Admin enforced requirement for Captain's Execution permissio

[Malkevin]

Bottom post of the previous page:

I think we all agreed this is a silly rule forced in by SoS that no one liked and admins rarely enforced anyway.

So can we make it again that if the HoS, or even the warden/sec-officer, legitimately* executes someone without higher up permission its nothing beyond an IC issue?


That is the execution needs to be legitimate under space law, executing for minor crimes should obviously still be an OOC issue, though allowable if the person is repeatedly being a turd.

[Falamazeer]

As it's being enforced isn't working, RDGHT91 nearly got another note and ban for delivering righteous justice to a motherfucker of a janitor who randomly walked up and shot em with a tranq dart, Justice was found in the end but without the HoS permission a vicious baiter would have happily got his way, and THE VICTIM OF A RANDOM DART would have been banned for retaliating appropriately.

Keep it a rule, but make it context specific, Outright exposed antags, massive repeat shitlers, random griefers, and the normal expempt people (Ops wiz, ling, shadowling, evil hulk, anyone you cannot safely disable for arrest) should not require captain/HoS permissions.

[rdght91]

Why keep the rule though? You shouldn't be killing anyone unless they fall into those categories anyway (also, ERPers.)

[Saegrimr]

I don't think ERPers are valid in that way, I could be wrong though its not exactly clear at the moment and practically every admin except me are off doing something for the next week or so.

As for the ban recently overturned, it was only a ban in the first place because the HoS apparently had claimed he never gave authorization when he was asked about it, and his word was taken for it. I plan to talk to him about that too once I get a bunch of shit sorted out.

[Falamazeer]

Why keep the rule though? You shouldn't be killing anyone unless they fall into those categories anyway (also, ERPers.)

Keep the rule for every OTHER situation that isn't so cut and dried as the ones I stated. For the ones that you aren't sure about.
but make it context specific, if the officer had a damn good reason you shouldn't have to ban them anyways for side-stepping the chain of command and executing someone.

I don't think ERPers are valid in that way, I could be wrong though its not exactly clear at the moment and practically every admin except me are off doing something for the next week or so.

When it was implimented it was specifically said to be valid salad

As for the ban recently overturned, it was only a ban in the first place because the HoS apparently had claimed he never gave authorization when he was asked about it, and his word was taken for it. I plan to talk to him about that too once I get a bunch of shit sorted out.

I acknowledge that, my point is as I stated, without that permission, he'd have been shit outta luck, even though the guy was a complete twat, and any rule that rewards complete twats over good honest hardworking red SHITS with protections, needs another look.

[Saegrimr]

Without that permission, its a case of someone else caught the guy until the initially attacked person recovered, dragged him cuffed to a back room and beat him to death.

That's not really what i'd called the best escalation when it comes to sec officers, or even for non-sec. Not gonna say he wasn't being a cunt and didn't deserve it, but you know, standards and all.

[Falamazeer]

I'd call it par for the course for a sec force that isn't completely neutered by generations of grudge-policy scaring them.
Honestly, what did he expect? he drugged em, randomly. One of the best armed people on the station for the fuck of it.

He casually abused an officer and is surprised at the outcome. that doesn't sit well with me, does it you?

[Wyzack]

Yeah, morphine sucks, jani was a massive whinging cunt to the sec officer for no reason, and expected to get off scott free because of our history of harsh admin scrutiny on sec. I think it should have been fine permission or no

[Falamazeer]

I cannot speak out often enough about genuine shitcurity they are a godamn nightmare, but too often the increased scrutiny on security is just used to hammer the people who play the roll to the best of their ability in favor of protecting people who enjoy round after round stoking their ego by fucking with security in a misguided attempt to punish the wicked, or to tear through an understaffed undersupported department like wet tissue paper to prove their prowess.

rulings that dick an officer on a technicality in favor of protecting someone who by all rights has brought righteous fury upon themselves is damaging to the playability of the job, and as Kor and sticky have both in their own words determined that they intend to loosen the noose on security a bit, this is a damn good place to start.

[Saegrimr]

rulings that dick an officer on a technicality in favor of protecting someone who by all rights has brought righteous fury upon themselves is damaging to the playability of the job, and as Kor and sticky have both in their own words determined that they intend to loosen the noose on security a bit, this is a damn good place to start.

It would be nice to give sec more leeway, the downside to this is it might legitimize more greytide riots against sec going willy nilly with executions. We'll just have to burn that bridge later though.

[rdght91]

Without that permission, its a case of someone else caught the guy until the initially attacked person recovered, dragged him cuffed to a back room and beat him to death.

That's not really what i'd called the best escalation when it comes to sec officers, or even for non-sec. Not gonna say he wasn't being a cunt and didn't deserve it, but you know, standards and all.

I would have let him go with a tracker implant if he said something like, "Sorry, some other officer was a dick to me/I just wanted to see what would happen/Basically anything that indicated he wasn't some dickhead who like to go around injecting people with a chemical that knocks you for a loooong time.

But yeah, it also kinda feeds back into security policy and the low rules experience- if you don't fuck with people you can call on admin protection, but you get into conflicts willingly both sides can take the gloves off.

I also want to point out that attacking sec with incapacitating weapons is lethal force. Even real life police doctrine makes that clear, because an officer that gets tazed is wide open to getting killed or getting their weapons taken and used not only against themselves but others.

[Malkevin]

More grey tide riots are fine, so long as sec gets to laser the rioters.

Keep things IC

[rdght91]

More grey tide riots are fine, so long as sec gets to laser the rioters.

Keep things IC

That's the beauty of low rules. At least greytide riots are fun as long as you can defend yourself against them. It was only a really big problem because it happened every single round because there was no consequence for it and people who would table you while you were chasing after a traitor (a certain host player) would cry if they got perma'ed for helping the traitor.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

More grey tide riots are fine, so long as sec gets to laser the rioters.

Keep things IC

That's the beauty of low rules. At least greytide riots are fun as long as you can defend yourself against them. It was only a really big problem because it happened every single round because there was no consequence for it and people who would table you while you were chasing after a traitor (a certain host player) would cry if they got perma'ed for helping the traitor.

Security can already use lethal force on any group of people they can wrap the word "Riot" around, IIRC

[rdght91]

More grey tide riots are fine, so long as sec gets to laser the rioters.

Keep things IC

That's the beauty of low rules. At least greytide riots are fun as long as you can defend yourself against them. It was only a really big problem because it happened every single round because there was no consequence for it and people who would table you while you were chasing after a traitor (a certain host player) would cry if they got perma'ed for helping the traitor.

Security can already use lethal force on any group of people they can wrap the word "Riot" around, IIRC

That has lead to bans before though. I've got boinked for perma'ing and stripping a radio from someone who was screaming "RIOT RIOT RIOT" over comms when they got brigged for breaking a window or something.

[Saegrimr]

That has lead to bans before though. I've got boinked for perma'ing and stripping a radio from someone who was screaming "RIOT RIOT RIOT" over comms when they got brigged for breaking a window or something.

Weird, I was under the assumption that's supposed to be handled the exact opposite. Where you start bwoinking the dude screaming riot and generally being a shit fnr.

[CPTANT]

Captains should just show some balls more often and charge officers who kill people without their permission with murder and publicly execute them.

Problem solved.

[Cheimon]

Rioting's in space law though, and it's not a capital offence. It's not even in the 'major' category (though attempting to incite a riot is). The reason you can kill rioters is because when they're in a big group they stand a decent chance of killing you. It's not because of the crime, it's because of the context.

If you perma a one man riot inciter, you're definitely going against the spirit of space law, and arguably the letter of it too. Just bring him back in, give him five minutes more for 'inciting a riot', get rid of his headset, and if he starts making a bigger fuss (somehow breaking windows, or whatever) up the time until he calms down. It's just one guy.

[Malkevin]

Just so you know, when I wrote that inciting a riot law I fully intended that if you did parole them you would stick them with a tracker and a lethal chem implant.

Also note the difference between rioting and mutiny.
Rioting is encouraging others to commit crime.
Mutiny is encouraging others to take violence and overthrow the legitimate authority on station.

Guess which one encouraging people to attack the brig/security falls under.

Edit: All honesty though I wouldn't blame anyone for throwing a riot shouter straight into perma without giving parole first, because every single time I've done the parole route its always come back to bite me in the arse.

[Saegrimr]

Edit: All honesty though I wouldn't blame anyone for throwing a riot shouter straight into perma without giving parole first

That used to be in the rules, actually.
"If a person that is intentional fucking with security is yelling "rouge sec", or something similar, when the arrest is valid, he should be instantly permabrigged."

It's since been changed to
"If a person is intentionally fucking with security is yelling "rogue sec" or something similar, adminhelp it. This can be punished with a rule 1 violation ban."

[lumipharon]

encouraging people to resolve things OOC instead of IC is pretty dumb.

It seems much better to perma the shitter, then let the admins know about it, if they want to take further action/make notes/etc.

[Falamazeer]

Edit: All honesty though I wouldn't blame anyone for throwing a riot shouter straight into perma without giving parole first

That used to be in the rules, actually.
"If a person that is intentional fucking with security is yelling "rouge sec", or something similar, when the arrest is valid, he should be instantly permabrigged."

It's since been changed to
"If a person is intentionally fucking with security is yelling "rogue sec" or something similar, adminhelp it. This can be punished with a rule 1 violation ban."

It needs to go back to that then, because I've never seen this happen, and nobody can pretend it's uncommon for people to scream it and have no real consequence.

[Screemonster]

Edit: All honesty though I wouldn't blame anyone for throwing a riot shouter straight into perma without giving parole first

That used to be in the rules, actually.
"If a person that is intentional fucking with security is yelling "rouge sec", or something similar, when the arrest is valid, he should be instantly permabrigged."

It's since been changed to
"If a person is intentionally fucking with security is yelling "rogue sec" or something similar, adminhelp it. This can be punished with a rule 1 violation ban."

I still think it'd be hilarious if screaming lies about what sec are doing to you over the radio was an immediate greenlight for them to do those things.

I mean, probably a nightmare to administrate, but still hilarious.

[Malkevin]

You mean it's not already a green light?

[rdght91]

During the recent gang round, the non gang-members who got arrested in the chaos were by far the worst, screaming non-stop (one claimed I was murdering them because I shot them with a disabler when they ran) and then whining about shitcurity after they got implanted and released. I ahelped it and nothing happened, and we can't handle that IC without risking a ban.

[Falamazeer]

https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Secu ... Precedents
New rules, No mention of captain authorization being required for executions, and space law is still IC, and not enforced.

Does this mean the rule was dropped? and that officers will be answering to their superiors and not to 'le gods'

[Saegrimr]

Does this mean the rule was dropped? and that officers will be answering to their superiors and not to 'le gods'

5. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want, short of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals. Team antagonists can do whatever they want as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do whatever they want to antagonists as per lone antagonists, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

1. Rule 1 of the main rules apply to security. The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.
2. Rule 5 of the main rules also apply to security. Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 5, to antagonists.

There is a bit of a conflict here, but it sounds like antags are fair game to sec.

[Falamazeer]

Agreed, but coupled with act like an antag get treated like an antag seems like sec won't be getting dunked for man-handling griffons.

Pretty much in line with my notions of how it should go, Executions are A-okay, so long as you know most reasonable people would agree that the doucher brought it on themselves. while still preventing shitcurity from grabbing people from timed cells for an execution for the fuck of it, and other shit along that same vein.

edit: basically with being expected to detain non lethally etc etc, be prepared to defend your actions if you decide to redrum.

[Saegrimr]

Agreed, but coupled with act like an antag get treated like an antag seems like sec won't be getting dunked for man-handling griffons.

With the chat between sticky and aus in adminbus, this seems like the intent behind it.

[Stickymayhem]

If a griffon is griffin you can beat them to death on the spot basically.

Obviously they have to be pretty bad like mobbing you or keeping you incapacitated or stripping all your shit or running around like a shitter stealing tasers (Like me) to deserve it but yeah.

[Malkevin]

2.Rule 5 of the main rules also apply to security. Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 5, to antagonists.

...What?

[Akkryls]

2.Rule 5 of the main rules also apply to security. Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 5, to antagonists.

...What?

Sec aren't allowed to do whatever they want to an antag.
According to that, they are exempt from the "Antags are valid" rule.

So if the admins interpret it in that way, we're back to square one.

[Saegrimr]

2.Rule 5 of the main rules also apply to security. Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 5, to antagonists.

...What?

Sec aren't allowed to do whatever they want to an antag.
According to that, they are exempt from the "Antags are valid" rule.

So if the admins interpret it in that way, we're back to square one.

Rule 5 in short says [Antags are valid as fuck]

Therefore: [Antags are valid as fuck] also applies to security. Security are not exceptions to the rule where [antags are valid as fuck]

tl;dr: Antags are valid as fuck, but you're still expected to try and detain them instead of just unzip your harmbaton all over their face.

[Akkryls]

Bleh. I misread.
Apologies.

[imblyings]

Regarding the conflict noted by saeg,

You know how a conflict between say a clown and assistant will go from slipping and tabling, to disarms and pushes, then to lethals like fire extinguishers? Sec just has to use their tasers and batons, where reasonably possible, before they get to the lethal part.

Antagonists being valid as fuck are a necessity for security, because I've had gang bosses or traitors fresh from a double esword rampage ahelp about being executed. Which is a bit silly.