Hold all non-sec that act as security to the same standards as security.

[Timberpoes]

There is a somewhat informal approach to administration that I follow as an admin:
If a non-sec is acting as if they are station security, I hold them to the same standards as security.

I apply this principle the same across LRP and MRP. I believe this should be formally written policy.

Why?
It doesn't make sense to roll non-sec and then bypass all the expectations of sec officers. At that point, there's no reason to join the sec team except for the RP and banter. If you just want to hunt valids, then as a nonsec you're not required to use nonlethals, you're not required to follow sec policy, etc. It disincetivises rolling sec to play the sec role.

I would aim to reverse this, and instead to disincetivise players from picking non-security roles when they want to play as if they are security, while leaving the door open for players to continue to do so as long as they stick to sec standards. This is not a "stay in your lane" rule, but a "security have responsibilities, all who perform security's job will be held to them" rule.

Any metaprotections for security should continue to exist only for actual members of security.

What is not acting like sec?
Getting revenge on an antag that has personally wronged you.
Defending a work colleague that is being wronged or attacked by an antag.
Bumping into or spotting a player after either of the above two and dispensing a bit of vigilante justice.

What is acting like sec?
Seeking out conflict with antags with little personal IC reason to do so, or carrying out security activities like executions and round removals of suspected antags when you have little IC reason to do so and are simply relying on Rules 2 and 4.
Seeing an antag do a benign objective with no IC impact to you and instantly validing them.
Going out of your way to hunt down antagonists with poor IC reason to do so. (Validhunting by another other name)
Breaking up fights between other crew members by just killing them both, when their fight isn't impacting your workspace or department. (The Icepacks clause)

Grey areas?
Stuff like existential station threats or round defining threats, where we sorta expect the station to descend into factional warfare or it makes sense for everyone to want to fight for their lives.
Thusly things like going out of your way to hunt a murderhobo that is gunning people in the hallways is on the acceptable side.
And also dealing with existential threats like revs, cult, nukies, etc. usually require a more coordinated station response and can continue as they do now.

Goals
I want non-sec players to question - "Wait, why am I hunting antags? I still have to follow all the same rules but get none of the protections. This is lame, I should just roll sec."

Non-goals
I don't want lane rules on LRP.
I don't want admins bwoinking players for non-lethally apprehending players in line with sec standards, escalation still covers many conflicts.
I don't want admins bwoinking players for defending themselves or their departmental coworkers, or defending immedate crew from obvious antags. Immediate self defense and the immediate defense of others is human survival, not acting like security.
I don't want admins bwoinking players for killing people that are clearly and obviously threats and leaving their bodies where they fall. This is not the red-headed stepchild that escalation policy's "take people you crit/kill to medbay" is.
I don't want admins bwoinking players for killing or hunting people whom have seriously wronged them that shift. I do not want to protect antags from the obvious consequences of their actions against other players.
It is impactful for Heads or departmental staff to see their precious departmental pet mascots brutally murdered. I would expect immediate lethal escalation to be a sensible IC response. Preventing this kind of IC interaction is a non-goal.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I feel like what you're asking for makes sense for 25+ pop, but for low or deadpop, would be a nightmare. Most of the time I'm on when there's like 10-20 people on Sybil and there is no security force except for the greytide militia, who have limited-to-none access to non-lethals. Imposing additional limits and expectations on them will just mean antagonists are likely to get very free reign over the entire station.

[Timberpoes]

I feel like what you're asking for makes sense for 25+ pop, but for low or deadpop, would be a nightmare. Most of the time I'm on when there's like 10-20 people on Sybil and there is no security force except for the greytide militia, who have limited-to-none access to non-lethals. Imposing additional limits and expectations on them will just mean antagonists are likely to get very free reign over the entire station.

From sec policy itself:

... Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

All my examples of what acting like sec is, are also grounded in ideas of IC reasoning or other IC factors. Engaging antags as non-sec for good IC reason is not necessarily acting like sec. Self defense, defense of others, defense of the workplace or defense of the station against murderhobo and existential threats are all just crew survival.

Lowpop antags are also forbidden from murderboning. So free reign over the station isn't really that important when everyone is following the rules.

There is a lot of flexibility built into everything. It would be reasonable to expect non-sec to use non-lethal methods first in conflicts against antags just planting of bug or stealing some magboots or something. If they don't have non-lethals, they should go and try and get or make some if their intent was to be ghetto sec. There's no pressing immediate reason to try and force a greenshift at that point.

If it's not reasonably possible to get or make nonlethal guns (No access to armory, no access to Cap's spare, etc.) then options become similarly limited - And a sec officer with absolutely no reasonable access to nonlethals does not have to use nonlethals either.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

I feel like what you're asking for makes sense for 25+ pop, but for low or deadpop, would be a nightmare. Most of the time I'm on when there's like 10-20 people on Sybil and there is no security force except for the greytide militia, who have limited-to-none access to non-lethals. Imposing additional limits and expectations on them will just mean antagonists are likely to get very free reign over the entire station.

From sec policy itself:

... Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.

All my examples of what acting like sec is, are also grounded in ideas of IC reasoning or other IC factors. Engaging antags as non-sec for good IC reason is not necessarily acting like sec. Self defense, defense of others, defense of the workplace or defense of the station against murderhobo and existential threats are all just crew survival.

Lowpop antags are also forbidden from murderboning. So free reign over the station isn't really that important when everyone is following the rules.

There is a lot of flexibility built into everything. It would be reasonable to expect non-sec to use non-lethal methods first in conflicts against antags just planting of bug or stealing some magboots or something. If they don't have non-lethals, they should go and try and get or make some if their intent was to be ghetto sec. There's no pressing immediate reason to try and force a greenshift at that point.

If it's not reasonably possible to get or make nonlethal guns (No access to armory, no access to Cap's spare, etc.) then options become similarly limited - And a sec officer with absolutely no reasonable access to nonlethals does not have to use nonlethals either.

Okay so - what are the most common non-lethals used? Stun baton, pepperspray, disabler, and flash. 3 out of 4 of those are only found in security, unless you kill beepsky, I guess. So isn't this kind of like you want it codified into policy "If you want to validhunt as non-sec, you need to break into security first and steal a disabler and stun baton."

I mean, don't get me wrong, that's certainly thematic to assistant and arguably this will increase conflict between sec and crew which might be cool, but, doesn't that seem a little bit....off to have as policy?

[Mice World]

So isn't this kind of like you want it codified into policy "If you want to validhunt as non-sec, you need to break into security first and steal a disabler and stun baton."

Nobody will be breaking into security every single round just to hunt antags. That's a lot of effort when they simply could just start as security. Breaking into security also opens them up to IC punishments making it even less of an attractive option. I'm not sure this policy will do much however. It will definitely cut down on cleaver spam but non-lethal options are rather common on station. Everyone can make a stun-prod, flashes can be printed form robotics. Anyone with a single pair of cable cuffs can arrest someone if they get lucky with grabs. People will still play assistant to hunt for antags because they can do so while rolling for mid-shift traitor.

The goal is not to prevent non-sec players from acting like security.

You're right sorry I didn't really read the OP properly, if this goes through it'll be interesting to see how many new security players we'll get.

Goals
I want non-sec players to question - "Wait, why am I hunting antags? I still have to follow all the same rules but get none of the protections. This is lame, I should just roll sec."

Editing again! I do agree with this policy change but this does have a clear answer, like I said before, "because I can roll traitor". People that validhunt basically just play the game for combat and as being an antagonist gives you the most freedom in combat so it's more desirable than just rolling security.

[Timberpoes]

The goal is not to prevent non-sec players from acting like security.

It's to have them uphold the same standard of play in doing so that all other security staff have to deal with.

If the player is doing everything sec would be expected to do without having any sec metaprotections, then they're playing to that higher standard.

That means they can't take items not related to crimes (sec policy), they can't kill Asimov borgs trying to stop them doing harm (sec policy, also kinda server rules), players can always resist their arrests since they're not security (no metaprotections), they're expected to deal with things non-lethally before escalating to lethals (sec policy), other players can interfere in their arrests (not security, no metaprotections) and security themselves can arrest non-sec acting like sec (going around stunning and cuffing people when you're not sec can be antagonistic).

And if they're doing all of that while not sec, then they're totally free to.

[NoxVS]

This is currently already a headmin ruling as of viewtopic.php?p=632580#p632580

Security standards can be applied to anyone acting as security, not just roundstart security officers.

[Timberpoes]

Oh. Neat. Then props to the admin team for enforcing this so consistently that I never even realised it was actually policy. o7