security/HOS/captain and non-antag fights

[serxule]

ok apparently you can kick shitcuritys shit in (or just ahelp them), who wouldve guessed, apparently just no one ever ahelps and just complains, also good information in the thread, actually let me quote some good stuff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a security officer crits and kills a botanist for literally growing weed, how is the conflict “over”? The botanist can absolutely retaliate and kill them once revived, unless there are outstanding circumstances (like if the botanist was resisting arrest lethally before, but we got no such circumstances in this example). Escalation policy was specifically changed this term to allow revenge killing over being wronged.

To the OP: many people don’t know this, but once an officer treats you with lethal force or abuses you, if it’s not strictly necessary and you weren’t being a griefing shithead, they void their metaprotections and you can now retaliate as if they were an ordinary player. I do this all the time and have never been bwoinked or noted for it.

Example 1: After breaking into engi, an officer arrests you for B&E. They see you also have a stolen baton. While processing you, they decide to beat you and break your legs. They then send you to gulag after fullstripping you, with a skirt on.
Once you get out you can now retaliate against them. How far you go is up to you, but at the very least you can do to the officer what they did to you, if not more (since they are the instigator here). I would be amazed if an admin took issue with murdering them for this.

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.
Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

There are plenty more examples but you get the idea. The basic concept is this: sec are only allowed to punish crew through sec systems - the brig, the gulag, etc. Once they begin to punish you with beatings, theft, humiliation, etc., they void their metaprotections and enter the realm of a normal IC escalation conflict, and you’re allowed to retaliate according to the normal rules of escalation.

As for the redtider example - this officer also voids his metaprotections because he committed a crime of B&E! Officers are not above the law. Although they usually aren’t arrested for minor crimes like this, committing these crimes allows crew to treat them as normal crewmembers, and retaliate in proportion to the crime committed.

Escalation policy doesn't exist so a player can just walk up and crit someone for a shitty reason then claim "Escalation is over! I crit them! They legally can't fight back!"

Escalation policy ALSO doesn't exist so a player can steal items, start fights and keep the items just because they won. Stealing items from players for poor IC reason is continuing escalation up until the point the item is returned, and may also be a rule break.

But sec also have higher standards for dealing with intra-crew interactions in return. We expect them to deal with incidents nonlethally, we expect them to somehow break up fights between other non-antag crew members without breaking any of our core server rules in the process, you get the idea.

The goal is that non-antags let sec get on with their jobs, sec don't just go around executing every non-antag that gets into a fight with someone, and somewhere in the middle true blue antags take advantage of this to drive the shift's narrative forward.

95% of the time, any action that would let you kill security or command for, is something they are going to get noted / banned for

As admins, we generally prefer you to adminhelp bad play by security or command so that it doesn't become a pattern, if you kill them for it, there's no record of it and they just continue in a later round until the next vigilante comes along and then rounds turn into absolute shitshows because then security who haven't actually done anything wrong get targeted, and people not involved decide to get some of the action too, I've seen this many times and it's just a fucking car crash

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
currently, all of security, the HOS, and captain, all have a protective blanket preventing most actions a non-antag can take against them (as these roles can not be an antag and therefore you have no reason to attack them), i think this is BULLSHIT. just because you cant be an antag doesnt mean you should be immune to being murdered for being a shitter or whatever happens, nor should you be able to ahelp if a non-antag kills you if there's valid reason
Currently this is probably how it would go:

example 1: Security officer beats a botanist growing weed, critting and nearly killing them, the botanist gets healed and makes a baseball bat, killing the security officer in revenge, the security officer ahelps and the botanist gets a note/ban as the sec officer cant be an antag and therefore no reason to kill them (despite what happened earlier)

I think thats genuine bullshit, if you do something that would get you killed as an assistant, you should be able to be killed for it regardless of your job

example 2: assistant breaks into engineering to take insuls, gets toolboxed and killed by the engineers for it (who then take the assistant to medical), the engineer likely wouldnt get in trouble (possibly over-escalation so a note) but thats mostly it
but replace assistant with security officer and itd be a definite note and possibly even a ban (depending on past history)

this is not how it should be, you should be 100% responsible for actions and any punishments that come from such, and no one should have to worry about killing someone that has earned to be killed

[mstachife]

What rule specifically do you want changed / added? because

example 1: Security officer beats a botanist growing weed, critting and nearly killing them, the botanist gets healed and makes a baseball bat, killing the security officer in revenge, the security officer ahelps and the botanist gets a note/ban as the sec officer cant be an antag and therefore no reason to kill them (despite what happened earlier)

This needs a lot more context honestly, cause as worded it seems like both are in the wrong. Are you like, wanting to change the current escalation policy? If you don't have a reason to suspect the other person is an antagonist you aren't allowed to kill them in a situation like this regardless if they're security or not as I understand it.

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is incapacitated, the standing participant is expected to make an effort to treat the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once treated the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

example 2: assistant breaks into engineering to take insuls, gets toolboxed and killed by the engineers for it (who then take the assistant to medical), the engineer likely wouldnt get in trouble (possibly over-escalation so a note) but thats mostly it
but replace assistant with security officer and itd be a definite note and possibly even a ban (depending on past history)

Assistants breaking into places are going to be treated worse by default compared to anyone else generally. That's just the way it be. But unless you're being an absolute shithead being killed outright isn't allowed, it's only after the person is ejected and returns.

You may defend your workplace from trespassers who damage or steal property within that space with significantly greater force than elsewhere. If someone is severely disruptive and returns after ejected, this opens them up to "fun" of the creative workplace death variety.

[serxule]

What rule specifically do you want changed / added? because

example 1: Security officer beats a botanist growing weed, critting and nearly killing them, the botanist gets healed and makes a baseball bat, killing the security officer in revenge, the security officer ahelps and the botanist gets a note/ban as the sec officer cant be an antag and therefore no reason to kill them (despite what happened earlier)

This needs a lot more context honestly, cause as worded it seems like both are in the wrong. Are you like, wanting to change the current escalation policy? If you don't have a reason to suspect the other person is an antagonist you aren't allowed to kill them in a situation like this regardless if they're security or not as I understand it.

this was just a barebone example of how situations like this would happen, there's no lore or anything to it, also no not escalation

[mstachife]

Well Im not too sure what specifically you want changed then because I'm pretty sure escalation policy is the only place any sort of "protections" for antags/nonantags getting into fights gets mentioned at all.

[serxule]

Well Im not too sure what specifically you want changed then because I'm pretty sure escalation policy is the only place any sort of "protections" for antags/nonantags getting into fights gets mentioned at all.

im referring to how most non-antags either A. wont take action on sec/cap/hos to avoid being bwoinked, or B. do take action on sec/cap/hos and end up getting bwoinked, regardless of how valid the action was

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Well Im not too sure what specifically you want changed then because I'm pretty sure escalation policy is the only place any sort of "protections" for antags/nonantags getting into fights gets mentioned at all.

im referring to how most non-antags either A. wont take action on sec/cap/hos to avoid being bwoinked, or B. do take action on sec/cap/hos and end up getting bwoinked, regardless of how valid the action was

If you can't provide specific examples, or specific policies you take issue with, this is a completely pointless thread. Literally no one is going to agree with "just throw out all rulings related to security because I said so.".

Also, I'm like 99% sure this is just a salt thread related to viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33052 and viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33051 . If so please just spare us all the salt and lock this thread serxule.

[Bepis]

Also, I'm like 99% sure this is just a salt thread related to viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33052 and viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33051 . If so please just spare us all the salt and lock this thread serxule.

this

[serxule]

If you can't provide specific examples, or specific policies you take issue with, this is a completely pointless thread. Literally no one is going to agree with "just throw out all rulings related to security because I said so.".

Also, I'm like 99% sure this is just a salt thread related to viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33052 and viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33051 . If so please just spare us all the salt and lock this thread serxule.

1. im going off of what i've seen happen, i dont log down every time this happens
2. why would this be a salt thread about a HOS player being banned (when i am literally the one who ahelped them?)

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

If you can't provide specific examples, or specific policies you take issue with, this is a completely pointless thread. Literally no one is going to agree with "just throw out all rulings related to security because I said so.".

Also, I'm like 99% sure this is just a salt thread related to viewtopic.php?f=83&t=33052 and viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33051 . If so please just spare us all the salt and lock this thread serxule.

1. im going off of what i've seen happen, i dont log down every time this happens
2. why would this be a salt thread about a HOS player being banned (when i am literally the one who ahelped them?)

We're not asking you to provide a ton of examples, we're asking you to point to one specific policy or mishandled incident. Just one. Because right now this thread is way too over-generalized for any meaningful discussion. Ironically, for people who actually play security, the feeling is that the exact opposite of what you're saying is true, and we feel there is a chilling effect where you have to spend a half hour justifying one in every ten of your arrests to admins and it's one of the major reasons no one wants to play security, along with the crew interfering in literally every arrest. I'll do you one further and do what I'm asking you to do, and provide you with an example that what I'm saying is the side that's actually correct. Here is a recent example where I got bwoinked and noted for executing someone guilty of multiple counts of obstruction, assaulting a head of staff, and inciting a riot: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=33047

It was overturned on appeal, but the point is, no one wants to spend a half hour in game debating every button press they did with the admin team and furthermore having to go through the appeals process. Additionally, I have no problem squaring off against command as a non-antag non-security player - ask TheLoLswat/Lisa Green, I've openly declared mutiny on them over their ridiculous shuttle calls before, and no one, admin or player alike, felt it was rulebreaking behavior even to the point of questioning me about it. You just have to have an actual IC reason to do what you're doing, and it generally helps if you do any sort of actual roleplay, like I declared mutiny openly on the common channel with a clear reasoning. Last time I did so, I got killed by Lisa, because I have the robustness of a wet paper bag, and everyone walked away happy with the interaction.

And for your second question - Well, all the posts in that appeal were deleted, so we don't know? But the timing looks awfully suspicious.

[serxule]

And for your second question - Well, all the posts in that appeal were deleted, so we don't know? But the timing looks awfully suspicious.

i forgor to make it (this thread) yesterday

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

And for your second question - Well, all the posts in that appeal were deleted, so we don't know? But the timing looks awfully suspicious.

i forgor to make it (this thread) yesterday

So are you gonna provide us with a specific incident or policy you take issue with, or are you just going to implicitly admit this is a pointless salt thread that wastes everyone's time by continuing to dodge that question and leaving the thread as a vastly over-generalized mess that contributes nothing to policy discussion because it's impossible to discuss anything in this thread due to how generalized your statements are?

[mstachife]

im referring to how most non-antags either A. wont take action on sec/cap/hos to avoid being bwoinked, or B. do take action on sec/cap/hos and end up getting bwoinked, regardless of how valid the action was

Then this is a culture problem not a policy problem which makes this thread more or less useless. And I agree with everything Imitates said, it isn't really a problem at all as long as you aren't making an ass of yourself.

[NamelessFairy]

In example 1 the sec officer would get noted/secbanned/server banned based on what little context you've provided. The botanist would likely also get noted/banned. The sec officer is violating security policy rule 1.

security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

The botanist is breaking escalation policy.

Once treated the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again.

For example 2 I see very little reason for there to be a difference in the treatment of grey/red-tiders, in both cases the engi's would potentially get hit for over-escalation depending on what exactly lead up to the attacker getting killed. I'd also suggest the security officer is more at risk of a warning due to the higher expectations we have of players playing that role.

If you as a security officer choose to start a conflict then you follow escalation policy as everyone else does, you do not get to abuse your sec protections by accusing someone your escalated against an antag and if you ahelp being killed/esculated against over you initiating conflict as a sec officer while claiming in ahelps that your innocent and you were attacked for no reason you are practically guaranteed to be banned for banbaiting.

[sinfulbliss]

In example 1 the sec officer would get noted/secbanned/server banned based on what little context you've provided. The botanist would likely also get noted/banned. The sec officer is violating security policy rule 1.

security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

The botanist is breaking escalation policy.

Once treated the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again.

I don’t think this is the case at all. If a security officer crits and kills a botanist for literally growing weed, how is the conflict “over”? The botanist can absolutely retaliate and kill them once revived, unless there are outstanding circumstances (like if the botanist was resisting arrest lethally before, but we got no such circumstances in this example). Escalation policy was specifically changed this term to allow revenge killing over being wronged.

To the OP: many people don’t know this, but once an officer treats you with lethal force or abuses you, if it’s not strictly necessary and you weren’t being a griefing shithead, they void their metaprotections and you can now retaliate as if they were an ordinary player. I do this all the time and have never been bwoinked or noted for it.

Example 1: After breaking into engi, an officer arrests you for B&E. They see you also have a stolen baton. While processing you, they decide to beat you and break your legs. They then send you to gulag after fullstripping you, with a skirt on.

Once you get out you can now retaliate against them. How far you go is up to you, but at the very least you can do to the officer what they did to you, if not more (since they are the instigator here). I would be amazed if an admin took issue with murdering them for this.

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

There are plenty more examples but you get the idea. The basic concept is this: sec are only allowed to punish crew through sec systems - the brig, the gulag, etc. Once they begin to punish you with beatings, theft, humiliation, etc., they void their metaprotections and enter the realm of a normal IC escalation conflict, and you’re allowed to retaliate according to the normal rules of escalation.

As for the redtider example - this officer also voids his metaprotections because he committed a crime of B&E! Officers are not above the law. Although they usually aren’t arrested for minor crimes like this, committing these crimes allows crew to treat them as normal crewmembers, and retaliate in proportion to the crime committed.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

[Screemonster]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

"Civil asset forfeiture" is just a fancy way of saying "theft"

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

"Civil asset forfeiture" is just a fancy way of saying "theft"

This is policy discussion, not polcon.

[sinfulbliss]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

Sec is not supposed to steal anything from you unless it's related to a crime, contraband, or you're going to perma/being executed anyway. One time I confiscated an assistant's belt and insuls and put it in evidence for messing with our doors and I got bwoinked, the admin thinking I took them for myself. If I had done this I likely would've been open to escalation and possibly noted.

Often times what voids your metaprotections is also notable/bannable, but not always. For instance, suppose you get some tiding shitter harassing officers while they're making arrests and just being a general nuisance. If you catch them, you can opt to simply kneecap them instead of brigging. This could be allowed under the rules, but in doing so, you're stepping out of the "officer" position and into the "normal player" position, which means you void your metaprotections and that player can treat you as a normal player.

[Screemonster]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

"Civil asset forfeiture" is just a fancy way of saying "theft"

This is policy discussion, not polcon.

civil forfeture doesn't appear anywhere in space law

A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions.

if you take someone's shit after arresting them you're instigating a new conflict and they're allowed to kick your ass to get it back

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I don’t think this is the case at all. If a security officer crits and kills a botanist for literally growing weed, how is the conflict “over”? The botanist can absolutely retaliate and kill them once revived, unless there are outstanding circumstances (like if the botanist was resisting arrest lethally before, but we got no such circumstances in this example). Escalation policy was specifically changed this term to allow revenge killing over being wronged.

This seems very wrong, to my interpretation even with the newly reworded escalation policy, but that's also because it's written fucking awfully.

On the one hand, "Conflict is automatically suspended when one participant is dead or incapacitated." sounds like it's only a temporary matter. But then it mentions "A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint," which seems to imply that it WAS over, but the theft is what continued it.

My understanding based on logic and reasoning (as I don't know which Policy Thread lead to this change and thus cannot go look it up) seems to suggest that the Botanist couldn't retaliate and kill them once he was revived, unless he was robbed, or the Officer decided what to do with them, and then decided to keep beating them. I'm not trying to argue with you, Sinful, I'm just slightly confused and hoping to get clarification.

In response to the OP, I'm just going to tell you flatly that this isn't what you want at all. The metaprotections are a double-edged sword. It's what allows Security to do their job, because if Sec's doing something and you don't have any good reason to believe they're a Changeling or whatever, you're disencouraged/disallowed from interfering with it. This reduces the number of shitters making Sec players want to see what Russian Roulette is like outside of the game.

But it's also important for YOU. Because the Metaprotections mean that Sec gets held to a higher standard. It's specifically mentioned in the rules, and you see it come up semi-frequently in Ban Appeals and the like, that Security is held to a higher standard than average crew. If Sec didn't have their metaprotections and the like, they wouldn't be being held to a higher standard, and Sec players could just deal with you however the fuck they want to, like any other member of the crew. And let me tell you, the people playing the Department that's going to have the most shitters actively trying to fuck with them, while they're also the biggest target of antags, AND dealing with the Tide trying to treat them as a loot pinata, are absolutely going to be the ones with the least patience for shittery.

The Protections that Sec faces are both for Sec's sake, and yours. You don't want them to lose them. Just ahelp if they're abusing it.

[Timberpoes]

Keep in mind that all the scenarios where X person crits/kills Y person, when Y person is not the instigator of the escalation, are where X person is very likely breaking the rules.

Escalation policy doesn't exist so a player can just walk up and crit someone for a shitty reason then claim "Escalation is over! I crit them! They legally can't fight back!"

Escalation policy ALSO doesn't exist so a player can steal items, start fights and keep the items just because they won. Stealing items from players for poor IC reason is continuing escalation up until the point the item is returned, and may also be a rule break.

Escalation policy sets out the minimum boundaries required for a conflict to be an IC issue instead of an administrative one.

In almost all cases where the crit person has good grounds for immediate lethal retaliation after they're crit/killed, taken to medbay and healed/revived, there's a rule break buried somewhere in the midst of that scenario.

When it comes to sec, they have metaprotections.

If I catch a scenario where a shitter starts a fight with a sec officer, interrupts an arrest or anything else like that - Well, I have my own "Stupid Games, Stupider Prizes" rule. When you get round removed and ahelp it, I will recommend you stick to licking paint because it's a skill you have long since mastered, whilst critical thinking clearly isn't your forté.

But sec also have higher standards for dealing with intra-crew interactions in return. We expect them to deal with incidents nonlethally, we expect them to somehow break up fights between other non-antag crew members without breaking any of our core server rules in the process, you get the idea.

The goal is that non-antags let sec get on with their jobs, sec don't just go around executing every non-antag that gets into a fight with someone, and somewhere in the middle true blue antags take advantage of this to drive the shift's narrative forward.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

"Civil asset forfeiture" is just a fancy way of saying "theft"

This is policy discussion, not polcon.

civil forfeture doesn't appear anywhere in space law

A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions.

if you take someone's shit after arresting them you're instigating a new conflict and they're allowed to kick your ass to get it back

This is wrong on so many things where do I even start

For starters, space law is merely a guideline, it is not policy. Secondly, it is clearly a trimmed law book, it is not remotely an exhaustive list of all laws, legal proceedings, and possible crimes. There are many obvious crimes it does not list, like kidnapping, or obstruction of justice - do you really want to try and argue that it doesn't make sense for security to act on these crimes just because they're not in the space law book?

And furthermore, if we were to accept it as valid that civil asset forfeiture is not valid based on the incapacitation segment that you quoted above, the scenarios that would happen would be obvious and terrible. For example:

"An assistant walks up to the engineering desk, and sees the Chief Engineer. He asks the CE if he can have the fireaxe. The CE, because he is busy, or because he doesn't care, agrees, and chucks the fireaxe at the assistant. It is now his property. The assistant then goes around smashing a ton of random windows, and is arrested for like 20 counts of destruction of property".

If we even remotely considered your viewpoint as valid, then security would have to simply let him keep his fireaxe upon release - the CE gave it to him, it's his personal property after all. However, we all know that if this happens the assistant will most likely just go right back to smashing windows. Meanwhile in reality, we all recognize that security simply keeping the axe under civil asset forfeiture is obviously the correct decision, both from a viewpoint of what will make the crew not want to kill themselves from sheer annoyance ooc, and from a roleplay perspective of obviously they are not going to just let him run out there and start smashing windows again.

And if you really think that the assistant should be able to retaliate against security for any of this, I actually don't know what to say.

[Screemonster]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

"Civil asset forfeiture" is just a fancy way of saying "theft"

This is policy discussion, not polcon.

civil forfeture doesn't appear anywhere in space law

A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions.

if you take someone's shit after arresting them you're instigating a new conflict and they're allowed to kick your ass to get it back

This is wrong on so many things where do I even start

For starters, space law is merely a guideline, it is not policy. Secondly, it is clearly a trimmed law book, it is not remotely an exhaustive list of all laws, legal proceedings, and possible crimes. There are many obvious crimes it does not list, like kidnapping, or obstruction of justice - do you really want to try and argue that it doesn't make sense for security to act on these crimes just because they're not in the space law book?

And furthermore, if we were to accept it as valid that civil asset forfeiture is not valid based on the incapacitation segment that you quoted above, the scenarios that would happen would be obvious and terrible. For example:

"An assistant walks up to the engineering desk, and sees the Chief Engineer. He asks the CE if he can have the fireaxe. The CE, because he is busy, or because he doesn't care, agrees, and chucks the fireaxe at the assistant. It is now his property. The assistant then goes around smashing a ton of random windows, and is arrested for like 20 counts of destruction of property".

If we even remotely considered your viewpoint as valid, then security would have to simply let him keep his fireaxe upon release - the CE gave it to him, it's his personal property after all. However, we all know that if this happens the assistant will most likely just go right back to smashing windows. Meanwhile in reality, we all recognize that security simply keeping the axe under civil asset forfeiture is obviously the correct decision, both from a viewpoint of what will make the crew not want to kill themselves from sheer annoyance ooc, and from a roleplay perspective of obviously they are not going to just let him run out there and start smashing windows again.

And if you really think that the assistant should be able to retaliate against security for any of this, I actually don't know what to say.

"taking an assistant's insuls that weren't being used in a crime because the officer wants to have them" and "confiscating the fireaxe that someone used to commit massive amounts of vandalism" are not even remotely equivalent situations

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Example 2: You kill a crewmember that was trying to kill you in self defense. Sec arrives on the scene, and the officers consider it murder and arrest you. They throw you in a brig cell for 10 minutes, but not before confiscating your toolbelt and insuls. You notice the officer loots your insuls for himself.

Guess what! You can now attack this officer later once you get out of jail! He voided his metaprotections the instant he stole your items without a valid reason. A valid reason would be: using them to commit a crime. But you never did that!

I'm calling cap on this one. No one holds trials for timed cell sentences except for me (On Sybil anyway, no idea about the MRP servers), claiming someone can retaliate over civil asset forfeiture just because they disagree with how security found in their case is not legitimate assuming good faith play from the security officer in question.

"Civil asset forfeiture" is just a fancy way of saying "theft"

This is policy discussion, not polcon.

civil forfeture doesn't appear anywhere in space law

A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions.

if you take someone's shit after arresting them you're instigating a new conflict and they're allowed to kick your ass to get it back

This is wrong on so many things where do I even start

For starters, space law is merely a guideline, it is not policy. Secondly, it is clearly a trimmed law book, it is not remotely an exhaustive list of all laws, legal proceedings, and possible crimes. There are many obvious crimes it does not list, like kidnapping, or obstruction of justice - do you really want to try and argue that it doesn't make sense for security to act on these crimes just because they're not in the space law book?

And furthermore, if we were to accept it as valid that civil asset forfeiture is not valid based on the incapacitation segment that you quoted above, the scenarios that would happen would be obvious and terrible. For example:

"An assistant walks up to the engineering desk, and sees the Chief Engineer. He asks the CE if he can have the fireaxe. The CE, because he is busy, or because he doesn't care, agrees, and chucks the fireaxe at the assistant. It is now his property. The assistant then goes around smashing a ton of random windows, and is arrested for like 20 counts of destruction of property".

If we even remotely considered your viewpoint as valid, then security would have to simply let him keep his fireaxe upon release - the CE gave it to him, it's his personal property after all. However, we all know that if this happens the assistant will most likely just go right back to smashing windows. Meanwhile in reality, we all recognize that security simply keeping the axe under civil asset forfeiture is obviously the correct decision, both from a viewpoint of what will make the crew not want to kill themselves from sheer annoyance ooc, and from a roleplay perspective of obviously they are not going to just let him run out there and start smashing windows again.

And if you really think that the assistant should be able to retaliate against security for any of this, I actually don't know what to say.

"taking an assistant's insuls that weren't being used in a crime because the officer wants to have them" and "confiscating the fireaxe that someone used to commit massive amounts of vandalism" are not even remotely equivalent situations

Not the point. The point is that civil asset forfeiture is obviously valid in game, and that it makes no sense that non antag crew should be allowed to retaliate against security over it, assuming security is acting in good faith. In the scenario Axle listed, security had good reason to believe he was guilty of murder, they simply got it wrong. If we allow the crew to retaliate because they disagree with how security found in their case, literally every shift will end in team deathmatch between sec and the greytide.

[sinfulbliss]

I don’t think this is the case at all. If a security officer crits and kills a botanist for literally growing weed, how is the conflict “over”? The botanist can absolutely retaliate and kill them once revived, unless there are outstanding circumstances (like if the botanist was resisting arrest lethally before, but we got no such circumstances in this example). Escalation policy was specifically changed this term to allow revenge killing over being wronged.

This seems very wrong, to my interpretation even with the newly reworded escalation policy, but that's also because it's written fucking awfully.

On the one hand, "Conflict is automatically suspended when one participant is dead or incapacitated." sounds like it's only a temporary matter. But then it mentions "A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint," which seems to imply that it WAS over, but the theft is what continued it.

My understanding based on logic and reasoning (as I don't know which Policy Thread lead to this change and thus cannot go look it up) seems to suggest that the Botanist couldn't retaliate and kill them once he was revived, unless he was robbed, or the Officer decided what to do with them, and then decided to keep beating them. I'm not trying to argue with you, Sinful, I'm just slightly confused and hoping to get clarification.

Yeah, if you read them To The Letter it technically implies that if someone goes around capping people right and left, well they're dead so the conflict ended! No retaliating for them after revival. But this would be a fairly silly way to interpret it. A better way is using this:

A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions.

Assume crit/stamcrit = incapacitation. So the officer that murders the botanist for planting drugs extended the conflict past the endpoint by finishing him off after he was immobilized, and therefore the botanist can seek retribution. But even if the officer just assaults the botanist to crit, it definitely gives him a reason to retaliate still? So it's flawed regardless I guess.

If we allow the crew to retaliate because they disagree with how security found in their case, literally every shift will end in team deathmatch between sec and the greytide.

They're already allowed to depending on what sec does. Here's a better example since murder definitely gives sec more liberty to do what they want with you: suppose someone gets in a fight and is then arrested for assault. If the officer takes this opportunity to loot them of their tools and insuls for themselves, that breaks his metaprotections. He had no reason to confiscate them. The player can now retaliate against that officer later for their items back, although since that's probably impossible he would also probably be justified stealing something from the officer in turn, like their secbelt or something of the sort. If the officer replies with lethals the player can return with lethals, and in this case the officer would be the instigator, since they made the initial transgression of stealing their tools for themselves.

Occasionally when this happens I ahelp to tell the admin I'm going to retaliate IC, incase the officer ahelps and it looks like I'm self-antagging. Every time I've done this the admin has basically given me the go-ahead, one time even helping me out through IC means. If sec mistreats you and they do so in bad faith, i.e., "fuck you I'm taking your tools and insuls you little tiding shithead," they don't get to also hide behind their metaprotections.

[Pandarsenic]

I'mma be real fam, I recognize your name enough that I'm pretty sure you're the problem here, not the rules

[TheLoLSwat]

currently, all of security, the HOS, and captain, all have a protective blanket preventing most actions a non-antag can take against them (as these roles can not be an antag and therefore you have no reason to attack them), i think this is BULLSHIT. just because you cant be an antag doesnt mean you should be immune to being murdered for being a shitter or whatever happens, nor should you be able to ahelp if a non-antag kills you if there's valid reason
Currently this is probably how it would go:

example 1: Security officer beats a botanist growing weed, critting and nearly killing them, the botanist gets healed and makes a baseball bat, killing the security officer in revenge, the security officer ahelps and the botanist gets a note/ban as the sec officer cant be an antag and therefore no reason to kill them (despite what happened earlier)

sec will get a note at the least if you ahelp after they crit you.

I think thats genuine bullshit, if you do something that would get you killed as an assistant, you should be able to be killed for it regardless of your job

This is odd logic because then you would be able to kill security for arresting you if you didnt agree with the reason and felt they were kidnapping you.

assistant breaks into engineering to take insuls, gets toolboxed and killed by the engineers for it (who then take the assistant to medical), the engineer likely wouldnt get in trouble (possibly over-escalation so a note) but thats mostly it
but replace assistant with security officer and itd be a definite note and possibly even a ban (depending on past history)

assistants are assistants... if sec is breaking into engineering an engineer can IC tell him off rightly and ahelp if the officer is a shitter about it.

this is not how it should be, you should be 100% responsible for actions and any punishments that come from such, and no one should have to worry about killing someone that has earned to be killed

This is completely true, but sec / captain are always held responsible for truly shitty action, both IC and OOC. Admins and general crew breathe down secs neck round after round and you want to take the sliver of metaprotection they have compared to how much the crew has against them

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I don’t think this is the case at all. If a security officer crits and kills a botanist for literally growing weed, how is the conflict “over”? The botanist can absolutely retaliate and kill them once revived, unless there are outstanding circumstances (like if the botanist was resisting arrest lethally before, but we got no such circumstances in this example). Escalation policy was specifically changed this term to allow revenge killing over being wronged.

This seems very wrong, to my interpretation even with the newly reworded escalation policy, but that's also because it's written fucking awfully.

On the one hand, "Conflict is automatically suspended when one participant is dead or incapacitated." sounds like it's only a temporary matter. But then it mentions "A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint," which seems to imply that it WAS over, but the theft is what continued it.

My understanding based on logic and reasoning (as I don't know which Policy Thread lead to this change and thus cannot go look it up) seems to suggest that the Botanist couldn't retaliate and kill them once he was revived, unless he was robbed, or the Officer decided what to do with them, and then decided to keep beating them. I'm not trying to argue with you, Sinful, I'm just slightly confused and hoping to get clarification.

Yeah, if you read them To The Letter it technically implies that if someone goes around capping people right and left, well they're dead so the conflict ended! No retaliating for them after revival. But this would be a fairly silly way to interpret it. A better way is using this:

A player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions.

Assume crit/stamcrit = incapacitation. So the officer that murders the botanist for planting drugs extended the conflict past the endpoint by finishing him off after he was immobilized, and therefore the botanist can seek retribution. But even if the officer just assaults the botanist to crit, it definitely gives him a reason to retaliate still? So it's flawed regardless I guess.

The problem with that is twofold. Firstly, it's not saying they can't be mad about being killed, it's that you can't just silently walk up to them and kill them on sight, the conflict is over. You have to build up to it. Or at least, that's how it used to be.

And to that second point, I don't agree, if it's all one action for very obvious reasons. You can't kill someone without putting them in crit. Even from damage, they have to go through Crit to reach Death. Now if they get you in crit, search you, and then decide to finish beating you to death, then yeah. That's continuing the conflict past the endpoint. But batoning someone into Stam Crit, and then killing them now that they can't fight back would still be one action. You can be angry that this person did that to you, you can chase them down. You just can't silently kill them in an ambush.

[Fatal]

Without reading the salt mine of most of this:

95% of the time, any action that would let you kill security or command for, is something they are going to get noted / banned for

As admins, we generally prefer you to adminhelp bad play by security or command so that it doesn't become a pattern, if you kill them for it, there's no record of it and they just continue in a later round until the next vigilante comes along and then rounds turn into absolute shitshows because then security who haven't actually done anything wrong get targeted, and people not involved decide to get some of the action too, I've seen this many times and it's just a fucking car crash

[Agux909]

In response to the OP, I'm just going to tell you flatly that this isn't what you want at all. The metaprotections are a double-edged sword. It's what allows Security to do their job, because if Sec's doing something and you don't have any good reason to believe they're a Changeling or whatever, you're disencouraged/disallowed from interfering with it. This reduces the number of shitters making Sec players want to see what Russian Roulette is like outside of the game.

But it's also important for YOU. Because the Metaprotections mean that Sec gets held to a higher standard. It's specifically mentioned in the rules, and you see it come up semi-frequently in Ban Appeals and the like, that Security is held to a higher standard than average crew. If Sec didn't have their metaprotections and the like, they wouldn't be being held to a higher standard, and Sec players could just deal with you however the fuck they want to, like any other member of the crew. And let me tell you, the people playing the Department that's going to have the most shitters actively trying to fuck with them, while they're also the biggest target of antags, AND dealing with the Tide trying to treat them as a loot pinata, are absolutely going to be the ones with the least patience for shittery.

The Protections that Sec faces are both for Sec's sake, and yours. You don't want them to lose them. Just ahelp if they're abusing it.

Pretty much this.

[serxule]

ignoring that everyone is calling this salt (which i dont really understand), its atleast brought up a lot of information

[TheLoLSwat]

does serxule even agree with his own point anymore? whats the point of keeping this open

[CPTANT]

Ohw yeah, I forgot to respond to this. I didn't know this was a thing in the first place? I escalate against security/command the same way I do everyone else.

[Farquaar]

I notice the thread's title was subtly changed

[serxule]

I notice the thread's title was subtly changed

yeah i changed it to sound less salty (despite no salt) and make more sense

[san7890]

After the discussion that took place in this thread and the collection of such information in the Opening Post of this thread, we do not see any use for further policy to be added at this time.