MRP - Offensive Genocide of Security

[Diasyl]

The concept of security, as it is commonly understood, is intended to act as a barrier between an antagonist and their objectives. However, my observations on the subject suggest that security can often become an objective in and of itself. Antagonists may attempt to kill Security members to acquire equipment or other resources, and while minor incidents of this nature can be tolerated, more aggressive tactics such as proactively eliminating all members of the security department are unacceptable.

While such behaviour is permissible on low roleplay (LRP) servers, where antagonists have the right to engage in "murderbone" behaviour, it is not acceptable on medium roleplay (MRP), where most antagonists, such as traitors or blood brothers, do not have the right to engage in such actions. The rationale for such behaviour is often framed in terms of future risk, with antagonists asserting that they must eliminate security personnel to prevent them from causing problems in the future. However, in most cases, security personnel are not even aware of the antagonist's status, nor trying to stop them (or being very bad at so), and as such, their elimination serves no practical purpose.

When incidents of this nature are reported, administrators often respond by stating that such behaviour is permissible under the rules of the game. However, it is important to remember that security exists as a counterbalance to antagonistic forces, and while they willingly assume risks to confront antagonists, they should not be subject to arbitrary violence when they are not actively interfering with the antagonist's objectives.

In conclusion, while antagonists may target security personnel when they are standing in the way of their objectives or acquiring equipment, indiscriminate elimination of the entire department undermines the counterbalance that security represents and also is just a smaller version of a murderbone. Such behaviour should be discouraged to ensure a fair and balanced gameplay experience.

TL;DR: RESTRICTED Antagonists (which are not allowed to murderbone) on MRP should not be allowed to destroy ALL OF THE SECURITY for almost no reason or as a preemptive measure to make sure "They won't cause trouble in future". They still must be allowed to kill Seccies, but not take ACTIVE/OFFENSIVE measure to kill ENTIRE department as that is just Murderbone Lite.

[JupiterJaeden]

No. This is a terrible idea. For the same reason it would he dumb to disallow murderboning if crew validhunting was allowed. Security is allowed to freely search for, validhunt, and attack antagonists. Antagonists must be able to freely do so in return without having to worry about justifying it to admins. If anything we should actually codify this in policy, as currently it’s not explicitly stated but just typically enforced this way by admins.

If you sign up for MRP security, you are accepting this risk in exchange for being exempt from validhunting rules.

[Diasyl]

No. This is a terrible idea. For the same reason it would he dumb to disallow murderboning if crew validhunting was allowed. Security is allowed to freely search for, validhunt, and attack antagonists. Antagonists must be able to freely do so in return without having to worry about justifying it to admins. If anything we should actually codify this in policy, as currently it’s not explicitly stated but just typically enforced this way by admins.

If you sign up for MRP security, you are accepting this risk in exchange for being exempt from validhunting rules.

Even though the Antagonists are valid in the MRP, there is still a rule telling us to punish criminals according to their crimes. And with Enemy of Corp no longer being a Capital crime, Security should not RR antagonists who have not committed a Capital Crime.
Usually, the Antagonist's objectives are Capital Crimes, so they take a risk doing them, just as Security takes a risk when trying to stop them. You don't take the risk just by wearing red. So this is all justified.

[dendydoom]

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) there is a LOT of leniency here - the reason just needs to exist.

what we try to discourage is using hypotheticals that don't point to any actual activity in that round to justify it. eg, attacking sec for being sec as soon as you step off the shuttle, when it doesn't clearly further your objectives and you had no specific reason to believe any of them were after you in the first place.

[Diasyl]

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) there is a LOT of leniency here - the reason just needs to exist.

what we try to discourage is using hypotheticals that don't point to any actual activity in that round to justify it. eg, attacking sec for being sec as soon as you step off the shuttle, when it doesn't clearly further your objectives and you had no specific reason to believe any of them were after you in the first place.

This is basically what I meant.
Restricted antagonists should be allowed to kill Security if they stand in the way of their objectives, but they cannot destroy the entire department for just being Sec.

[JupiterJaeden]

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) there is a LOT of leniency here - the reason just needs to exist.

what we try to discourage is using hypotheticals that don't point to any actual activity in that round to justify it. eg, attacking sec for being sec as soon as you step off the shuttle, when it doesn't clearly further your objectives and you had no specific reason to believe any of them were after you in the first place.

You should be able to hunt and attack sec just for being sec. It is a 100% reasonable assumption that all security will always stand in the way of your objectives because that is literally their job. And I say this as a sec main. I don’t want more metaprotections. I’m not gonna ahelp when a traitor kills me. If you do this as security, I’m not gonna lie it’s kind of a skill issue.

This is already the way a lot of MRP admins seem to handle it (as they should). I don’t think we need a policy change at all but if anything we should codify that security can be assumed to always be an obstacle, because that’s literally the point of having security in the game.

[Diasyl]

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) there is a LOT of leniency here - the reason just needs to exist.

what we try to discourage is using hypotheticals that don't point to any actual activity in that round to justify it. eg, attacking sec for being sec as soon as you step off the shuttle, when it doesn't clearly further your objectives and you had no specific reason to believe any of them were after you in the first place.

You should be able to hunt and attack sec just for being sec. It is a 100% reasonable assumption that all security will always stand in the way of your objectives because that is literally their job. And I say this as a sec main. I don’t want more metaprotections. I’m not gonna ahelp when a traitor kills me. If you do this as security, I’m not gonna lie it’s kind of a skill issue.

This is already the way a lot of MRP admins seem to handle it (as they should). I don’t think we need a policy change at all but if anything we should codify that security can be assumed to always be an obstacle, because that’s literally the point of having security in the game.

But is it fun to die not even trying to stop the Antagonist? To just die for being a Security Officer, just to suddenly die from a Restricted Antagonist you didn't even know about or were hunting down? Rather unfun for the entire department who got just annihilated for being possible trouble in future.

[JupiterJaeden]

But is it fun to die not even trying to stop the Antagonist? To just die for being a Security Officer, just to suddenly die from a Restricted Antagonist you didn't even know about or were hunting down? Rather unfun for the entire department who got just annihilated for being possible trouble in future.

This is a rule 10 issue. Sometimes you just die. This is part of the risk you took when you decided to join as security and get a free license to validhunt.

Also: I’d rather be attacked by an antag “just for being sec” than never interact with an antag for an entire shift because they were uber stealthy. As long as it isn’t using some super cheesy bullshit, being attacked is fun, even when you end up losing. Hell if it’s funny enough the cheesy bullshit is awesome too. Don’t play security imo if you can’t handle having a big target on your back.

[mrmelbert]

This is already a thing

It's been ruled this way since I can remember, I guess it's just been lost to the whims of time

[Diasyl]

This is already a thing

It's been ruled this way since I can remember, I guess it's just been lost to the whims of time

Got any links or screenshots?

In any way, if it did get lost - we can restore it.

[mrmelbert]

Closest I can find on short notice was a discussion from 2021I had with some players

► Show Spoiler

TL;DR You can very easily justify killing security but preemptively wiping the floor with them without any semblance of roleplay just because "they're sec" is cringe

[Diasyl]

Closest I can find on short notice was a discussion from 2021I had with some players

► Show Spoiler

TL;DR You can very easily justify killing security but preemptively wiping the floor with them without any semblance of roleplay just because "they're sec" is cringe

That is the point I'm raising.
I witnessed at least 2 instances of those occurrences on MRP (with restricted antagonists) that I can recall fully:

• Space Ninja decapitated all of the Security members on the station. I was attacked when I was just watching Security Cameras unaware, capped.
• 3 Roboticists BBs build battle mechs, destroyed all of the Brig and killed all of the Security and Command

[dendydoom]

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) there is a LOT of leniency here - the reason just needs to exist.

what we try to discourage is using hypotheticals that don't point to any actual activity in that round to justify it. eg, attacking sec for being sec as soon as you step off the shuttle, when it doesn't clearly further your objectives and you had no specific reason to believe any of them were after you in the first place.

You should be able to hunt and attack sec just for being sec. It is a 100% reasonable assumption that all security will always stand in the way of your objectives because that is literally their job. And I say this as a sec main. I don’t want more metaprotections. I’m not gonna ahelp when a traitor kills me. If you do this as security, I’m not gonna lie it’s kind of a skill issue.

This is already the way a lot of MRP admins seem to handle it (as they should). I don’t think we need a policy change at all but if anything we should codify that security can be assumed to always be an obstacle, because that’s literally the point of having security in the game.

if you're just naturally engaging with the round as an antagonist then there are generally no issues with this, because having reasons to drop sec come up effortlessly. the general idea of this is to allow more interesting conflict to occur and to stop instances where a player makes the entire purpose of their round to just exterminate sec because they feel like it. this is what the unrestricted antags are for on mrp. playing a version of the game absent of this idea already exists: it's called lrp.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Closest I can find on short notice was a discussion from 2021I had with some players

► Show Spoiler

TL;DR You can very easily justify killing security but preemptively wiping the floor with them without any semblance of roleplay just because "they're sec" is cringe

That is the point I'm raising.
I witnessed at least 2 instances of those occurrences on MRP (with restricted antagonists) that I can recall fully:

• Space Ninja decapitated all of the Security members on the station. I was attacked when I was just watching Security Cameras unaware, capped.
• 3 Roboticists BBs build battle mechs, destroyed all of the Brig and killed all of the Security and Command

Its really impossible to judge these two cases without getting the players side. Ninja has an objective to hack a console in security, and a sec officer scrubbing cams is a threat to any antagonist.
The bloor brothers objectives would also be relevant here, as well as the exact chain of events. If they needed an item from the bridge or brig or something, and wanted to use mechs, they are naturally going to draw alot of attention. If that isn’t an ok thing to do as a traitor or bb then you are pretty much outlawing use of mechs as traitor or bb.

[Diasyl]

Closest I can find on short notice was a discussion from 2021I had with some players

► Show Spoiler

TL;DR You can very easily justify killing security but preemptively wiping the floor with them without any semblance of roleplay just because "they're sec" is cringe

That is the point I'm raising.
I witnessed at least 2 instances of those occurrences on MRP (with restricted antagonists) that I can recall fully:

• Space Ninja decapitated all of the Security members on the station. I was attacked when I was just watching Security Cameras unaware, capped.
• 3 Roboticists BBs build battle mechs, destroyed all of the Brig and killed all of the Security and Command

Its really impossible to judge these two cases without getting the players side. Ninja has an objective to hack a console in security, and a sec officer scrubbing cams is a threat to any antagonist.
The bloor brothers objectives would also be relevant here, as well as the exact chain of events. If they needed an item from the bridge or brig or something, and wanted to use mechs, they are naturally going to draw alot of attention. If that isn’t an ok thing to do as a traitor or bb then you are pretty much outlawing use of mechs as traitor or bb.

Ninja could've used any other security console on the station, and cameras don't pose that great of a danger as AI will locate them anyway.

The BBs have not had any objectives related to Brig or Bridge, as I found out it was just a "part of their plan" to destroy all of the Sec.

[JupiterJaeden]

Space Ninja decapitated all of the Security members on the station. I was attacked when I was just watching Security Cameras unaware, capped.

You would have 100% killed the ninja on sight if you had the chance to. This is the expected way for security to deal with ninjas. How is it even remotely unfair for them to kill sec first? I hate ninja as an antag for other reasons but it’s not remotely a policy issue with them killing security.

3 Roboticists BBs build battle mechs, destroyed all of the Brig and killed all of the Security and Command

This sounds fucking awesome. I may have even been on this round you are talking about, as I remember something similar happening once recently. Defending the brig from a mech-fueled tot onslaught sounds like peak gameplay. If you ahelp this because “ided” you are extremely lame.

Again, it’s way more fun to be attacked by antags than to have stealthy objective hunters who never leave a shred of evidence behind. But whether or not it’s fun for security, it’s also just a simple matter of fairness. Antags must be allowed to attack sec with extremely relaxed reasoning because security will 100% do the same to them (and in fact should do the same to them) when they get the chance.

[Itseasytosee2me]

a sec officer scrubbing cams is a threat to any antagonist.

Ninja could've used any other security console on the station, and cameras don't pose that great of a danger as AI will locate them anyway.

Ok chuckle nuts, then why were you watching them?

[Diasyl]

Space Ninja decapitated all of the Security members on the station. I was attacked when I was just watching Security Cameras unaware, capped.

You would have 100% killed the ninja on sight if you had the chance to. This is the expected way for security to deal with ninjas. How is it even remotely unfair for them to kill sec first? I hate ninja as an antag for other reasons but it’s not remotely a policy issue with them killing security.

3 Roboticists BBs build battle mechs, destroyed all of the Brig and killed all of the Security and Command

This sounds fucking awesome. I may have even been on this round you are talking about, as I remember something similar happening once recently. Defending the brig from a mech-fueled tot onslaught sounds like peak gameplay. If you ahelp this because “ided” you are extremely lame.

Again, it’s way more fun to be attacked by antags than to have stealthy objective hunters who never leave a shred of evidence behind. But whether or not it’s fun for security, it’s also just a simple matter of fairness. Antags must be allowed to attack sec with extremely relaxed reasoning because security will 100% do the same to them (and in fact should do the same to them) when they get the chance.

This is subjective.
I more like blowing the cover off stealthy antags, then having to play full on blasting.

Also, Ninja counts as a RESTRICTED ANTAGONIST by the RP rules.

[Diasyl]

a sec officer scrubbing cams is a threat to any antagonist.

Ninja could've used any other security console on the station, and cameras don't pose that great of a danger as AI will locate them anyway.

Ok chuckle nuts, then why were you watching them?

Looking for anything suspicious duh, AI has much better time in doing so with their eye

[Vekter]

Closest I can find on short notice was a discussion from 2021I had with some players

► Show Spoiler

TL;DR You can very easily justify killing security but preemptively wiping the floor with them without any semblance of roleplay just because "they're sec" is cringe

That is the point I'm raising.
I witnessed at least 2 instances of those occurrences on MRP (with restricted antagonists) that I can recall fully:

• Space Ninja decapitated all of the Security members on the station. I was attacked when I was just watching Security Cameras unaware, capped.
• 3 Roboticists BBs build battle mechs, destroyed all of the Brig and killed all of the Security and Command

Did you adminhelp these incidents?

[Itseasytosee2me]

a sec officer scrubbing cams is a threat to any antagonist.

Ninja could've used any other security console on the station, and cameras don't pose that great of a danger as AI will locate them anyway.

Ok chuckle nuts, then why were you watching them?

Looking for anything suspicious duh, AI has much better time in doing so with their eye

You just blatantly contradicted yourself.
You give the appearance that you don't actually care about antagonists having IC reasoning behind their actions, and you just want to have more meta-protections for security against antags.
You haven't given any argument relating to these cases somehow being outside of reasonable in character antagonist activity.

In fact, you hardly presented any arguments at all this entire thread!

[britgrenadier1]

Nah, the ruling we have on this currently is fine. Sec should always be valid for antags to kill

[Not-Dorsidarf]

"I was just watching the cams" <-- "I was just providing overwatch for the team, ready to invisibly summon the entire sec force on any suspect activity without them having any idea"

[Diasyl]

a sec officer scrubbing cams is a threat to any antagonist.

Ninja could've used any other security console on the station, and cameras don't pose that great of a danger as AI will locate them anyway.

Ok chuckle nuts, then why were you watching them?

Looking for anything suspicious duh, AI has much better time in doing so with their eye

You just blatantly contradicted yourself.
You give the appearance that you don't actually care about antagonists having IC reasoning behind their actions, and you just want to have more meta-protections for security against antags.
You haven't given any argument relating to these cases somehow being outside of reasonable in character antagonist activity.

In fact, you hardly presented any arguments at all this entire thread!

I was never told watching cameras is a threat.
And there were enough arguments in the main body

[Diasyl]

"I was just watching the cams" <-- "I was just providing overwatch for the team, ready to invisibly summon the entire sec force on any suspect activity without them having any idea"

This way you can even name standing somewhere a constant danger, as they oversee that area with their eyes!
Or even walking, which is even more dangerous because, OH MY GOD HIS EYES ARE MOVING AROUND! HE IS OVERSEEING A BIGGER AREA!!!

[Vekter]

"I was just watching the cams" <-- "I was just providing overwatch for the team, ready to invisibly summon the entire sec force on any suspect activity without them having any idea"

This way you can even name standing somewhere a constant danger, as they oversee that area with their eyes!
Or even walking, which is even more dangerous because, OH MY GOD HIS EYES ARE MOVING AROUND! HE IS OVERSEEING A BIGGER AREA!!!

My guy, you're already looking suspect when you make a thread that boils down to "I don't want antags to be able to kill sec" when you have a profile picture of your character wearing sec gear.

If security is the direct explicit counter to antags, there's no reason antags shouldn't be able to deal with them if they think they're going to be an issue. The only time I would even consider bonking someone over this would be if they explicitly went out of their way to kill someone from security who was doing literally nothing. '

If you're standing in front of a camera console, you're fair game because you're going to alert anyone in sec to anything you see that's suspicious. It's the same reason we rarely if ever punish antags on MRP for killing the AI - you have the ability to monitor any area on the station with a camera at a moment's notice, you're a threat.

[Diasyl]

"I was just watching the cams" <-- "I was just providing overwatch for the team, ready to invisibly summon the entire sec force on any suspect activity without them having any idea"

This way you can even name standing somewhere a constant danger, as they oversee that area with their eyes!
Or even walking, which is even more dangerous because, OH MY GOD HIS EYES ARE MOVING AROUND! HE IS OVERSEEING A BIGGER AREA!!!

My guy, you're already looking suspect when you make a thread that boils down to "I don't want antags to be able to kill sec" when you have a profile picture of your character wearing sec gear.

If security is the direct explicit counter to antags, there's no reason antags shouldn't be able to deal with them if they think they're going to be an issue. The only time I would even consider bonking someone over this would be if they explicitly went out of their way to kill someone from security who was doing literally nothing. '

If you're standing in front of a camera console, you're fair game because you're going to alert anyone in sec to anything you see that's suspicious. It's the same reason we rarely if ever punish antags on MRP for killing the AI - you have the ability to monitor any area on the station with a camera at a moment's notice, you're a threat.

The whole point of this thread is about the killing all of the sec just for them being sec.

I don't want them to get some kind of immunity, just antagonists should not destroy entire department for sake of it.

[Diasyl]

We got driven off the point really.

I'm gonna recite the main point again:
Antagonists (on MRP) should not be allowed to indiscriminately kill all of the Security department just for being Security.
They still can kill them if they stand in the line of their objectives.

The first comments by mrmelbert and dendydoom understood the point.

[Vekter]

We got driven off the point really.

I'm gonna recite the main point again:
Antagonists (on MRP) should not be allowed to indiscriminately kill all of the Security department just for being Security.
They still can kill them if they stand in the line of their objectives.

The first comments by mrmelbert and dendydoom understood the point.

Can you specify what you mean by "standing in the line of their objectives"?

[Diasyl]

We got driven off the point really.

I'm gonna recite the main point again:
Antagonists (on MRP) should not be allowed to indiscriminately kill all of the Security department just for being Security.
They still can kill them if they stand in the line of their objectives.

The first comments by mrmelbert and dendydoom understood the point.

Can you specify what you mean by "standing in the line of their objectives"?

Dendydoom provided a good example:

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) ...

[Itseasytosee2me]

In your topic post yousay:

However, it is important to remember that security exists as a counterbalance to antagonistic forces, and while they willingly assume risks to confront antagonists, they should not be subject to arbitrary violence when they are not actively interfering with the antagonist's objectives.

Which seems to imply that anything less than active confrontation from a security officer does not qualify as "standing in the line."

So what your call to action should say is something like:
"Antagonists should not be able to do any harm to security officers unless that security officer is actively engaging the antagonist in a confrontational manner."

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

You also have not provided any competent arguments for this point.
In your topic sentence you say it "undermines the counterbalance that security represents and also is just a smaller version of a murderbone" as your main argument. The entire rest of your post is just representing the situation through the lense your own opinion, not saying why its bad, or why your stance is correct
I don't even know what "undermines the counterbalance that security represents" is trying to say. Are you saying its bad for the game because it gives antagonists an unfair advantage over security? are you saying its bad because securtiy being removed from the round is bad for the round? You never say what a "counterbalance" is or why its important, probably because YOU don't even have a definition.

Because you know what this whole post gives me the vibe of? You got killed by a ninja as a security officer, and now you are mad. So that means the policy is being enforced incorrectly, and it should work in some stupid unsupported way instead because it means that that ninja would have had to take the pacifist route.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Dendydoom provided a good example:

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) ...

This isn't at all what your title post says. Multiple times you have said that antagonists shouldn't be able to harm sec offs unless they are actively impeding them.

But they still can kill them if they're actively hindering with their Objectives, so actively causing trouble at the moment.

they should not be subject to arbitrary violence when they are not actively interfering with the antagonist's objectives.

The example dendy provided literally says what you say is a problem isn't a problem.
You were in security scrubbing cams, next to one of the ninja's objectives.
Those are two examples of reasons for killing you. You are being super hypocritical.

[Vekter]

We got driven off the point really.

I'm gonna recite the main point again:
Antagonists (on MRP) should not be allowed to indiscriminately kill all of the Security department just for being Security.
They still can kill them if they stand in the line of their objectives.

The first comments by mrmelbert and dendydoom understood the point.

Can you specify what you mean by "standing in the line of their objectives"?

Dendydoom provided a good example:

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) ...

I'm fine with this, but with the caveat that they can also kill a member of security if it's in pursuit of their goals, ie "this member of security is constantly watching cams, that could be a problem".

[Higgin]

tl;dr no this is a bad idea and already covered by other rules where it might matter, talk about changing antags instead

Even if I detest the "antags vs. sec, everyone else is a civilian" loop, it only makes sense to kill security as things are structured now. Peace or accommodation are going to be uneasy at best.

If you are doing bad shit, they are there to stop you. They have access to all the tools to do it and a license to hand them out. They are not antags.

Until what an antag is changes, the expectations for how sec can and probably will interact with you make it more than fair to jump them.

I may seethe a bit getting wordlessly ganked and dogpiled by the three tots in a lowpop round as the only secoff, but I get it. That gear and that access are safer for any of them in any of their hands than mine, and they very well might have their round ended by me too when they go off and start doing shit.

[Yobrocharlie]

No. This is a terrible idea. For the same reason it would he dumb to disallow murderboning if crew validhunting was allowed. Security is allowed to freely search for, validhunt, and attack antagonists. Antagonists must be able to freely do so in return without having to worry about justifying it to admins. If anything we should actually codify this in policy, as currently it’s not explicitly stated but just typically enforced this way by admins.

If you sign up for MRP security, you are accepting this risk in exchange for being exempt from validhunting rules.

You see the thing is-
Security on most shifts are so incredibly inept stupid and blind/deaf enough to where they won’t even know you exist.

Not exactly fun when you can just be killed for picking a role and instantly becoming valid by every single antagonist on the station, I can also see this being a really great way to burnout the current security players or at least the good ones who are not Jeff mc NRP gaming meta validhunt and others of his kin.

[JupiterJaeden]

We got driven off the point really.

I'm gonna recite the main point again:
Antagonists (on MRP) should not be allowed to indiscriminately kill all of the Security department just for being Security.
They still can kill them if they stand in the line of their objectives.

The first comments by mrmelbert and dendydoom understood the point.

Security always stands in the line of antagonist objectives in a way that no other department does. It is literally their job to stand in the line of antagonist objectives. You can always assume that security, yes all of them, will make an active effort to hunt you down and to be in your way the moment they get a chance to. You cannot reasonably make this assumption about any other department or random crewman, especially because most crew are bound by validhunting rules that security is explicitly exempt from.

[JupiterJaeden]

You see the thing is-
Security on most shifts are so incredibly inept stupid and blind/deaf enough to where they won’t even know you exist.

Not exactly fun when you can just be killed for picking a role and instantly becoming valid by every single antagonist on the station, I can also see this being a really great way to burnout the current security players or at least the good ones who are not Jeff mc NRP gaming meta validhunt and others of his kin.

Rule 10 issue. If you choose to play sec, you paint a big target on your back. If you can't handle dying a lot, you shouldn't play the role.
This isn't a matter of being robust or unrobust either. Although of course every seccie will go through a period of being new and unrobust, that's just part of the learning curve of the role. But no matter how robust you are, sometimes you will die just for being a redshirt. This already happens plenty and there is nothing wrong with it so I doubt any policy 'changes' here codifying this as being allowed would lead to some kind of massive sec burnout.

Roll with the punches. Expect to die when you sign up as sec. Hell, sometimes the story is simply made better by you dying.

Also why are you talking about me in third person while responding to a post that I made lol

[DrAmazing343]

Based seccies in this thread. I don't often play Sec, but when I do, I absolutely expect to bite the fucking dust after 20-30 minutes of buddy cop roleplay when the antags start going loud. It's the way of life, whether HRP, MRP, LRP, and god knows NRP.

I trust Gaiman's perspective on this a lot, but I do think that a lot of our sec has been less than successful recently. I blame most of that on the recent Tide more than anything.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I agree with this, honestly.

Sure, Sec exists to chase down antags, but antags aren't supposed to just have free reign. They're not supposed to just auto-win. Without a Sec Team, they do. Because noone stands to oppose them, except maybe the Crew deciding "Ok Sec's dead, we can validhunt because there's noone left who can" at which point do you want antags to have free reign to just massacre the rest of the crew because "Well they could come after me!!!"

This obsession with winning is the problem. "B-B-B-BUT IF I DONT WIPE THE ENTIRE SEC TEAM METHODICALLY ONE BY ONE JUST FOR EXISTING, I MIGHT LOSE!!!"

Ok, and? The round's going to be much more interesting for everyone involved if you actually have people contending with you, instead of just being handed your dumb green words on a silver platter because there was noone who could stop you.

[Armhulen]

I always toyed around with the idea that security would be the one department that could occasionally "repopulate" with tougher and tougher teams if the older ones get wiped out. And this would apply to all rp levels. Now it doesn't feel so bad to have sec wiped out, because in however many X minutes is decided, a stronger team rejoins the populace. This gives an advantage to antagonists (period where there are no sec), a power swing back for crew (now not instant losing when all of sec falls) and challenge returns to antagonists. Not enough sec dying? No repopulation. Now you can keep security nice and simple in a round by playing with the anti-antags you're given, but you're never going to overcome the force pushing against antagonism. It would require a lot of tweaking but it would hopefully reach a loose equilibrium of power swings.

But this is all code ideas, not policy. My policy is that we should avoid solving this with admin intervention since it gets sticky and mucky fast and instead fix this via the game's mechanics.

[Diasyl]

Forget everything I said about my examples or whatever, this became a big misunderstanding.

I want to say that Restricted Antagonists (which are not allowed to murderbone on MRP) should not just destroy ENTIRE Security department for no reason.
They still must be able to kill Officers for almost any reason's really, but they should not wipe out entire department for wearing red, this just feels like Murderbone Lite.

[Diasyl]

By this I mean them taking pro-active/offensive measure to kill ALL of the Seccies.

[Itseasytosee2me]

ok then this is already policy

[Diasyl]

ok then this is already policy

If It was this policy thread wouldn't exist.
There is no policy preventing Restricted Antagonists from murdering all of the Security, as such admins make mixed decisions.

Half of the admins go "Antags can kill all of the sec no matter what", the other half go "You can't kill all of the sec FNR". As such we need to make a clear policy to make sure there won't be this confusion.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Do we really have mrp admins who have read the mrp rules and think that antagonists are allowed to slaughter all of security just because they want to slaughter all of security?

[Diasyl]

Do we really have mrp admins who have read the mrp rules and think that antagonists are allowed to slaughter all of security just because they want to slaughter all of security?

This is the thing with policies that aren't fully codified, admins can interpret vaguely written policies in any way they like, creating confusion in players on what is allowed and what not.

[dendydoom]

We got driven off the point really.

I'm gonna recite the main point again:
Antagonists (on MRP) should not be allowed to indiscriminately kill all of the Security department just for being Security.
They still can kill them if they stand in the line of their objectives.

The first comments by mrmelbert and dendydoom understood the point.

Can you specify what you mean by "standing in the line of their objectives"?

Dendydoom provided a good example:

my understanding of restricted antags vs sec has always been that it either needs to be in pursuit of your objectives (this secoff is posted in engineering and i need to sabotage the engine, i'm going to kill him) or you have a specific example in that round that justifies attacking sec (officer dibble was suspicious of me and asked me a lot of questions earlier, i'm going to kill him.) ...

I'm fine with this, but with the caveat that they can also kill a member of security if it's in pursuit of their goals, ie "this member of security is constantly watching cams, that could be a problem".

yeah 100%. to me it doesn't have to be a good reason: the fact that a reason exists shows that the player is thinking about it in a narratively appropriate way. this, on its own, just makes stories better. it's a good mindset for players to be in. as long as it isn't "they're sec so i'm allowed to kill them." there has to be SOME at least tangential reason for it.

[dendydoom]

ok then this is already policy

If It was this policy thread wouldn't exist.
There is no policy preventing Restricted Antagonists from murdering all of the Security, as such admins make mixed decisions.

Half of the admins go "Antags can kill all of the sec no matter what", the other half go "You can't kill all of the sec FNR". As such we need to make a clear policy to make sure there won't be this confusion.

Causing death and destruction to help with indirectly accomplishing objectives must have an in-character roleplay reason. If questioned about a chain of events involving indirect actions, the antagonist should be able to clearly explain what events in the current shift led them to their course of action without resorting to hypotheticals.

If a player or department directly interferes with the completion of an objective, this is no longer a hypothetical as the antagonist can now point to specific events in the shift to justify their actions.

this does not say "unless they're sec in which case kill them all you want" as far as i'm aware.

[Diasyl]

ok then this is already policy

If It was this policy thread wouldn't exist.
There is no policy preventing Restricted Antagonists from murdering all of the Security, as such admins make mixed decisions.

Half of the admins go "Antags can kill all of the sec no matter what", the other half go "You can't kill all of the sec FNR". As such we need to make a clear policy to make sure there won't be this confusion.

Causing death and destruction to help with indirectly accomplishing objectives must have an in-character roleplay reason. If questioned about a chain of events involving indirect actions, the antagonist should be able to clearly explain what events in the current shift led them to their course of action without resorting to hypotheticals.

If a player or department directly interferes with the completion of an objective, this is no longer a hypothetical as the antagonist can now point to specific events in the shift to justify their actions.

this does not say "unless they're sec in which case kill them all you want" as far as i'm aware.

What's up with admins saying that it's always okay for antagonists to kill Security then?
DId they just 'make it up'?

[Fikou]

Ninja could've used any other security console on the station, and cameras don't pose that great of a danger as AI will locate them anyway.

what if this was the first one they saw or thought of, do you think ninjas should avoid interacting with security at all costs?