a cell or perma without any investigation, rp or sentencing/trail.

This happens when Im the only damn criminal taking the attention of the 3 bored sec staff and when the greytiders are all being rounded up and the clown for good measure.

I think we should at least request some interaction once the player is confident the detainee is actually detained. Provide some back and forth is all I am really looking for.

Punishing sec officers is a waste of time, since almost every officer does it, and if you demote one he will just greytide the rest of the round

TheColdTurtle wrote:Punishing sec officers is a waste of time, since almost every officer does it, and if you demote one he will just greytide the rest of the round

Punishing sec officers ICly, yes this is often the case. If you are able to get someone to actively do something about sec officers being shitty. *cough* Never... *cough*

Jembo wrote:

TheColdTurtle wrote:Punishing sec officers is a waste of time, since almost every officer does it, and if you demote one he will just greytide the rest of the round

Punishing sec officers ICly, yes this is often the case. If you are able to get someone to actively do something about sec officers being shitty. *cough* Never... *cough*

It's very hard and time consuming to do something about it though, since it usually ends up with 2 people accusing each other of being shit and you as HoS or captain having to decide which one is right.

delaron wrote:My issues have been when I get the silent treatment and get thrown into a cell or perma without any investigation, rp or sentencing/trail.

This happens when Im the only damn criminal taking the attention of the 3 bored sec staff and when the greytiders are all being rounded up and the clown for good measure.

I think we should at least request some interaction once the player is confident the detainee is actually detained. Provide some back and forth is all I am really looking for.

To stop rehashing it, the only policy set out by admins that they can agree on universally is to promote this silent culture of just locking shitters up in the hopes they will log out. It sounds a lot like playing a admin dishing out bans in the hopes they will go away.

A good detective can RP a little freely, enjoy that little bit of space & then nail a criminal to get them transferred to perma with additional evidence, the lawyer on the other hand should only be chasing up IA's with the help of the detective and handle 'big crimes' which usually dont happen or the perp just gets shoved into perma or dismembered by a sword happy cap.

We can probably class our security setup as too 'small' to cater to a in-house lawyer who's sole purpose is to hold 'mock RP trials' as a 'event'

I've suggested before that we get rid of the lawyer and roll his "duties", such as they are, up with other servers' IAA agent, and our detective. One job that's supposed to be impartial, gathers evidence, watchdogs sec, and has access to fax centcomm(admins) when there's an issue that can't be handled through the HOS or Captain. It would require admins to work with them IC though. Send an overzealous HOS warnings, if he doesn't stop fire him. If the captain can't get his ID and fire him then send a centcomm SWAT team to arrest him. A couple of psuedo death squad agents from ghosts that are only allowed to arrest the person in question or anyone who interferes. I think this could offer a way for Admins to handle sec issues IC and not have to either bwoink people or just ignore it.

You could make this job never be antag, and give back the lower chance for Traitor/DA sec. If you think someone in Sec is a traitor go to the Detective/IAA and try to go over his head.

So often even HoS can't maintain authority over guards (not mentioning Warden who has authority in brig), what makes you think internal affairs would manage to do that? Over everyone else higher up too.

You would need admin IC intervention, like centcomm arrest teams to take down insane HOS/Caps, etc. I think it's possible to strike a balance between ignoring the problem and cracking down on Sec with OOC punishments like bans. It could encourage more IC handling of problems even if admins did have to get involved.

Sec officer is shit. HOS can't reign them in. Centcomm fires that officer. If the HOS fails to handle it then Centcomm sends a few officers from ghost roles to arrest the shitter and deal with them(jail, stripped of ID/gear, whatever is necessary). If the officer gets away and hides maybe some assistant bounty hunter could catch them for the Cencomm officers.

Maybe not though. Might be worth a shot.

Saegrimr wrote: This is the polar opposite to say, when SoS was around and sec wasn't allowed to do anything, so nobody played it, then the shittery started to rise.

As opposed to now where Basil can have 70 people on with 1 officer and no HoS or Warden? People not playing sec because of admins is just a myth that gets perpetuated. There might be a few people who had a bad runin with an admin while playing sec but generally those were just bad admins, not bad policy. People decide to play sec due to a huge number of factors, the occasional admin intervention was never a big issue. Some admins needed to dial it down a notch with security but this whole "Sec can murder anyone who even slightly inconveniences them" is far too wide a swing in the opposite direction.

I would even argue that sec has lost its excitement when the only people who you have to deal with are GAME-CERTIFIED ANTAGONISTS. The basic brig cells go empty for several rounds in a row because its far too easy to discern between minor grief and antagonistic behavior since admins made all the middle-ground tiding punishable by bans or immediate executions, sec doesn't even have to enforce minor laws since they know it will never escalate. When I played sec ~5 years ago I would constantly be putting people into cells for trying to hack into the brig, punching officers, disarming me and taking my baton, etc. - now I can't even remember the last time I did something besides let someone go after a search or immediately execute someone. Likewise when I'm an assistant either I never see the inside of the brig or I get my head caved in with a baton, I don't remember the last time I saw the inside of a regular brig cell. Our policy punishes anyone who engages in moderate harassment against security and also punishes security who use moderate punishments against crew. Why would any jaded security player bother with the struggle of putting someone in a cell when 9/10 times the admins will tolerate you killing that guy on the spot?

I always felt the answer was pretty intuitive. If sec endorses a Gestapo mentality absent any kind of adequate provocation or warning, then it absolutely justifies crewmembers who attack/kidnap security. Revolution shouldn't just be a mode, it's something that our escalation rules should absolutely permit. If you're an officer with Hitler and Eichmann as your HOS and Warden then you should either object, desert, or be prepared to accept the IC consequences for throwing in with their cause. Obviously this doesn't mean the HOS can just start lasering crew at roundstart, but we already give the HOS and security a ton of leeway in their escalation. If we don't like that solution then we need to start cracking down on sec grief because admins have been trained to be WAYYY too lenient on security murder to justify banning people who fight back.

I would even argue that sec has lost its excitement when the only people who you have to deal with are GAME-CERTIFIED ANTAGONISTS. The basic brig cells go empty for several rounds in a row because its far too easy to discern between minor grief and antagonistic behavior since admins made all the middle-ground tiding punishable by bans or immediate executions, sec doesn't even have to enforce minor laws since they know it will never escalate.

This is a long running slippery slope as more and more behaviour becomes "grey tide" but I obviously failed to halt that slide, so who knows how to do it.

If we don't like that solution then we need to start cracking down on sec grief because admins have been trained to be WAYYY too lenient on security murder to justify banning people who fight back.

Yeah basically. I don't know why this is an 8 page thread.

Oldman has a good point about sec and crew interactions with sec being way too much a game of extremes. When I play sec I didn't have a problem jailing an releasing a traitor I know is one above game, but hasn't done anything violent in game. Like if I see some guy run over a bar of soap and doesn't fall down I'm not going to arrest him even though above game I know he's got noslips and is a traitor. If I found a guy with an emag but no weapons and he hasn't hurt anyone I might just jail him for awhile for illegal tech and release him with a tracking/chem implant.

I've always tried to play sec as having the job of protecting people and keeping some sense of order(not a ton, it is low RP after all), and not playing to win at all costs. As sec I don't at all care about dunking an antag that's not hurting anyone. If I catch someone who's a traitor trying to steal something like blueprints, etc, I'd just take the thing, jail them for awhile, and hide the item somewhere secure. If they can come up with a heist to get the item back, more power to them. That's more interesting to see than throwing them in perma and having them ghost.

If the antag is trying to do something interesting and not just murderboning I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they can come up with. If you dunk a traitor who isn't murderboning all you're doing is ruining one person's fun. Until an antag starts removing people from the round(especialy if it's 4noraisin) you aren't contributing to anyone's fun by removing them from the round.

Forceful, cells are not used simply because it is so easy to break people out in many stations. You got metabuddies rushing to the brig to bust out their friend or drag them away when they get arrested. But like cmspano says, I, and probably most sec officers WANT to be fair and neutral. But from what I have seen there is no use for it, since if you let a guy go they will just come back with a murderboner. And like I said earlier you can't arrest greytiders/engineers who travel around with their friend because they drag them away or just disarm you and steal your shit.

Cells are shit because if you try to give someone a fair sentence their metabuddies or other tiders will break them out, or the AI will let them out because for some reason most AI players hate fucking security.

Even worse is that most players mentality is "maybe i can rush out after they don't have me in their grasp" rather than "well one minute ISN'T so bad." Later on they come to the forums to bitch and scream when they get cremated after sparking manhunts and tasing sec officers with prods.

Two People wrote:Metabuddies breaking their friends out of cells.

Adminhelp it.

>We had a case with clear metafriends being ahelped and nothing happening
>Fucking Rin got ahelped many times for this as it was clear as fucking pristine river water and no admins took action
>"oaml just ahelp it ez life ez game"
>or my favorite "IC issue"

now it's just turned into ban requests the thread