/tg/Station 13

https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/syb ... ptions.txt True Random Searching should never be approved and you should feel bad if you invoke this (and I will bwoink you, ask you not to do it again, and note for it).

100% agree, most people who realise they exist dont even use it. The ones that do use it are cunts.

Yeah, it's kind of trashy though I rarely brushed against this issue when I was admin. Most the time if you private messaged a security officer to ask about a search or arrest they could provide a somewhat probable cause to justify their actions. The few times I actually acted against random searches were based on someone searching for bullshit meta reasons like previous round bullshit or early round searches on anyone who used the dorms just because the officer suspected they were spawning traitor gear. I probably would have accepted random searches on Red Alert if it ever actually came up in a ahelp but it never did. I get where you guys are coming from though and I don't mind the idea of explicitly stating random searches aren't allowed without some kind of in-game cause. Not that it's hard to think of a reason in a crisis.

I'd like to bring up something related but not strictly to do with alert levels: Is it fine for valid hunting assistants to randomly search (or "rob") people to look for traitors while security require actual in-game motivation to do so? Seemed to me one of the reasons you get so many valid hunting greys is exactly because they don't have the same restrictions security has.

I know that it says Heads of staff and sec can murder staff not complying on delta. But has this actually happened and been enforced?

Also one of my pet peeves. Security random searching or searching for little reason during blue is pretty shitty, and trying to point that out IC is met with silence. Noone cares, because its not enforced. I would like to see it enforced.

Define probable cause though. Seen with a weapon? Seen inside a department they dont belong in? Bloody shoes?
This is probably where the enforcement falls apart, unless we lay out very specific limits to what is and isnt probably cause.

Another thing, how thorough can the search be? Certain individuals will implant check via surgery to see if you got traitor implants in you.

I like your guys points, i'm gonna be looking out for this in the future. great thread

skoglol wrote:Define probable cause though. Seen with a weapon? Seen inside a department they dont belong in? Bloody shoes?

It's tricky to set definite boundaries on seeing as it's more of a cop/security roleplaying thing where you have to provide a logical reason to suspect someone before a search. The bar is typically low every time we talk about this, it's more important that security show some legitimate IC reason for their search based on events within the round. A report of someone committing a crime or having limited information on a suspect "assistant wearing a red jump suit" and acting on that. It's down to the admin to determine what is a reasonable probable cause and what isn't. If someone complained about a random search and the officer told me they were searching all assistants because assistants are trouble makers then that would be a weak justification I personally wouldn't accept. So long as there's a proper IC reasoning for the search it should be fine to play out IC, just make sure they aren't taking the absolute piss with it.

skoglol wrote:Another thing, how thorough can the search be? Certain individuals will implant check via surgery to see if you got traitor implants in you.

Kind of scummy but contextual. It would depend on the strength of the officers information imo; if they have confirmed the prisoner they have is a traitor then there naturally shouldn't be any restriction on searching their body. If the evidence is strongly pointing to a likely suspect it might be reasonable for a officer to check for implants to confirm but I would hope the bar for this level of invasive surgery is much higher then simply checking someones bag.

The main take away here isn't to disarm officers, but to discourage meta-gaming behavior. The intent behind a players actions is pretty important. If they had a good reason to perform their actions in-character it should be allowed to play out.

For the purpose of this thread you should treat Random searching to mean you can stop and harass a player just because they can.

as for the robbing question, it depends on your motives. robbing a player and taking gear vs. stop/frisking a player just because you can.

This is of course assuming the user isn't habitually robbing people FNR, else they should be talked to for tiding.

I think random searching should be allowed in legitimate code red situations such as cult and revs. Rules kinda go out the window for those rounds anyway but I'm sure as hell not bwoinking a sec officer for stunning, cuffing, and frisking random people in the hallways. I also think the criteria for probable cause shouldn't be much more than the officer coming up with a coherent reason for the search. For example, blood on clothes, reports of an assistant in a red jumpsuit committing a crime, and then more iffy ones like "he was being evasive of me in the hallways" should also be allowed (Yes, I've caught revs/gangsters off that one). At the end of the day, those (revs/gangs/cults) are the only code red situations in which random searches should even be occurring, but I'd leave it in anyway.

Who even searches randomly or on a "gut feeling" during blue?

Probable cause - reasonable grounds to believe that a particular person has committed a crime, especially to justify making a search or preferring a charge.

Bloody anything, committing other crimes (trespassing, possession of weapons etc) etc.

Edit: Not following lawful commands such as "stop", "remove face cover".

Random searches on Red and Delta should stay - if cult, revs or any other conversion antag is found, it should be automatically assumed to be code red, unless we plan to start punishing heads for not swiping.

Admins should crackdown on security using the role to grief with impunity thanks to their metaprotection. You realise how bad the game has become when you see, for example, sec arrest someone because a random crewmember said they were a criminal, take 3 minutes to walk back to the brig because they are trying to multitask, question and search them for 2 minutes and finally brig them for 5 more minutes just to be sure (and also because under 10 minutes it's an ic issue). Had the suspect attempted to run away at any point of the process he would become eligible for 1000 point gulag or permabrig! Even though he is totally innocent!

People who play sec nowadays treat it as a team deathmatch where the enemy team is the whole crew. Except the crew can't fight back without making themselves instantly valid for execution or banned.
At least when antags murderbone you can fight back. But when it's sec griefing you there is no recourse as they are subtle enough to grief you and ruin your round without crossing the lines that would turn the situation from an ic issue to an ahelpable one.

Random searches is just the tip of the iceberg of the security problem.

Eskjjlj wrote:Admins should crackdown on security using the role to grief with impunity thanks to their metaprotection. You realise how bad the game has become when you see, for example, sec arrest someone because a random crewmember said they were a criminal, take 3 minutes to walk back to the brig because they are trying to multitask, question and search them for 2 minutes and finally brig them for 5 more minutes just to be sure (and also because under 10 minutes it's an ic issue). Had the suspect attempted to run away at any point of the process he would become eligible for 1000 point gulag or permabrig! Even though he is totally innocent!

People who play sec nowadays treat it as a team deathmatch where the enemy team is the whole crew. Except the crew can't fight back without making themselves instantly valid for execution or banned.
At least when antags murderbone you can fight back. But when it's sec griefing you there is no recourse as they are subtle enough to grief you and ruin your round without crossing the lines that would turn the situation from an ic issue to an ahelpable one.

Random searches is just the tip of the iceberg of the security problem.

This probably comes from an assistant main POV.

If somebody says they saw "X do Y", then it should be grounds for a search. If the person giving the information was lying for no reason, then that would be griefing and against the rules the same way as security planting evidence. Doubt any security mains book anybody "just in case", if you came up clean, you are good to go. If you start running and dodging after security wants to peep you out, then you add 1 minute for every 2 minutes you were evading as a sentence.

Assistant mains treat it as a TDM, "lol I wanna push sec this round, lets see what happens" or "I wanna tide" etc.

It's not very honest to discredit my arguments by saying they come from an "assistant main POV" when you are yourself a security main. One could think you are defending your rights to abuse the position.
It's true I play a lot as assistant but I have over 200h of playtime as captain and about 140h in security roles. I know what I am talking about from my experience playing the game and witnessing what other players do and get away with. Can you say the same about playing non security roles?

Most people who have played this game can remember being wronged by sec at least once. That is why shitsec is such a meme. Obviously in an ideal world every sec officer is an efficient machine who gives everyone a fair sentence and never imprisons anyone wrongly. But unfortunately we live in a world where it's an ic issue for sec to ruin someone's round because : "he believed you committed the murder because you were present when he arrived on the scene and your clothes were bloody. Sorry gamer."

I can say this without bias since I've played both assistant and officer a lot, in fact, I have more hours as an assitant
security players are under constant scrutiny from the admins and will have their time wasted with pointless bwoinks, appeals and retroactive rulings to the point they stop playing sec officer and start validhunting as assistant since they don't have to abide by all the restrictions officers do
you might see people griefing with the role, but just like most administrative actions, you probably don't see they're happening unless they're one or they appeal, I'm sure bad sec players are constantly getting banned or noted, just like anyone else that breaks the rules, or they were actually justified and you just didn't have complete information (something intended for the game)
the "shitsec" meme is just that, a meme, I still love tiding and would never ahelp after getting my shit kicked in since ahelping is gay and I know how the other side experiences it (I enjoy it but it frustrates other sec players to an incredible degree)
also, you say "get away with" as if that's bad
of course you can get away with being not enough of a dick to cop a ban, that's what greytide is, and it's fair game for every role except heads and to a lesser degree security, I don't see anything wrong with it

Didn't want to invalidate your input, just wanted to make sure that everybody understands that there are two sides to every story. Teepeepee put it more elegantly.

No doubt there can be shitsec who randomly search you for no reason or give you time for no reason, then again there can be assistants who are just shitters - playing the game with the mentality of every round being a revolution and having to fight security.

If it was a perfect world, then everybody would side with the loyalty implanted security and nobody would ever start randomly pushing or killing security. Security doesn't have perfect information, which means that they rely on their judgement.

To be clear I am against "completely random searches on code green/blue", unless there is a confirmation of conversion antags.

It doesn't need to be removed because after playing security semi-regularly I can assure you that random searches simply do not happen; Not even on Manuel where the standards for behavior are higher.
If you're suspected of something questionable, you're getting nailed to the floor and dragged into the brig without a word. The conversations happen when you're cuffed in a secure area. Any security officer who attempts to converse with potential criminals in the field very quickly learns what a stupid idea that is, and then never does it again.
If you're not suspected of something questionable, security are far more concerned about the people who are than to waste their time trying to frisk random people in front of two greytiders and a clown.

security are shitters who claim false victimisation but assistant mains are worse

I've done random searching of people who fit descriptions given to me based on evidence like clothing fibers or witnesses. Not just baton then cuff to search, I'm talking asking to see their bag, then doing it if they don't comply.

The only times I don't ask is if I have probably cause to suspect the person I am specifically targeting IS the culprit and I have reason to believe that person could be armed, and especially if I'm the only security officer.

I mean, in similar situations I've done the 'of course officer, lemme just get my stuff', took off my bag, thrown it, then drawn a gun straight in their face and blew them the fuck away, because most antag weapons are concealable in your pocket for a reason. Misdirection is a powerful tool and when you are the only sec on the station you don't take chances without people around to help you in case things go south. And even that doesn't usually stop me shooting sec officers when I'm on the other end of the search.

Not-Dorsidarf wrote:security are shitters who claim false victimisation but assistant mains are worse

Painfully accurate.

Cobby wrote:For the purpose of this thread you should treat Random searching to mean you can stop and harass a player just because they can.

as for the robbing question, it depends on your motives. robbing a player and taking gear vs. stop/frisking a player just because you can.

This is of course assuming the user isn't habitually robbing people FNR, else they should be talked to for tiding.

To get back on topic, I didn't have much problem squaring this one away with existing rules. It might not be a bad idea to explicitly state that randomly searching people just to harass players or metagame is against the rules regardless of alert status. On the flipside; the situation that caused a red alert itself can justify randomly searching crew members for the purpose of handling the current crisis. The main point is to determine the intent of the player while not handicapping security from taking reasonable precautions. It would help if players were more sporting.

NecromancerAnne wrote:I've done random searching of people who fit descriptions given to me based on evidence like clothing fibers or witnesses.

That is not a random search. If you have fibres on captain's ID console (confirmed crime being Major Trespass), then you have probable cause to search anybody who matches the criteria.

A random search would be batoning down a completely random dude in a hallway or because "they were in the cabin 4 for too long and might have been buying traitor gear".

Code blue means that there is an active hostile threat to the station. If the TSA can random search people when things are right as rain, a dystopian megacorporation can random search its staff when there is an active terror threat.

Since when did Nanotrasen employees have privacy rights anyways?

Farquaar wrote:Since when did Nanotrasen employees have privacy rights anyways?

Since we remembered this is a video game. Played for fun.

wasnt it already in the rules that as sec you can just stun cuff and bag explore people in the hall?

Gigapuddi420 wrote:

Farquaar wrote:Since when did Nanotrasen employees have privacy rights anyways?

Since we remembered this is a video game. Played for fun.

Losing is fun.

Cobby wrote: True Random Searching [For the purpose of this thread you should treat Random searching to mean you can stop and harass a player just because they can] should never be approved and you should feel bad if you invoke this (and I will bwoink you, ask you not to do it again, and note for it).

What does that even mean? If you have probable cause (i.e. you suspect that guy is bad), it isn't 'true random'. You're not searching them to harass them.
If you get 'truly randomly' searched, i.e. without cause and with intent of harassment, it's not allowed anyway (except during red/delta, but duh! on that) and no rewrite of alert level text is going to change that.
Whether or not the probable causes is justified will always remain a judgement call by the officer and the admin (though your demand here makes me question your impartiality).

Also what would be the alternative of not searching a suspect right then and there?
Throwing them into a brig cell and waiting until a court session is arranged because that's the only way to determine their innocence/guilt when you are not allowed to look into their backpack?
Or is sec supposed to just let them go until they fuck up and leave definite, undeniable proof somewhere? I doubt that's how security is meant to work.

Security should not be using its power to randomly fuck with people. Security is given a lot of power under our ruleset, which isn't a bad thing since it allows them to dunk tiders and people who fuck with them the whole round without much admin scrutiny.

Problems arise when security legitimately wrongs someone who hasn't done anything wrong. That person has no way of fighting back because taking on one member of the security team is taking on the entire security team, with the consequence being near certain death when caught. And the officers that are going after that person can't be faulted for it since they're merely doing their job. The easiest way to prevent shitty situations like this from happening is by just preventing security from being shitty at the start.

This is why random searches, which Cobby defined as stopping and harassing a player because you can, suck. Security should be able to give a coherent probably cause whenever they detain or stop someone, and I don't think that's an unreasonable ask. Obviously there are exceptions: code red/delta situations such as cult, revolution, families, etc would count as an exception, but command staff just making it code red for no reason is not an exception.

CDranzer wrote:It doesn't need to be removed because after playing security semi-regularly I can assure you that random searches simply do not happen; Not even on Manuel where the standards for behavior are higher.

You may think this but I just dealt with an officer last night who was random searching on code blue "because there were traitors." Don't worry, I too was laughing at this thread because I assumed they don't happen.

Actionb wrote: Also what would be the alternative of not searching a suspect right then and there?
Throwing them into a brig cell and waiting until a court session is arranged because that's the only way to determine their innocence/guilt when you are not allowed to look into their backpack?
Or is sec supposed to just let them go until they fuck up and leave definite, undeniable proof somewhere? I doubt that's how security is meant to work.

If they're a suspect that implies you have some reason to suspect them of a crime, so a search would be within reason. If they're not a suspect, then why is it an issue to let them go, and why would you want to throw them in the brig to wait for a court session? Probably cause isn't definite undeniable proof, it's saying "this guy is PROBABLY up to no good, let me check his bag." Where that "probably" comes from is up to you, such as him having blood on his clothes or someone with his description having been caught doing a crime.

BeeSting12 wrote: This is why random searches, which Cobby defined as stopping and harassing a player because you can, suck. Security should be able to give a coherent probably cause whenever they detain or stop someone, and I don't think that's an unreasonable ask. Obviously there are exceptions: code red/delta situations such as cult, revolution, families, etc would count as an exception, but command staff just making it code red for no reason is not an exception.

Yeah but that's how it's always been. That's why I don't understand what cobby actually wants to have changed if it isn't the idea to declare all searches impermissible (which seems pretty stupid as I tried to point out in my second paragraph).

If you honestly think cobby wants all searches to be impermissible you've got reading comprehension problems.

The question is what is actually being proposed then, since Remove Random Searching in Alert Levels is pretty vague.

Green and Blue don't allow meta/random searches anyway.
Red allows and recommends a search and this is rarely to "harass players".
Delta is something else, since station is about to get destroyed.

Edit: My bad for multiple edits. I was dropped on my head as a baby.

Instead of another edit, maybe its more of a question in terms of "when can the crew swipe red", rather than "prevent security from performing random searches on red".

The main issue is that if half the station is blown up and security doesn't have any leads, then only way to keep the pressure on antags is by allowing searches on code red.

Cobby wrote:True Random Searching should never be approved and you should feel bad if you invoke this (and I will bwoink you, ask you not to do it again, and note for it).

Cobby wrote:For the purpose of this thread you should treat Random searching to mean you can stop and harass a player just because they can.

Or in other words; randomly searching someone just to harass them should never be allowed.

Cobby wrote:

Code: Select all

ALERT_RED_UPTO There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Random searches are allowed and advised.
ALERT_RED_DOWNTO The station's destruction has been averted. There is still however an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times, random searches are allowed and advised.

Red Alert can be interpreted as giving explicit permission for security to search people for no given reason. Much of the discussion in this thread makes a point to note that any situation serious enough to warrant a red alert will usually provide a good IC reason to conduct searches on people you don't trust. I'm not convinced this is a problem that isn't already covered with existing rules and common sense but I'm not against clarifying the point.

BeeSting12 wrote:

CDranzer wrote:It doesn't need to be removed because after playing security semi-regularly I can assure you that random searches simply do not happen; Not even on Manuel where the standards for behavior are higher.

You may think this but I just dealt with an officer last night who was random searching on code blue "because there were traitors." Don't worry, I too was laughing at this thread because I assumed they don't happen.

That's fucking bizarre. Maybe he was green? I've never seen it really happen before.

Since cobby apparently doesn't want to forbid all searches and unwarranted searches are against the rules during green/blue anyway:
Just present a scenario in which being on red alert (the highest emergency the staff can call out!) does not automatically provide the necessity to immediately verify someone's allegiance by searching bag and pockets, so that doing so could be construed as 'harassment' and I can finally understand the point of this thread.

The assumption you have to make there is that there's also rules against red alerting without just cause so that there a countable set of situations where it might be ok to red alert but not random search that I should be able to pick from. However, there are not. People quite often use the red alert to fast-track the shuttle even though the situation may not warrant such. I've seen this questioned even less than emergency-authing the shuttle, which is to say very little.

The situation that should be presented if you want to discuss this fairly is when the situation itself does not justify 'random searching' and the only justification that would be available if asked why you're doing it would be "because the alert said I can", and that instance should be okay'd. There isn't one, hence the thread.

In the case of team antagonists with conversion, I think that's fair to "random search" in blue given that you're not sure how aggressive the baddies are converting (hence it's not actually random). However putting someone onto the cargotration camp with holy water forcefeeding when they haven't done anything just because "it's cult" if you consider that part of random search/detain should also be avoided on a rule 1 level.

Basically if something would provide reason to elevate the alert level to "random search" authority, it wouldn't be random to begin with. The only thing this does conceptually is allow for situations where you've "wrongly" up'd the alert level and people use the alert level to justify their actions, rather than the actions done should be justifying the alert change.

but what if I really really really need to random search lexia black roundstart

honestly random searches never really happen in my experience except in really rare cases so I don’t know whether this change is really needed

Flatulent wrote:but what if I really really really need to random search lexia black roundstart

honestly random searches never really happen in my experience except in really rare cases so I don’t know whether this change is really needed

it rarely happens because the people who have that mentality have a short lifespan and they either get perma'd for other shits or migrate to shit magnet servers once they get a long ban

So the problem is that people can abuse red alert.
Why isn't the focus of the thread on that, instead of picking out the secondary issues like random searching and unjustified detainment that follow from that abuse?

Flatulent wrote:but what if I really really really need to random search lexia black roundstart

honestly random searches never really happen in my experience except in really rare cases so I don’t know whether this change is really needed

that's not an argument against the change when the alternative is just changing it to convert the "never really happens" to "cannot happen".

Actionb wrote:So the problem is that people can abuse red alert.
Why isn't the focus of the thread on that, instead of picking out the secondary issues like random searching and unjustified detainment that follow from that abuse?

Because I find the specific issue of random searching more problematic than the more generalized misuse of red alerting.

Cobby wrote:

Flatulent wrote:but what if I really really really need to random search lexia black roundstart

honestly random searches never really happen in my experience except in really rare cases so I don’t know whether this change is really needed

that's not an argument against the change when the alternative is just changing it to convert the "never really happens" to "cannot happen".

You are trying to fix something that is not an issue. If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.

it is an issue because it could become an issue if it isn’t already

wesoda25 wrote:it is an issue because it could become an issue if it isn’t already

There are so many things that could become an issue. Again, unless it is an issue, there is no point in going out of our way to start policing it "just in-case".

"this doesn't happen!!!"

Admin in this thread:

You may think this but I just dealt with an officer last night who was random searching on code blue "because there were traitors." Don't worry, I too was laughing at this thread because I assumed they don't happen.

be contrarian somewhere else please.

Secbans need to be handed out more often for this behavior. I've definitely been randomly searched fnr roundstart with cult gear/supermatter theft box

Cobby wrote:"this doesn't happen!!!"

Admin in this thread:

You may think this but I just dealt with an officer last night who was random searching on code blue "because there were traitors." Don't worry, I too was laughing at this thread because I assumed they don't happen.

be contrarian somewhere else please.

>One newfriend does a random search on blue, which is against the rules already - you cannot search people without a probable cause on code blue!.
>Cobby: "Time to take a way the option to random search at any point, because it could be abused when the crew goes into red alert for no reason AND one newfriend did it on code blue."

Please take a moment to think about it.

Cobby wrote:"this doesn't happen!!!"

Admin in this thread:

You may think this but I just dealt with an officer last night who was random searching on code blue "because there were traitors." Don't worry, I too was laughing at this thread because I assumed they don't happen.

be contrarian somewhere else please.

that's already against the rules and im pretty sure the alert level explicitly says you cant random search on blue

ALERT_RED_UPTO There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Random searches are allowed and advised.

ALERT_RED_UPTO There is an immediate serious threat to the station. Security may have weapons unholstered at all times. Searches are permitted only with probable cause.

While I'd rather keep red alert as the "gloves are off - everything goes" level and would rather address its abuse directly, the idea that some entitled crybabies can point to it as an excuse for being a dick bothers me more.

Can't really comment on whether this is actually necessary since I don't play, but...
Ideally, people would use red alert correctly.
Ideally, people wouldn't lose their shit for being told off in a shitty 2d spess game.

Moving the goal post from “random searching doesn’t happen” to “well that was in code blue so it’s already goes against the rules” doesn’t make any sense. I was responding to “it” (being random searching) not happening, which it does, whether it goes against the current rules or not. I mean this whole thread is literally about changing what’s currently acceptable in the rules anyways, this whole “gotcha” thing people are trying to come in and pull is extremely disruptive. Explain why it should be ok if you disagree rather than hyper focused trying to point out “””flaws””” In each one of my posts.

Idk how to keep clarifying this for people to get it but I’m not asking to remove all out searching, I’m asking for all out searching be justified through “its cult” or “someone is bombing the station” rather than “its red alert”.

Think of it like a shitty rule 0 ban that should have been a rule 1 ban. I’m suggesting you use rule 1 (the actual reason to justify your search that put you into red alert) instead of rule 0 (cuz red alert says I can).

Istoprocent1 wrote: >Cobby: "Time to take a way the option to random search at any point, because it could be abused when the crew goes into red alert for no reason AND one newfriend did it on code blue."

Please take a moment to think about it.

I’m not going to take any great length to think about an issue if that’s how it needs to be presented to get your point.

Luckily you didn’t read the thread in its entirety (or you did with a bias coming in) so if you scroll up you’ll find the actual rationale and conversation as to why I’ve made this thread.

Feel free to post with the intention of understanding/creating dialogue rather than digg upvotes if you’d like to have actual dialogue on why you thing true random searching should be allowed. Again, you can scroll up to see mine if you’d like to use that to platform off of.

You might be able to understand the point, if you read the posts above. Nobody is moving any goal posts. It just becomes tiresome to regurgitate the same points over and over again.

Random searches are not a problem given that they meet any of the following criteria - code red (if this becomes a problem, then it is more of a "people going on red alert one" rather than "security one") or confirmed conversion antags (mostly cult, because revolution is a silly gamemode where the antags have no distinguishable gear).

Should anybody just go nuts on random searches on code red for no reason? Probably not.
Should we remove code red random searches and thus allow antags just automatically succeed? Probably not.
Should anybody use code red random searches to locate missing traitor objectives or try to find further leads why half the station was blown up? Yes.

You’re not explaining why you can’t just use what CAUSED the reason to red alert to also be your reason to all out search and then proceed to say I’m wanting to “just let the antags win”.

I have to keep regurgitating my argument because you continually conflate it after me saying several times that it is not what I want. Literally read my last post.

I’m just going to ignore your future responses as it doesn’t appear you’re discussing in good faith.