Should Knock/Rust Heretics say fuck due to being uncontainable?

[BrianBackslide]

According to the ahelp I just had, it is precedent that security is allowed to execute uncontainable antags regardless of their crimes. (Though I couldn't find any mention of such on our rules page) If a heretic that can't be contained without excessive action, much like a ling, will just be executed, then wouldn't the ruling here also apply?

For context, I, as a Knock Heretic, who had not committed any overt violent acts, got executed for being uncontainable and refusing borging. (which is basically execution) Per the ruling here, Heretics aren't going to be unrestricted, but that creates a conflict with the above when taken into context with the ruling made on Changelings.

So my question is: Since I can't actually find it in the rules or precedents on the wiki, is security allowed to simply execute uncontainable antags? If so, how do we navigate that two of the Heretic paths are uncontainable yet restricted when Changelings became unrestricted due to sec auto-executing them when caught?

[dendydoom]

my understanding of this long before i became an admin was that - similarly to the mrp rules around proportionate response - restricted antags have to demonstrate that they are uncontainable/dangerous and willing to use that.

so, if they've witnessed you before escaping using your powers, etc, then to me that's concrete enough evidence that lethal force is warranted *to secure you* since capture starts to become unfeasible. this, to me, is a logical escalation of force based on in-round examples to support the reasoning.

if they see you display a tell that notifies them what type of heretic you are, and then from that hypothesize that you could possibly in future be difficult to contain, i personally would find it an over-escalation to immediately jump to lethals without at least trying another method first. i wouldn't find it ridiculous to pack lethals in the off-chance that you go villain mode and decide to fight back, that just seems like good planning, but they should attempt to use less lethal means first because there is no specific in-round evidence to support immediately trying to kill you.

of course, this is a discussion happening in a vacuum. we don't have the points of view of many of the other participants involved in these circumstances, so it's very difficult to give anything approaching a response specifically to the situation you were in.

[BrianBackslide]

my understanding of this long before i became an admin was that - similarly to the mrp rules around proportionate response - restricted antags have to demonstrate that they are uncontainable/dangerous and willing to use that.

so, if they've witnessed you before escaping using your powers, etc, then to me that's concrete enough evidence that lethal force is warranted *to secure you* since capture starts to become unfeasible. this, to me, is a logical escalation of force based on in-round examples to support the reasoning.

if they see you display a tell that notifies them what type of heretic you are, and then from that hypothesize that you could possibly in future be difficult to contain, i personally would find it an over-escalation to immediately jump to lethals without at least trying another method first. i wouldn't find it ridiculous to pack lethals in the off-chance that you go villain mode and decide to fight back, that just seems like good planning, but they should attempt to use less lethal means first because there is no specific in-round evidence to support immediately trying to kill you.

of course, this is a discussion happening in a vacuum. we don't have the points of view of many of the other participants involved in these circumstances, so it's very difficult to give anything approaching a response specifically to the situation you were in.

This is exactly what happened, actually. They stun/cuffed me, searched my bag and saw the knock blade and went "Well we can't contain them. Kill or borg?" Uncontainable or not, if there's no crime that warrants execution, then you shouldn't just be able to execute per RP rule 6.

But that goes back to the beginning, if sec can be unrestricted in how they treat a restricted antag, then it doesn't make sense for that antag to be restricted. Fair's fair and all that.

[Timberpoes]

MAGA.

Make Antags Gaolable Again.

[Vekter]

No, Christ, stop trying to make every antagonist have a different level of whether or not they can murder indiscriminately. This is one of the only rules that separates LRP from MRP and I'm tired of seeing threads come up with the same argument about whether or not you should be able to go apeshit as an antag because they're hard to contain.

Changelings got a pass because their entire power set and objectives revolve around killing people. Knock heretics are explicitly designed to not be good at murdering people. If security catches you as a knock heretic and immediately decides to execute you because you are one, adminhelp it.

[Jacquerel]

Changelings got a pass because their entire power set and objectives revolve around killing people. Knock heretics are explicitly designed to not be good at murdering people. If security catches you as a knock heretic and immediately decides to execute you because you are one, adminhelp it.

To be fair that is what they did in this case and the admin said "well it's valid"
Like I agree with you completely but they did ahelp it

[Vekter]

Changelings got a pass because their entire power set and objectives revolve around killing people. Knock heretics are explicitly designed to not be good at murdering people. If security catches you as a knock heretic and immediately decides to execute you because you are one, adminhelp it.

To be fair that is what they did in this case and the admin said "well it's valid"
Like I agree with you completely but they did ahelp it

Yeah, I'm looking into it.

[RedBaronFlyer]

I'm against this for two reasons.

1. I don't want more mass murder pass antags.

2. Having a ausbtype type of antag (or a subclass, of it?.. IDK) having less restrictions on killing while the main one doesn't seems like an administrative annoyance and will probably just lead to people who want to kill picking specific heretic types so they can go on murder rampages. It'd be like letting traitors go on killing sprees but only if one of their objectives involved killing someone. I supported having ling be able to say fuck because it's an alien apex predator who's entire mechanics are based around killing people.

The year is 2030, thief had been readded years ago, and is the last no-mass killing antag, finally the policy thread is posted to allow thief to say fuck and mass kill as well.

[Vekter]

As much as I hate doing checklist shit, I do think the issue could be solved by just saying that antags have to make an attempt to escape before you can consider them uncontainable.

I also feel like if you're just brigging them (not permabrig) you can just, I dunno, watch them? Knock heretics won't be hard to re-capture.

[dendydoom]

it doesn't necessarily need a checklist, it just needs someone to use evidence from the current round to justify why they've taken an action. "i executed them because i saw them easily breaking into secure areas and i knew that we wouldn't be able to build containment so the only available option we have right now is to execute them" is a lot more of a story than "well i read on the wiki that knock heretics can just open locked doors so i killed them when i saw their knock path blade"

[BrianBackslide]

Really I was just pointing out the inconsistency. Would it make sense for a single subset of an antag to be unrestricted when the rest of it isn't? Absolutely not. But with the same logic that lings are unrestricted would have to apply if sec is going to auto-execute and admins are going to look the other way. That's why I asked for clarification regarding difficult-to-contain antags and RP rule 6 being flagrantly ignored.

[Higgin]

It's a crime to be a heretic even if it doesn't warrant immediate execution under spesslaw; and I don't really blame anyone who looks at what dynamic might have in store for them or knows what a heretic can do and says "we can't put this guy away with any sort of justified expectation he won't just knock/rust out, so let's just cut ahead from A to D, even if he hasn't killed anyone yet."

There are other ways to declaw a heretic that make confinement reasonable, but they're not always practical and require some imagination which may be lacking in the moment - prosthetic heart, tongue removal come to mind. An implant is generally always going to be accessible to sec and might do a lot, too, but it's extra upkeep and risk over a full morgue tray.

edit: At least for borging/execution, I think the in-round test should very much apply, but it's possible to have gotten to where they got in good faith given how heretics work.

[Constellado]

Heretics should stick to their targets and people stopping you getting to your targets and thats it imho.

With dynamic having heretics so rare now (undo that plz i havnt gotten heretic in weeks) I would rather have it so that you cannot get executed (if you havnt been doing voilence) till you try to escape. Once you try to escape then you can get executed. I think that is better than just letting them be able to murderbone. Once the heretic is dead, the chances of another heretic showing up right now is almost 0. They are special now in my opinion.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

it doesn't necessarily need a checklist, it just needs someone to use evidence from the current round to justify why they've taken an action. "i executed them because i saw them easily breaking into secure areas and i knew that we wouldn't be able to build containment so the only available option we have right now is to execute them" is a lot more of a story than "well i read on the wiki that knock heretics can just open locked doors so i killed them when i saw their knock path blade"

Uh, isnt that against one of our core tenets of interacting with antags aka “you dont have to play dumb and pretend you dont know how the antags work mechanically”?

Sec can know which antags have escape powers which they cant be stopped from using to escape confinement and continue their killing spree.

[dendydoom]

it doesn't necessarily need a checklist, it just needs someone to use evidence from the current round to justify why they've taken an action. "i executed them because i saw them easily breaking into secure areas and i knew that we wouldn't be able to build containment so the only available option we have right now is to execute them" is a lot more of a story than "well i read on the wiki that knock heretics can just open locked doors so i killed them when i saw their knock path blade"

Uh, isnt that against one of our core tenets of interacting with antags aka “you dont have to play dumb and pretend you dont know how the antags work mechanically”?

Sec can know which antags have escape powers which they cant be stopped from using to escape confinement and continue their killing spree.

yes, there's nothing in the main ruleset which says people have to play ignorant, so people don't. my assumption is that this ruling is an aspect of rule 4 (out of ease i'm choosing this rule it's too early and i'm too lazy to read through headmin rulings right now):

Crewmembers may similarly handle antagonists in any way they wish, but are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so.

however, on MRP the MRP rules take precedence, and we have this:

Restricted antagonists (or crewmembers) should be handled in proportion to their committed crimes. The decision to execute an antagonist should have good in-character reasoning based on their crimes and the state of the shift. Punishments against antagonists that repeatedly commit minor crimes may be escalated. Only antagonists that have committed the most severe crimes may be met with immediate execution.

while not explicitly stating "don't rely on hypotheticals" in this rule itself, it does say that action taken against a restricted antagonist has to be proportionate to what they've actually done, IE, what they've done in that specific round, not what they're hypothetically capable of.

we also have this rule for antagonists, and in kind i've always held these standards to security too because it essentially ties back into rp rule 6:

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.

it feels unfair to me at least for antags to not be able to rely on hypotheticals but security can when they're engaging with restricted antags. to me the distinction is important in that yeah, sec can know how an antagonist works so they can plan ahead and know what to deploy, where and how to have the best chance of catching them, but if they want to actually execute them then they should require reasoning based on what the antagonist has actually done in that round.

an important part of your post is "to continue their killing spree." if you have evidence of the heretic killing people, then i see no reason why this can't be used as enough IC motivation to execute them that way too. the point of this is not to stop conflict, but to make the level of force appropriate to the situation so that conflict has more of a chance of playing out for longer as it escalates if necessary and that people are making IC decisions within an IC context, not merely relying on knowledge of mechanics. otherwise we will only ever have situations of "what's the fastest, most efficient way i can delete this person" and while this can be a very fun way to play it's not conducive to the environment we want on the RP server.

[Jonathan Gupta]

my understanding of this long before i became an admin was that - similarly to the mrp rules around proportionate response - restricted antags have to demonstrate that they are uncontainable/dangerous and willing to use that.

so, if they've witnessed you before escaping using your powers, etc, then to me that's concrete enough evidence that lethal force is warranted *to secure you* since capture starts to become unfeasible. this, to me, is a logical escalation of force based on in-round examples to support the reasoning.

if they see you display a tell that notifies them what type of heretic you are, and then from that hypothesize that you could possibly in future be difficult to contain, i personally would find it an over-escalation to immediately jump to lethals without at least trying another method first. i wouldn't find it ridiculous to pack lethals in the off-chance that you go villain mode and decide to fight back, that just seems like good planning, but they should attempt to use less lethal means first because there is no specific in-round evidence to support immediately trying to kill you.

of course, this is a discussion happening in a vacuum. we don't have the points of view of many of the other participants involved in these circumstances, so it's very difficult to give anything approaching a response specifically to the situation you were in.

This is exactly what happened, actually. They stun/cuffed me, searched my bag and saw the knock blade and went "Well we can't contain them. Kill or borg?" Uncontainable or not, if there's no crime that warrants execution, then you shouldn't just be able to execute per RP rule 6.

But that goes back to the beginning, if sec can be unrestricted in how they treat a restricted antag, then it doesn't make sense for that antag to be restricted. Fair's fair and all that.

I asked if you wanted to be a borg and you shook your head and I said I cant do shit here besides kill ya. Ya broke into the hop's office, ya smothered my officer. When I found you, ya were making a heretic rune in maintenance next to the janitors office. Also we saw your suspender fibres on the sec outpost at medical, we were looking for you to contain you but the hopes vanished when your knock path so we only had the borg choice and ya shook your head.

[Cheshify]

No, not everything needs to be unrestricted. If you want to play an antag who can choose to be uncontainable, then you need to live with the consequences. In addition, sec can use exile implants, lethal injection implants, and other funny ways to shut you down.

[TheBibleMelts]

yooo I heard they added teleport implants that disable the ability to bladebreak out of jail

[Itseasytosee2me]

yooo I heard they added teleport implants that disable the ability to bladebreak out of jail

the grasp of a knock/rust heretic is enough to break them out.

[TypicalRig]

yooo I heard they added teleport implants that disable the ability to bladebreak out of jail

the grasp of a knock/rust heretic is enough to break them out.

I feel like on the MRP server this should open the door to creative building/solutions to the issue rather than an immediate checklist for round removal, if enforcement actually follows the spirit of their rules. Rust heretic breaking prison walls? Make the walls out of a material that isn't iron. Knock grasp opening up doors? Enlist engineers to setup a field generator or have science make a telesci setup for secure entrance and exit. Wrench down items in their path as makeshift barricades that'd stall breakout attempts long enough for the warden to take notice in event of escape. MRP ruleset making the bar for killing higher for both antags and non-antags has the benefit of encouraging experimentation and unique problem solving that they otherwise wouldn't have the room to do like in a chaotic LRP environment. There's tons of tools available to work around things like this, just a large percentage of our playerbase struggle with any task that isn't click until horizontal.

...which I hope to god we don't have the rules cater to these types even on LRP.

[TheBibleMelts]

chesh indicated they're not in favor from their post, and i'd rather not let them be unrestricted either. i think that's a wrap for this one.