/tg/Station 13

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:26 am**

If you've played LRP and interacted with sec before you probably have encountered at least a few times where they've stepped outside their role as officer to attack you as a player. This includes things like robbing you, kneecapping, beating while cuffed, pepperspray spam, and other fan favorites.

When this happens, sec "void their metaprotections."

Spoiler:

When sec void their metaprotections, they can be escalated back against as per normal escalation (i.e., as if they weren't an officer).

Therein lies the rub. Sec cannot be escalated against normally. Even if you manage to "win" the conflict against the officer, you will be marked for death by them and the entire sec team afterwards. Because the rest of the sec team are just doing their job, the escalation doesn't apply to them. Even if you kill the officer, after their revival (at which point the conflict should be over), they can use the fact you've committed murder as an excuse to step back into their role as officer and round remove you. But they likely won't need to do that - the rest of the sec team will have you captured and perma'd or round-removed for killing an officer.

Not a great outcome! You might say it would be better to ahelp the situation instead. That is definitely an option. But there should also be a reasonable IC option in situations like these.

ENTER THE PROPOSAL: Make Rule 4's "act like an antag, get treated like one" apply to security officers that unjustifiably void their metaprotections in their treatment of a player.

WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN?: If a sec officer, for instance, griefs a player for a minor sort of crime - e.g. 10 minutes gulag and a kneecapping for hacking into botany - this would make them fully valid to that player. If any other player were to stuff you in a box for 10 minutes and break your legs unprompted, admins wouldn't think twice if you deepfried their brain - so why should an officer be any different?

In most cases where officers void their metaprotections, their behavior is also rulebreaking. So why wouldn't they be valid?

DOWNSIDES?: One could envision a scenario where the officer voids his metaprotections in handling some giga shitter that constantly tided him the entire round. Perhaps he, instead of booking them for assault, chose to kneecap the player. Would the officer then be valid to that player, since he voided his metaprotections? Here is where the "unjustifiably" part comes in. We can agree kneecapping there would be justifiable, so the officer isn't acting like an antag, and the proposal doesn't apply.

Motivation for this thread:

Spoiler:

Food for thought: Does the rule 4 policy of "act like an antag, get treated like an antag" apply to officers? If so, what exactly is "acting like an antag" as an officer? Are players allowed to seek IC retribution for rulebreaking behavior via this policy?

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:33 am**

"even if sec treat you in a way that is so bad as to merit a note or a secban" "better yet -- ignore it completely IC and ahelp."

There's a reason for this. If you escalate against it ICly it's harder for admins to do anything. He was already punished for it by being RR'd. If you ahelp, they can start the process to getting the shitter out of secroles.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 2:51 am**

literally just ahelp you dont need to deal with everything by preparing 20 minutes the perfect way to kill them instantly so they cant react and then frying their brain

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:12 am**

Ahelp it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:15 am**

Turbonerd wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:12 amAhelp it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:48 am**

They're not gonna make sec valid for locking you up man it isn't gonna happen

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:12 am**

TheFinalPotato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:48 am They're not gonna make sec valid for locking you up man it isn't gonna happen

Brigging and locking you up is literally part of sec's job so it has nothing to do with voiding their metaprotections, I feel like this is intentionally bad faith.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:20 am**

How does it prevent the other security from not round removing you for killing an officer?

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:41 am**

Opposed. Sec who break rules to the point of violating their metaprotections are better off being ahelped. Bad faith greytiders (read as: all greytiders) will abuse the proposed policy as an excuse to round remove security for pepper spraying them once.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:22 am**

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:12 am
TheFinalPotato wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:48 am They're not gonna make sec valid for locking you up man it isn't gonna happen
Brigging and locking you up is literally part of sec's job so it has nothing to do with voiding their metaprotections, I feel like this is intentionally bad faith.

To be both honest and frank, I don't know how "I should be able to kill sec for doing their jobs poorly" isn't a bad faith argument.

But no, this is dumb and will only result in fewer good security players, you should just

Turbonerd wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 3:12 amAhelp it.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 7:59 am**

Vekter wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:22 am To be both honest and frank, I don't know how "I should be able to kill sec for doing their jobs poorly" isn't a bad faith argument.

I think there's a miscommunication here. None of this thread is about killing sec for doing their jobs poorly. Everyone should be allowed to do their jobs poorly, and the reason sec have metaprotections to begin with are so they're allowed to do their jobs poorly without getting killed for it.

Doing your job poorly =/= doing your job maliciously.

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:41 am Opposed. Sec who break rules to the point of violating their metaprotections are better off being ahelped. Bad faith greytiders (read as: all greytiders) will abuse the proposed policy as an excuse to round remove security for pepper spraying them once.

Using pepperspray on a tider isn't voiding your metaprotections so it wouldn't apply here.

"Just ahelp it" is a good OOC solution, but it's not an IC solution.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:11 am**

Adminhelp it because 9 times out of 10, you're going to have admins looking at it anyway if you try and handle it ICly

It's better to deal with the problem in an OOC fashion because if you deal with it in an IC fashion, it doesn't fix the problem

The other problem here, is when do you decide that the officer involved has lost their metaprotections? Most players will jump on any opportunity to fight security, and we have enough trouble already with this, all that's going to happen here is you are going to give admins more work and more people are going to get in trouble for fighting security over the tiniest little slight against them (as well as people who think that bombing / breaking the brig is okay in these scenarios because ONE officer did something against them)

As for the rule 4 scenarios, acting like an antag will get you treated like one, if an officer is acting like an antag, they're getting talked to by the admins and most likely banned for it

This is going to make our jobs as admins harder and I see no reason to implement anything because this is already a problem we deal with as I mentioned before

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:26 am**

Fatal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:11 am It's better to deal with the problem in an OOC fashion because if you deal with it in an IC fashion, it doesn't fix the problem
[...]
As for the rule 4 scenarios, acting like an antag will get you treated like one, if an officer is acting like an antag, they're getting talked to by the admins and most likely banned for it

The only way to correct the behavior is to ahelp it, otherwise the officer can do it again in future rounds. But that doesn't solve the issue of what your character can do in these situations. In the examples I listed, should you be allowed to treat the officer like an antag IC?

Fatal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:11 amThe other problem here, is when do you decide that the officer involved has lost their metaprotections? Most players will jump on any opportunity to fight security, and we have enough trouble already with this, all that's going to happen here is you are going to give admins more work and more people are going to get in trouble for fighting security over the tiniest little slight against them (as well as people who think that bombing / breaking the brig is okay in these scenarios because ONE officer did something against them)

Admins would decide it. It's not up to the player to decide when any of this applies, it's up to the admin. Part of the goal of this thread is determining when, if ever, an officer could "act like an antag," since they are the one role other than captain immune from being antag. And if they can, whether or not they're subject to the same treatment as other roles.

Gulagging someone for 10 minutes and breaking their legs over say, a stolen pair of shoes, would be serious overescalation on the part of the officer. If any other non-sec player did something like this, you'd be completely justified round-removing them. But when it's sec, suddenly you're supposed to ignore it IC, and ahelp instead, because you know OOCly they're a nonantag? That doesn't check out.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:00 am**

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 9:26 am
Fatal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:11 am It's better to deal with the problem in an OOC fashion because if you deal with it in an IC fashion, it doesn't fix the problem
[...]
As for the rule 4 scenarios, acting like an antag will get you treated like one, if an officer is acting like an antag, they're getting talked to by the admins and most likely banned for it
The only way to correct the behavior is to ahelp it, otherwise the officer can do it again in future rounds. But that doesn't solve the issue of what your character can do in these situations. In the examples I listed, should you be allowed to treat the officer like an antag IC?

Fatal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:11 amThe other problem here, is when do you decide that the officer involved has lost their metaprotections? Most players will jump on any opportunity to fight security, and we have enough trouble already with this, all that's going to happen here is you are going to give admins more work and more people are going to get in trouble for fighting security over the tiniest little slight against them (as well as people who think that bombing / breaking the brig is okay in these scenarios because ONE officer did something against them)
Admins would decide it. It's not up to the player to decide when any of this applies, it's up to the admin. Part of the goal of this thread is determining when, if ever, an officer could "act like an antag," since they are the one role other than captain immune from being antag. And if they can, whether or not they're subject to the same treatment as other roles.

Gulagging someone for 10 minutes and breaking their legs over say, a stolen pair of shoes, would be serious overescalation on the part of the officer. If any other non-sec player did something like this, you'd be completely justified round-removing them. But when it's sec, suddenly you're supposed to ignore it IC, and ahelp instead, because you know OOCly they're a nonantag? That doesn't check out.

What you're trying to do is to move the "designated ahelper" from the crew to security over IC actions. If we're going to be assuming any party is acting in good faith and not doing antagonistic actions, it's going to be security, who is not able to be an antagonist (this is relevant, because if an assistant kills you for seemingly no reason, it's likely they're an antagonist, if security does it, it's likely they're playing in bad faith and thus should be ahelped), and who does not have "greytider culture", not the crew.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 11:15 am**

Why does there need to even be something your character can do against security beyond defending yourself non-lethally and resisting arrest in the same manner that you can already do? If you've adminhelped an issue, that mean's it's being looked at by the admins, you better not be going after the officer in character, especially whilst the other player is talking to the admins

I feel you have "acting like an antag" confused with "being a dick" in some of these scenarios honestly

If an officer is running around with a desword murdering everyone on sight, chances are, admins aren't going to get pissy if you take that esword and kill the guy (because it's a good assumption that it's a disguise)

If you do something against security in general and an admin gets involved, the first thing they're going to ask is "why", I don't see our current system of dealing with scenarios with security to be a problem honestly, and if your actions are in good faith, you are unlikely to get into trouble over anything that you do against security anyway, they're not "untouchable", but given 99% of the people who act out against security have a particularly shitty reason for doing so, the 1% don't need a policy for

Context is everything in scenarios like this and admins will look at that anyway when dealing with issues, giving people a list of when they can and can't escalate against security is just going to lead to more rules lawyering also

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 12:16 pm**

Fatal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 11:15 am Why does there need to even be something your character can do against security beyond defending yourself non-lethally and resisting arrest in the same manner that you can already do? If you've adminhelped an issue, that mean's it's being looked at by the admins, you better not be going after the officer in character, especially whilst the other player is talking to the admins

If someone takes you out back and cracks your knees open then throws you in isolation for 10 min before letting you crawl back to med to get your legs fixed, over taking their shoes, telling them “defend yourself nonlethally and resist further arrests” doesn’t make any sense at all.

The fact of the matter is that there are a good amount of rounds that have no admins on, and of these rounds some of them where the urgent ahelp ticket doesn’t get answered until long after the round ends. Players need a valid IC response, something that makes sense for their character to do IC. Casually getting healed then continuing on the round as normal makes absolutely no sense unless you’re RP’ing a trauma victim blocking out the memories or something.

I do not think sec have to be murderboning with a desword to qualify as “acting like an antag,” I’m not sure that’s the spirit the rule was written in, but I’ve been wrong before and I could be again.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 2:52 pm**

Ahelp it. If your argument is "no admins online" then how is a policy change going to fix the problem of no admins online. If you legitimately think an admin isn't going to come online to investigate the appeal against sec, why are you worried they are going to come online to ban you for retaliating.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 4:47 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 7:59 am "Just ahelp it" is a good OOC solution, but it's not an IC solution.

You're implying that we need IC solutions for players blatantly breaking the rules, which we don't.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:24 pm**

One of the problems with the "just ahelp it if an officer is going around being an obvious overescalating shit and removing people's limbs for vandalism knowing the rest of sec will back them up because they're on the sec team" thing is it doesn't account for the times an antag does genuinely disguise themselves as an officer, at which point if you ahelp it you're just gonna be told it's an ic issue. Even when they're not, it's not remotely unheard of for shitty sec officers to mash F1 when people do take matters into their own hands and the admins have sided with them regardless and banned their victims for retaliating. Remember that one case where MSO personally intervened to overturn a "greytider's" ban for explosive lancing an officer who stole all his shit earlier in the round then F1'd and claimed it was unprovoked and out of nowhere?

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:35 pm**

Screemonster wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:24 pm One of the problems with the "just ahelp it if an officer is going around being an obvious overescalating shit and removing people's limbs for vandalism knowing the rest of sec will back them up because they're on the sec team" thing is it doesn't account for the times an antag does genuinely disguise themselves as an officer, at which point if you ahelp it you're just gonna be told it's an ic issue. Even when they're not, it's not remotely unheard of for shitty sec officers to mash F1 when people do take matters into their own hands and the admins have sided with them regardless and banned their victims for retaliating. Remember that one case where MSO personally intervened to overturn a "greytider's" ban for explosive lancing an officer who stole all his shit earlier in the round then F1'd and claimed it was unprovoked and out of nowhere?

These are great points and I completely forgot about that example.

In stealing the clown’s spare that he had permission for, and keeping it for himself, knowing the cap gave it to him, the officer voided his metaprotections unjustifiably, making him valid to the clown.

Note that the clown could have just coped with the fact he got his spare stolen by an officer, ahelped, and continued the rest of his round walking around until maybe an admin came on like so many here are suggesting. But he chose to seek what was deemed valid IC retaliation and round remove the officer.

Headmin ruling at the time:

Naloac wrote:The clown killing him is in my opinion perfectly valid if the seccie wants to act like an antag he should be treated like one.

Acting like an antag here was simply keeping the clown’s confiscated spare for himself, despite it being rightfully the clown’s.

In that case it was ruled the clown could murder the officer for what was using his sec role to loot him. That is very far from murderboning with a desword.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 pm**

Ahelping everything is shit, I'd much rather solve it IC and have a free hand in doing so.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:54 pm**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 pm Ahelping everything is shit, I'd much rather solve it IC and have a free hand in doing so.

I agree with this take in almost all other cases, but escalation baiting is already out of control on the lrp servers and I think it would have a big negative impact on rounds if bored assistants felt safe to do their escalation baiting schtick on sec as well. Every round on lrp already devolves into sec spending the round chasing whatever greytide managed to annoy a head until they baton them and then escalate that until they can kill the head and go hide in maint.

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:54 pm**

CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 pm Ahelping everything is shit, I'd much rather solve it IC and have a free hand in doing so.

I agree with this take in almost all other cases, but escalation baiting is already out of control on the lrp servers and I think it would have a big negative impact on rounds if bored assistants felt safe to do their escalation baiting schtick on sec as well. Every round on lrp already devolves into sec spending the round chasing whatever greytide managed to annoy a head until they baton them and then escalate that until they can kill the head and go hide in maint meanwhile heretics and nukies are using the distraction to destroy the station

Posted: **Sun Apr 02, 2023 7:11 pm**

rasonj wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:54 pm
CPTANT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:48 pm Ahelping everything is shit, I'd much rather solve it IC and have a free hand in doing so.
I agree with this take in almost all other cases, but escalation baiting is already out of control on the lrp servers and I think it would have a big negative impact on rounds if bored assistants felt safe to do their escalation baiting schtick on sec as well.

Escalation baiting is definitely not relegated to the assistants, and it’s much worse when sec does it since they have a team backing them.

Policy shouldn’t need to cater to the worst faith actors who misapply them to try to justify bad actions, and anyone who kills sec unjustifiably for something silly like pepperspray likely isn’t the type of player to stay up to date on policy threads to begin with.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 3:18 am**

Screemonster wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:24 pm One of the problems with the "just ahelp it if an officer is going around being an obvious overescalating shit and removing people's limbs for vandalism knowing the rest of sec will back them up because they're on the sec team" thing is it doesn't account for the times an antag does genuinely disguise themselves as an officer, at which point if you ahelp it you're just gonna be told it's an ic issue. Even when they're not, it's not remotely unheard of for shitty sec officers to mash F1 when people do take matters into their own hands and the admins have sided with them regardless and banned their victims for retaliating. Remember that one case where MSO personally intervened to overturn a "greytider's" ban for explosive lancing an officer who stole all his shit earlier in the round then F1'd and claimed it was unprovoked and out of nowhere?

If an antagonist has disguised themselves as an officer, the shift's already doomed to begin with.
It's also much harder for admins to investigate and come to the "correct" conclusion when the "wrongly arrested" party ends up murdering the security officer over being gulagged for breaking into botany and the officer ahelps.
Not to mention having to deal with other security officers who saw you murder their colleague and think you're a traitor, resulting in a chase and massive fight while someone goes and kill people unopposed.

Posted: **Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:05 pm**

Here's my problems with this:
1. When you round remove a security officer (or decide to grief him back in some other way), you're escalating against all of security, not just the officer. They have no way of knowing for sure that the officer was shit, and it'll end up with either you dead or you waging war against security for the entire round. And you'll be forced to do it nonlethally, too, since at this point they're just doing their jobs. Which means security will spend the rest of the round chasing after you, and that significantly derails their rounds over something which should be an OOC issue.

2. In most cases where it's acceptable to round remove a security officer due to overescalation, they also broke the rules. By continuing to escalate it ingame, you make it less of a slam dunk sec jobban for the admins and more of an "IC issue". Which means that the sec officer will continue being able to play security and victimize others instead of getting job banned. It's generally been a precedent that once you adminhelp something it is out of your hands and in the admin's, meaning you can't continue escalating ICly while they're responding to the admins.

Those two issues are ignoring the fact that players who, at the slightest provocation from security, dedicate their rounds to slipping/shoving and stealing sec's shit will use this to empower their greytide even more.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:23 am**

BeeSting12 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:05 pm Here's my problems with this:
1. When you round remove a security officer (or decide to grief him back in some other way), you're escalating against all of security, not just the officer. They have no way of knowing for sure that the officer was shit, and it'll end up with either you dead or you waging war against security for the entire round. And you'll be forced to do it nonlethally, too, since at this point they're just doing their jobs. Which means security will spend the rest of the round chasing after you, and that significantly derails their rounds over something which should be an OOC issue.

So, two points I'd like to make here. The first is just a matter of preference, and you may disagree, but when I play sec I personally find nonantag conflict to be a positive influence on my round. It provides job content when the antags aren't doing anything. The second point, and this may be optimistic -- but it seems to me that officers should obtain context before they interfere in a conflict. If they do this, and it becomes clear their fellow redshirt was abusing his power and breaking rules, they will likely abandon the arrest entirely. I've experienced this both as a crewmember escalating against a seccie and as the HoS ignoring a seccie's calls for assistance after they'd been rightfully retaliated against by someone who they'd abused.

BeeSting12 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:05 pm2. In most cases where it's acceptable to round remove a security officer due to overescalation, they also broke the rules. By continuing to escalate it ingame, you make it less of a slam dunk sec jobban for the admins and more of an "IC issue". Which means that the sec officer will continue being able to play security and victimize others instead of getting job banned. It's generally been a precedent that once you adminhelp something it is out of your hands and in the admin's, meaning you can't continue escalating ICly while they're responding to the admins.

I could be wrong here but as far as I'm aware, escalating in-game doesn't disqualify you from ahelping a situation, but it does make the situation messier for an admin. There is something to be said for the fact that admins are trained for a reason, not everything will be simple and it would be a shame if players had to choose between retaliating and ahelping.

BeeSting12 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:05 pmThose two issues are ignoring the fact that players who, at the slightest provocation from security, dedicate their rounds to slipping/shoving and stealing sec's shit will use this to empower their greytide even more.

I think you'd agree with me that sec shouldn't be provoking players whatsoever, unless it's for a crime they've committed -- and in that case it would be odd to call it a provocation. Tiders who bad-faith instigate conflicts with sec need not apply, since this immediately gives sec a justifiable reason to void their metaprotections and escalate back as players.

Posted: **Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:21 am**

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:23 am
I could be wrong here but as far as I'm aware, escalating in-game doesn't disqualify you from ahelping a situation, but it does make the situation messier for an admin. There is something to be said for the fact that admins are trained for a reason, not everything will be simple and it would be a shame if players had to choose between retaliating and ahelping.

Once you adminhelp, that means you back off and let the admins look at the situation, I'm not sure if this is directly in the rules but this is definitely a thing, and adminhelping a situation and then ganking a guy whilst they're talking to the admins will net you a telling off at the very least

If the admins get back to you and say "IC Issue" then it's back to you

We are trained, but we're still human, if you had any idea just how messy these situations can get to untangle, especially when there's half of security to talk to and multiple people's logs to dive through, you might think twice about this

Posted: **Thu Apr 06, 2023 3:29 am**

Fatal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 7:21 am
sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:23 am
I could be wrong here but as far as I'm aware, escalating in-game doesn't disqualify you from ahelping a situation, but it does make the situation messier for an admin. There is something to be said for the fact that admins are trained for a reason, not everything will be simple and it would be a shame if players had to choose between retaliating and ahelping.

Once you adminhelp, that means you back off and let the admins look at the situation, I'm not sure if this is directly in the rules but this is definitely a thing, and adminhelping a situation and then ganking a guy whilst they're talking to the admins will net you a telling off at the very least

Right, you obviously can't choose to ahelp and then seek IC resolution while they're replying. The idea would be you seek IC resolution first and then ahelp after. This is the thing most players do in the majority of situations since of course it is a bit of a big ask to suggest players withdraw from the conflict entirely to ahelp it instead, although as you say that would make it much less messy.

This is a bit outside the scope of the policythread though, whether retaliating disqualifies you from ahelping or not is its own can of worms and probably best hashed out elsewhere.

Posted: **Thu Apr 06, 2023 3:19 pm**

ahelp it and then blow them away while admins are dealing with it so that the situation is 100x harder for admins to deal with.

Unironically though, here is what will happen if you dont 100% blow away sec without much counterplay.

1. Get thing wrongfully taken by security.
2. You stun baton and cuff the sec officer then loot your item back.
3. they cry for help on radio.
4. you now have to spend the rest of the round evading the rest of the security team instead of being able to do what you wanted to do and if you get caught even if its found that you were in the right youll still spend the majority of the round being cuffed (Main reason why i just ghost when i get cuffed now because even if everyone agrees i did nothing wrong too much of my time gets wasted for me to be able to do anything i wanted to do that round)

If you kill the security officers that have been forcing you to waste a large amount of time evading/dealing with them you will get punished by admins (This happened to livrah when the entire security team wanted to random search him for refining too many bluespace cores, he evaded them for 20 or so minutes then blew them up when they caught him and started lethaling.)

Also note that you apparently arn`t allowed to kill security officers that were called as backup by the original security officer that wronged you, because they were just "doing their job" this was another arguement used by admins against livrah.

So right now as it stands, if someone with authority steals shit from you and then they cry for help when you try to take your shit back....round remove them permanently because they just put a target over your head and gave everyone else a right to attack you. If an admin does so much as ask you what happened you know that the other player not only killbaited you (by abusing their authority to have other people take you out in a conflict they started) but also ban baited you (for ahelping after narrowing your only chance of having a normal round to a path that requires violence)

This is what happens if you blow that security officer away.
1. Get thing wrongfully taken by security.
2. Incapacitate the security officer lethally or in a way where it will take awhile for him to recover/cant call for help.
3. Most likely be able to enjoy the rest of the round as if nothing happened and nobody griefed you from the beginning.

Posted: **Thu Apr 06, 2023 7:00 pm**

MooCow12 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 3:19 pm Unironically though, here is what will happen if you dont 100% blow away sec without much counterplay.

1. Get thing wrongfully taken by security.
2. You stun baton and cuff the sec officer then loot your item back.
3. they cry for help on radio.
4. you now have to spend the rest of the round evading the rest of the security team instead of being able to do what you wanted to do and if you get caught even if its found that you were in the right youll still spend the majority of the round being cuffed (Main reason why i just ghost when i get cuffed now because even if everyone agrees i did nothing wrong too much of my time gets wasted for me to be able to do anything i wanted to do that round)
[…]
So right now as it stands, if someone with authority steals shit from you and then they cry for help when you try to take your shit back....round remove them permanently because they just put a target over your head and gave everyone else a right to attack you. If an admin does so much as ask you what happened you know that the other player not only killbaited you (by abusing their authority to have other people take you out in a conflict they started) but also ban baited you (for ahelping after narrowing your only chance of having a normal round to a path that requires violence)

This is what happens if you blow that security officer away.
1. Get thing wrongfully taken by security.
2. Incapacitate the security officer lethally or in a way where it will take awhile for him to recover/cant call for help.
3. Most likely be able to enjoy the rest of the round as if nothing happened and nobody griefed you from the beginning.

I couldn’t agree more with this, but unfortunately some admins do not have the same view on this that MSO did for your ban appeal. Many view round removal as overescalation over something like theft of an ID (like in your case), even if it’s malicious and in bad faith on the part of the seccie, simply because it's a seccie.

Posted: **Sun Apr 09, 2023 9:22 am**

Personally, I don't see how IC escalation will help. If you ahelp and the offending officer gets secbanned, you save the trouble for everyone, possibly permanently, instead of just removing the offending seccie for that round only and reinforcing the idea that might makes right in their head. personally, this is a case of Lawyer not doing their job or not being listened to by Sec: he is the one that has to prevent this kind of thing from happening, since their job is to potect the arrested. Lawyers have usually no power to actually enforce their role and this is the result. I would argue that lawyer needs some kind of authority to actually tell sec to stop an "invalid arrest" and taht way we can avoid these kinds of troubles.

Posted: **Sun Apr 09, 2023 10:41 am**

The appeal in question.

The ban was overturned due to additional information provided proving that MooCow had been unfairly treated by the security officer who outright lied in bad faith to get MooCow banned for killing him over stealing the spare captain's ID, which was rightfully given to him by the captain herself.

And the reason why the ban even happened is that MooCow lethally escalated (valid) and Shaps had been misled by the security officer and failed to have clear communication with MooCow over the issue.

This is the problem, it's a mess to clear, and admins have to investigate ahelps regardless of whether the rule is there or not.

This doesn't fix how other security officers would react to one of their own being killed, because they may not have the context for why the assistant is suddenly silently stabbing said security shitter.

Side note: Sec officer's appeal

EDIT: All this has changed my perspective.

The policy already exists, it's just that you would have to

plan a way to kill the security officer without alerting others
prepare to explain to admins completely on why you did this
possibly forfeit OOC punishment of the security officer

Not to mention that they would not learn from this episode and think that their actions are validated because you killed them.

Posted: **Tue Apr 11, 2023 9:28 pm**

MooCow12 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 3:19 pm ahelp it and then blow them away while admins are dealing with it so that the situation is 100x harder for admins to deal with.

Unironically though, here is what will happen if you dont 100% blow away sec without much counterplay.

1. Get thing wrongfully taken by security.
2. You stun baton and cuff the sec officer then loot your item back.
3. they cry for help on radio.
4. you now have to spend the rest of the round evading the rest of the security team instead of being able to do what you wanted to do and if you get caught even if its found that you were in the right youll still spend the majority of the round being cuffed (Main reason why i just ghost when i get cuffed now because even if everyone agrees i did nothing wrong too much of my time gets wasted for me to be able to do anything i wanted to do that round)

If you kill the security officers that have been forcing you to waste a large amount of time evading/dealing with them you will get punished by admins (This happened to livrah when the entire security team wanted to random search him for refining too many bluespace cores, he evaded them for 20 or so minutes then blew them up when they caught him and started lethaling.)

Also note that you apparently arn`t allowed to kill security officers that were called as backup by the original security officer that wronged you, because they were just "doing their job" this was another arguement used by admins against livrah.

So right now as it stands, if someone with authority steals shit from you and then they cry for help when you try to take your shit back....round remove them permanently because they just put a target over your head and gave everyone else a right to attack you. If an admin does so much as ask you what happened you know that the other player not only killbaited you (by abusing their authority to have other people take you out in a conflict they started) but also ban baited you (for ahelping after narrowing your only chance of having a normal round to a path that requires violence)

This is what happens if you blow that security officer away.
1. Get thing wrongfully taken by security.
2. Incapacitate the security officer lethally or in a way where it will take awhile for him to recover/cant call for help.
3. Most likely be able to enjoy the rest of the round as if nothing happened and nobody griefed you from the beginning.

1.Get thing wrongfully taken by security officer.
2. Murder them?

Have you tried just talking to the Warden, the Captain or the HoS? Cos immediately resorting to violence/murder is completely fucking stupid, the idea that admins need to allow players to beat sec to death without resorting to any other alternative seems bad faith.

Take some steps to communicate, navigate the chain of command, if this does not work atleast security that aren't involved know why you just killed someone and may be more understanding.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 2:17 pm**

Crewmembers should be punished for breaking the law rather than going about things in a lawful manner. Not to say that non antags breaking the law to do things they want to do is bad, but it should be expected that crimes of breaking and entering (without extenuating circumstances) should and can be met with punishment.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:21 pm**

Lacran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 9:28 pm 1.Get thing wrongfully taken by security officer.
2. Murder them?

Have you tried just talking to the Warden, the Captain or the HoS? Cos immediately resorting to violence/murder is completely fucking stupid, the idea that admins need to allow players to beat sec to death without resorting to any other alternative seems bad faith.

Take some steps to communicate, navigate the chain of command, if this does not work atleast security that aren't involved know why you just killed someone and may be more understanding.

This is not a valid option on LRP servers, because chain of command is more considered flufftext rather than something players are required to obey in RP rules. Complaining to the HoS or cap, asking for a demotion, or trying to get a trial because an officer wronged you would be almost comedic on most rounds, if you've played LRP you would definitely agree with me on this.

If a player stole something from you, you'd have reasonable cause to retaliate to get it back, murder would be justified if they were armed with a baton and other weapons. This should apply to sec too if it's truly theft and not confiscation. Except in this case Moocow also went so far as to espear them, because short of taking the problem officer out the round, they didn't have any IC recourse. I don't see much reason to have sympathy for officers that use the role as a way to rob players. And we're not talking about confiscating items that were used in a crime -- unjustified robbery FNR like here -- is acting like an antag IMO.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:00 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 5:21 pm
Complaining to the HoS or cap, asking for a demotion, or trying to get a trial because an officer wronged you would be almost comedic on most rounds.

I'm not telling you to do any of those things. I'm saying if your issue is about an item, and you want that item back any OTHER player with security access can help you.

If a player stole something from you, you'd have reasonable cause to retaliate to get it back, murder would be justified if they were armed with a baton and other weapons. This should apply to sec too if it's truly theft and not confiscation. Except in this case Moocow also went so far as to espear them, because short of taking the problem officer out the round, they didn't have any IC recourse. I don't see much reason to have sympathy for officers that use the role as a way to rob players. And we're not talking about confiscating items that were used in a crime -- unjustified robbery FNR like here -- is acting like an antag IMO.

You have multiple options to deal with this, you can get your items back, you can talk to sec about the issue, if its severe you can contact the admins, and you can escalate on them yourself.

The issue you specifically have is that all of sec may come down on you hard for doing this, and so you want to be able to round remove someone to negate that. What you specifically want is to be able to overescalate so that you personally can get revenge without repercussion. Rules aren't typically catered to people so that they can round remove others over slights or annoyances. You have options to get your items back, you have options to get the player in trouble, you do have options to attack this player, asking for any more than that is too much. Nobody needs to change rules so that you can personally feed your revenge boner.

Posted: **Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:32 pm**

Lacran wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 8:00 pm You have multiple options to deal with this, you can get your items back, you can talk to sec about the issue, if its severe you can contact the admins, and you can escalate on them yourself.

The issue you specifically have is that all of sec may come down on you hard for doing this, and so you want to be able to round remove someone to negate that. What you specifically want is to be able to overescalate so that you personally can get revenge without repercussion. Rules aren't typically catered to people so that they can round remove others over slights or annoyances. You have options to get your items back, you have options to get the player in trouble, you do have options to attack this player, asking for any more than that is too much. Nobody needs to change rules so that you can personally feed your revenge boner.

I'm not asking for a rule change here. I'm asking for clarification about if and when sec can act like antags (and proposing that they can). People acting like antags don't have to be treated as per standard escalation -- if an engineer randomly runs up to you and batons you, then tries to cuff you, you absolutely do not have to bring them to medbay after killing them because they are acting like an antagonist.

The thread is asking if and when sec can be treated like that for situations where they're straight up griefing players. Behavior that admins would agree is rulebreaking. I don't think those sorts of players should retain their metaprotections and be off-limits to this Rule 4 precedent just because they're sec.

Posted: **Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:49 pm**

sinfulbliss wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:32 pm
The thread is asking if and when sec can be treated like that for situations where they're straight up griefing players. Behavior that admins would agree is rulebreaking. I don't think those sorts of players should retain their metaprotections and be off-limits to this Rule 4 precedent just because they're sec.

You are saying "if I think these players are breaking the rules I should be able to kill them"

If you think they are greifing and abusing their role as security you should ahelp it.

You aren't going to get some kind of blanket statement you can use to round remove sec. Any situation likely to allow that is a situation you should have notified admins about anyway.

Sec being straight up greifers is not an IC issue. It's an OOC issue.

Posted: **Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:54 am**

Lacran wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:49 pm You are saying "if I think these players are breaking the rules I should be able to kill them"

That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying if admins would consider a sec player to be griefing/breaking rules, they should not simultaneously be protected under escalation rules, because rule 4 kicks when they’re acting like an antag.

Lacran wrote: ↑Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:49 pmSec being straight up greifers is not an IC issue. It's an OOC issue.

It is both. Your character is impacted, and it’s thus by definition an issue that applies IC to you. Players should have IC recourse even if rules are being broken OOC, that is in my view part of what it means to be able to treat people like an antag if they act like it. They’re either breaking rules or are an antagonist.

Posted: **Mon May 01, 2023 7:11 am**

This entire appeal is pretty much what the issue is about

Yeah, the shitsec in question was hopcurity but it follows the same principles.

You have to be completely willing to dedicate your time to explain to the admin why you decided to escalate lethally, which will take off your time in IC anyway if shitsec decide to pursue with an ahelp.

And in most cases, it's unknown if the shitsec will even learn, let alone get punished for his actions after IC resolution.

{This appeal is an exception because hopcuirty poked the ocelot too hard and got chomped for it.)

Posted: **Tue May 02, 2023 8:19 pm**

IMHO, sec officers are protected against valid arrests.

Valid arrests (from what I've heard from various admins) are arrests that are based on some kind of evidence, even if that evidence is faked, or circumstantial.

The burden of evidence is placed on sec to prove that they had a reason, (fingerprints, an officer note, orders, probable cause, or a reason).

If that officer isn't providing a reason or is treating you like a dick, making it invalid. They're fair game for retaliation.

It'd be cool if this involved a lawyer at all suing an officer for demotion before you try to take it into your own hands, but if an officer isn't doing a valid arrest (what the rules are supposed to protect them for), then they should be escalated against.

Bonus round being I think an admin would be hard-pressed to argue that you zip-tieing or beating an officer who has a trend of charging you, brigging you and never telling you why being seen as ling or some other bullshittery.

Posted: **Wed May 03, 2023 12:46 am**

Archie700 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:11 am This entire appeal is pretty much what the issue is about

Yeah, the shitsec in question was hopcurity but it follows the same principles.

You have to be completely willing to dedicate your time to explain to the admin why you decided to escalate lethally, which will take off your time in IC anyway if shitsec decide to pursue with an ahelp.

And in most cases, it's unknown if the shitsec will even learn, let alone get punished for his actions after IC resolution.

{This appeal is an exception because hopcuirty poked the ocelot too hard and got chomped for it.)

Sec Policy Rule 6 was also something created on the back of a Zyb appeal. viewtopic.php?f=54&p=639759#p639759

Zyb really was and still is at the forefront of shaping modern tgstation policy.

My solution to just ban him is probably preferable to warping policy based on his playstyle.

Posted: **Thu May 25, 2023 12:50 am**

Lacran wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 9:28 pm
1.Get thing wrongfully taken by security officer.
2. Murder them?

Have you tried just talking to the Warden, the Captain or the HoS? Cos immediately resorting to violence/murder is completely fucking stupid, the idea that admins need to allow players to beat sec to death without resorting to any other alternative seems bad faith.

Take some steps to communicate, navigate the chain of command, if this does not work atleast security that aren't involved know why you just killed someone and may be more understanding.

I know this is a late reply but thats literally what i did, if you looked at the appeal.

I spent 20 minutes "bitching" on radio saying sec took my id, got called a "ligger". Told captain, and then behind the scenes (i didnt know about it) the captain actually asked the sec officer where my id was and the sec officer lied saying I must have lost it lol...

Chain of command means nothing.

Its also another reason why I dont feel very fondly about that appeal, i spent 20 minutes of my life trying to get my id back so i can continue with my round, throughout that period i was being peaceful, 20 minutes of my time wasted, ofcourse if i didnt believe in the rule of 2 (i only round remove someone on the second instance i have to kill them that round) I would have gibbed them, but no i crit the sec officer take my id and take his corpse (i think he succumbed i dont know how much damage i did so ill just say i actually killed him not crit) to medbay then get banned, my only regret was taking their corpse to medbay and not snapping at shaps for his remarks about me not playing with good faith when I had exhausted non lethal means to get my id back and spent such a large chunk of my round on non lethal means.

Posted: **Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:53 pm**

We've tried for a while to resolve this internally- at first, we proposed a solution to the other admins wherein people can escalate but they'd have to ahelp first (so there was a paper trail incase things went sour or the seccie was so shit they had to be investigated and banned.) This was largely rejected by the admin team so we're going to be trying a different solution.

Escalating against shitsec is going to be an ic issue- you are free to escalate against security who are acting shitly. However, "shitseccery" is going to be held at admin discretion- for example, if you attack a security member and they ahelp it will be up to the admins to decide if your assault on them was legit and if they were acting as shitsec.

Timber: "I don't think it will improve the game and would prefer players just ahelp shitsec...Just add a blurb from me that I disagree with it being an IC issue and would prefer we just ban shitseccers. But I will support the change knowing it shouldn't be too difficult to reverse in the future and I hope I'm simply wrong about it"

/tg/Station 13

Escalating Against Shitsec

Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec

Re: Escalating Against Shitsec