Hold all non-sec that act as security to the same standards as security.
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2023 4:22 pm
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.
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.