/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

This is actually something that came across my mind a while ago but I did not make a policy thread due to the fact that I did not care enough for it.

There are some fringe situations that exist where people being captured by security would most likely receive a death sentence since the crimes they committed would be warranting a death sentence.

Particularly, I remember a situation where I basically caused enough havoc on the situation for me to know that being caught by the security would have spelled me death. As such, I often found myself having to stun whatever officer was coming after me to prevent them from putting me a sentence that would spell my death.

Later on in this situation, I stunned a few officers and then I stunned another one for the third time and tied them to a chair while stripping them (I'd rather kill them, but I wanted to be nice and just slow them down). It was then at this time I was told by an admin (this was before I was an admin) to stop what I was doing even though I could have probably done a lot worse to them (But I was non-antag.)

Similar situations have been brought up to me by other people and I intended to make this thread awhile ago: so I ask you all

If a reasonable person can believe that their punishment would be death: What retaliation would they be allowed to have?

What retaliation is a normal person allowed to have if death is an unlikely punishment?
What if a person is about to be executed, but they get out of their cuffs. Is it an IC issue if they beat the warden to crit/death upon them coming back to the execution chamber, even if they are non-antag?

lol i remember the sunglasses thing. good times.

The price of taking sunglasses from the Armory.

Why would a scientist need them anyways.

Pascal125 wrote:The price of taking sunglasses from the Armory.

Don't tell me about it, it wasn't my idea. I've just asked a random assistant if he could get sunglasses for me, and that's where he went. I honestly expected him to choose to roam maint instead.

Pascal125 wrote:Why would a scientist need them anyways.

To not get blinded by almost every single slime core reaction.

Anyhow, the whole "you deserved it anyway" seems detrimental to the actual policy discussion. We're here to discuss on how much a player is allowed to retaliate, whether they deserve being hunted down for their initial offense or not.

The you deserve it part is an integral part of this discussion though. If it's unjust, then I believe the player should be able to fight back, and if it's just then the player should be limited in their fighting back.

Cobby wrote:Spacing a guy over sunglasses epic

>let officer off
>they try to perma you for taking fucking sunglasses

Most epic part of this whole policy is that it's valid escalation if the sec officer takes someone out of the round by permabrigging them over taking an item found in every single locker but if said person doesn't lay down and take it or spend their whole round dodging sec and anyone in cahoots with them it's a bannu.

captain sawrge wrote:Most epic part of this whole policy is that it's valid escalation if the sec officer takes someone out of the round by permabrigging them over taking an item found in every single locker but if said person doesn't lay down and take it or spend their whole round dodging sec and anyone in cahoots with them it's a bannu.

that part is dodgy because we don't know what the sec officer's perspective on the whole thing was. all he knows for sure is that they were in the armory and evaded arrest for it afterwords. i agree it's stupid but misinformation is a big part of the game and it's hard to tell what the sec officer believed without at least having his side of the story

captain sawrge wrote:Most epic part of this whole policy is that it's valid escalation if the sec officer takes someone out of the round by permabrigging them over taking an item found in every single locker but if said person doesn't lay down and take it or spend their whole round dodging sec and anyone in cahoots with them it's a bannu.

Except that that's not the crime. If the crime was "stealing sunglasses" and an officer hunted someone down with intent to kill for it, then yes the officer would be in the wrong. The crime in this scenario is clearly "breaking into the armory", which has always made you valid. Committing a crime that makes you valid and then murdering and spacing the officer who tries to get you for it is pretty bad behavior.

EagleWiz wrote:

captain sawrge wrote:Most epic part of this whole policy is that it's valid escalation if the sec officer takes someone out of the round by permabrigging them over taking an item found in every single locker but if said person doesn't lay down and take it or spend their whole round dodging sec and anyone in cahoots with them it's a bannu.

Except that that's not the crime. If the crime was "stealing sunglasses" and an officer hunted someone down with intent to kill for it, then yes the officer would be in the wrong. The crime in this scenario is clearly "breaking into the armory", which has always made you valid. Committing a crime that makes you valid and then murdering and spacing the officer who tries to get you for it is pretty bad behavior.

Slignerd wrote:I was once given sunglasses by an assistant who hacked into the armory just to get them for me.

They did not break into the armory.

Gather round ye lads and lasses and hear the tale of the heinous shades heist

dear god