Security Metaprotections, Combative Crowds, And You

[Thunder11]

The Problem

Consider the following situation. Security wishes to arrest an individual for some crime. They are with a large crowd which you know from events earlier in the round is combative and highly likely to actively interfere with any arrest, and there is no good opportunity to catch them alone.

This leaves security in a catch-22 situation.

If you loudly announce your intentions to the crowd before acting, you are forced to give away the initiative, and run the risk of being attacked before you can get close to your suspect, at best simply being unable to do your job, and at worst overpowered and looted with the only hope of salvation being to ahelp and possibly get your gear back half the round later.

If instead you try to take them by surprise hoping you can snatch your suspect and get away quickly, you leave yourself open to being escalated against, and losing all your gear/getting round removed with to recourse.

The Solution

Restrict the requirement to announce your intentions to get metaprotection to only people you are directly attempting to arrest. Third party bystanders must have a positive reason to believe the arrest is not legitimate before involving themselves.

This is a reasonable expectation for third parties, as unlike the arrestee they are not directly threatened by the ongoing events, and can leave the area to alert other security to any suspicions they have.

[SkeletalElite]

If you announce you are arresting someone and multiple people start fighting you, pull out a laser and start killing, its in space law

[warbluke]

The true Mall Cop method is to pretend the crowd is not there, get beat up and pity-revived, and then go back to trying to arrest the person until you get them or someone gibs you.

[Vekter]

Let's post the actual part of the rules we're discussing real quick:

6. Security meta-protections rely on adherence to Space Law.

Security acting within the constraints of space law are afforded a level of OOC protection against retaliation/escalation compared to regular crewmembers.

And thus, the relevant part of Space Law:

Arresting Procedure

Standard Operational Procedures for arrests are as follows:

Inform the criminal that they are wanted, and why they are wanted. This is void if they are visibly armed, or in in the process of committing a crime, including trespassing in a high security area.
If compliant, cuff and transport the prisoner to the brig immediately and without harming them, and proceed to brigging procedures. You may utilize departmental security outposts to search compliant suspects or prisoners.
If resistant to arrest, use your nonlethal weaponry until such a situation may prompt use of lethal force, detailed below. If successful, transport the prisoner immediately to the brig and begin brigging procedure.
You can use the security hailer mask to request a moving criminal to stop, and the special pen in security PDA's to prompt a surrender to assist you.

I feel like this is kind of covered under "visibly armed" - there's an argument to be made that a large enough group of people who are known to be violent constitute a form of "weapon", but that's a little rules lawyer-y for my tastes. I think the ideal way to handle this issue is to have Security (the department) as a whole arrest the group or anyone who tries to stop the arrest. I believe that's a more interesting IC consequence than "you guys aren't allowed to interfere because the rules say you can't".

tl;dr I think the rules kind of already cover this, but I also don't think this should be solved by policy because the idea of Security needing to work together to arrest a single person in a group and deal with the fallout from it makes for a more interesting interaction than just citing the rules and letting us handle it.

[Higgin]

separate from "interfering in arrests for close to 0 reason" being a national passtime, it is more interesting with the current setup.

If your metaprotections rely on following the procedures, approaching a person in a group and announcing your intent to arrest them gives everyone a dramatic choice:
for the officers, do you dare? do you go in alone?
for the suspect, do you run? fight? surrender? try to rally the crowd?
for everyone else: which side are you on? Do you court the danger of going up against security's metaprotections and getting mixed up with Antagonist Badman, or do you step back? Do you jump in to help?

and if you don't take that dramatic avenue as security, you do it with less protection, which is also a choice - approaching your arrests like no-knock raids has the natural consequence of people reacting in the moment, even if a lot of those people are reacting from a place of "ooh, free fight" instead of "this isn't due process and I heard there were changelings, that guy who wordlessly ran in and hit the person I was talking to might be trying to kill him"

there might be a broader cultural issue to approach about why people are interfering in arrests, but I'm not sure asking everyone to come up with a reason after the fact because it shook out badly against security under the current protections is a good way to address it.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

tl;dr I think the rules kind of already cover this, but I also don't think this should be solved by policy because the idea of Security needing to work together to arrest a single person in a group and deal with the fallout from it makes for a more interesting interaction than just citing the rules and letting us handle it.

What if (and this is INCREDIBLY common) it's a 25-man shift, and you're the only security officer? Let's assume they're a crowd of 7 assistants.

[Vekter]

tl;dr I think the rules kind of already cover this, but I also don't think this should be solved by policy because the idea of Security needing to work together to arrest a single person in a group and deal with the fallout from it makes for a more interesting interaction than just citing the rules and letting us handle it.

What if (and this is INCREDIBLY common) it's a 25-man shift, and you're the only security officer? Let's assume they're a crowd of 7 assistants.

Then homeboy might just get away with whatever horrible crime he committed on an online role-playing video game. If people are doing this as a non-antag, you should probably be notifying us.

[Thunder11]

tl;dr I think the rules kind of already cover this, but I also don't think this should be solved by policy because the idea of Security needing to work together to arrest a single person in a group and deal with the fallout from it makes for a more interesting interaction than just citing the rules and letting us handle it.

What if (and this is INCREDIBLY common) it's a 25-man shift, and you're the only security officer? Let's assume they're a crowd of 7 assistants.

Then homeboy might just get away with whatever horrible crime he committed on an online role-playing video game. If people are doing this as a non-antag, you should probably be notifying us.

Security's job is to arrest lawbreakers, we shouldn't be forcing them to delegate their entire job to admins just because the assistant who punched the captain will seek shelter with an angry mob when they turn up to brig him for 2 minutes.

Playing the game shouldn't be a box ticking exercise where you have to follow several steps of rules of engagement in order for admins to protect you (well not really protect but maybe get your gear back 30 minutes later) from being zerg rushed by a mob that has zero genuine belief that you aren't security, and instead is reaching for an excuse to legally grief.

[Jacquerel]

I mean the problem in that scenario is the culture of forming an angry mob to impede security for no reason, no?
Frankly speaking the officer is probably fucked whether they announce their intention or not, so informing admins is basically their only option either way.

[Maxipat]

I don't think we need more policy about this? If you state the reason for arrest, you have your metaprotections, thus every action taken against you during that arrest by 3rd party (arrestee can protect themselves non-lethally, this does not apply to their friends and bystanders) is an admin-issue and something we're actively trying to combat. If you try to wordlessly arrest someone it's on you if you get disarmed and possibly cuffed, because you follow standard escalation. Also you can not lose your initiative by telling the reason to the arrestee through PDA or on common radio, it's enough.

[Archie700]

Security's job is to arrest lawbreakers, we shouldn't be forcing them to delegate their entire job to admins just because the assistant who punched the captain will seek shelter with an angry mob when they turn up to brig him for 2 minutes.

Playing the game shouldn't be a box ticking exercise where you have to follow several steps of rules of engagement in order for admins to protect you (well not really protect but maybe get your gear back 30 minutes later) from being zerg rushed by a mob that has zero genuine belief that you aren't security, and instead is reaching for an excuse to legally grief.

It's better than not doing that and getting zerg rushed and having the admin tell you "sorry" when you ahelp.

You are genuinely not going to win against a mob of players unless you are very robust and prepared so there really is no benefit to not calling out the arrest publically when dealing with a potential mob situation.

[MooCow12]

Something i thought about last night which i think would help to add code wise is some form of curfew.

Basically a new button on the comms console that is just like emergency maint access in a sense that its a toggle but it has no mechanical impact on the station other than announcing that a curfew has started/ended and tells everyone to try to quickly go to their workplaces to make it easier for security to go around and check on everyone one at a time.

I dont know where the curfew should direct assistants to go to though, dorms?


Basically its a way for command to tell all of the crowds to disperse so security doesnt get mentally overwhelmed and its locked behind command so security arnt spamming it on and off.


It doesnt force anyone to do anything but instead just encourages it and maybe policy could be more friendly towards security when crowds dont disperse when the curfew is up?

[Vekter]

Security's job is to arrest lawbreakers, we shouldn't be forcing them to delegate their entire job to admins just because the assistant who punched the captain will seek shelter with an angry mob when they turn up to brig him for 2 minutes.

Playing the game shouldn't be a box ticking exercise where you have to follow several steps of rules of engagement in order for admins to protect you (well not really protect but maybe get your gear back 30 minutes later) from being zerg rushed by a mob that has zero genuine belief that you aren't security, and instead is reaching for an excuse to legally grief.

It's better than not doing that and getting zerg rushed and having the admin tell you "sorry" when you ahelp.

You are genuinely not going to win against a mob of players unless you are very robust and prepared so there really is no benefit to not calling out the arrest publically when dealing with a potential mob situation.

I mean, to be fair, under the current rules, if an officer tells the GROUP that they're going to arrest one one of them and the GROUP interferes, the GROUP gets in trouble over it.

E:

I don't think we need more policy about this? If you state the reason for arrest, you have your metaprotections, thus every action taken against you during that arrest by 3rd party (arrestee can protect themselves non-lethally, this does not apply to their friends and bystanders) is an admin-issue and something we're actively trying to combat. If you try to wordlessly arrest someone it's on you if you get disarmed and possibly cuffed, because you follow standard escalation. Also you can not lose your initiative by telling the reason to the arrestee through PDA or on common radio, it's enough.

I agree with this.

[Archie700]

I mean, to be fair, under the current rules, if an officer tells the GROUP that they're going to arrest one one of them and the GROUP interferes, the GROUP gets in trouble over it.

I'm not assuming the mob is rational enough to always follow the rules.

I did say there is literally no benefit to silently arresting someone in an area surrounded by a group of players. Thinking that you can grab the suspect by surprise and take him out of the group cleanly is a fool's errand at best. The only case where it happens is if the mob lets you.

Also, isn't the very reason security has metaprotections is for them to do their job, metaprotections you lose if you silently arrest people?

[dendydoom]

my understanding of the reasoning behind implementing the "you must state that you're arresting someone and why if the situation permits it to get your metaprotections" is that if someone doesn't know why they're being arrested, they cannot make a judgement on whether or not the arrest is valid, and therefore can't deduce how much they're allowed to retaliate. so it defaults to you being allowed to retaliate if you're standing around and a secoff silently walks up to you with their baton out and says nothing.

so, in essence, i agree with what's been said before: if you announce to the group that someone is under arrest and it's valid, and none of them have a reason to stop you beyond "fuck sec", then they're breaking the rules if they intervene and stop you.

of course, i would also consider some of this a skill issue on the secoff's part. obviously if everyone is just metafriends and protecting each other with no IC reason, this is different, but navigating the situation of "i'm outnumbered here so i need to be careful" just sounds like a normal IC situation in a lot of ways. perhaps they DO have an IC reason to protect that person.

[dendydoom]

Something i thought about last night which i think would help to add code wise is some form of curfew.

Basically a new button on the comms console that is just like emergency maint access in a sense that its a toggle but it has no mechanical impact on the station other than announcing that a curfew has started/ended and tells everyone to try to quickly go to their workplaces to make it easier for security to go around and check on everyone one at a time.

I dont know where the curfew should direct assistants to go to though, dorms?


Basically its a way for command to tell all of the crowds to disperse so security doesnt get mentally overwhelmed and its locked behind command so security arnt spamming it on and off.


It doesnt force anyone to do anything but instead just encourages it and maybe policy could be more friendly towards security when crowds dont disperse when the curfew is up?

this basically sounds like red alert. i'm not sure what the culture is like on other servers, but on manuel it's used quite often and allows sec to do what's listed here: search people, search departments, demand that people disperse, all that good shit.

[Istoprocent1]

These crowds tend to be same names and same faces. Its not like completely random people get together and just start griefing security for shits and giggles. Just have to crack down on that.

There is a gamemode just for that kind of stuff called Revolution or hypnoflash shenanigans. Outside of that gamemode its either Faking Revs (used to be a policy) or Rule 1. Making security jump extra hoops might work, but most likely won't remedy the situation unless steps are taken by the moderation team.

[Redrover1760]

These scenarios are commonly what I'd consider "Mock Revolution Practice." Bring flashbangs, teargas, and a buddy if you can, and the second the crowd starts going rogue, hit the flashbang, utilize defensive pepperspray, flashes in last resort if you know you are getting disarmed. Pull out lethals etc.

Sadly if you are only sec you are sorta hopeless but that's just how only one guy as security too. Or if the crowd is loaded with sechuds, but at that point I'd call it a Revolution and start blasting.

And yeah its just bored tiders. Half the issues in the game are caused by bored tiders with nothing better to do.

[MooCow12]

this basically sounds like red alert. i'm not sure what the culture is like on other servers, but on manuel it's used quite often and allows sec to do what's listed here: search people, search departments, demand that people disperse, all that good shit.

Alert levels on sybil and terry are literally only used to manipulate shuttle times and are never used to convey information to the crew.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Ask the HOS for his box of flashbangs if your target is hanging around in a mob and the rest of sec dont wanna help you make the arrest.

[zxaber]

I said this when we added the requirement for telling the suspect why they're being arrested - the sec gas mask should have a button to read out the arrest status and most recent crime record of the next person you point at.

It would be handy here, as you could make your initial baton strike and then point to give them and the surrounding crowd the arrest reason without basically giving away free initiative for the suspect to just walk off while you're typing.

[ekaterina]

Third party bystanders must have a positive reason to believe the arrest is not legitimate before involving themselves.

Forcing people to not interfere with arrests in LRP sounds astronomically lame. The chain of trying to arrest someone for a crime and then going after the people who helped him get away is sometimes the only source of conflict in an otherwise empty round.

I think the ideal way to handle this issue is to have Security (the department) as a whole arrest the group or anyone who tries to stop the arrest. I believe that's a more interesting IC consequence than "you guys aren't allowed to interfere because the rules say you can't".

I agree with Vekter. Security mobilising in force and throwing everyone aiding a known criminal into the gulag can be a really cool moment.

... but this isn't always possible. Sometimes you have a lone security officer, and having that officer just be unable to carry out arrests at all is lame. Basing policy off of the number of security officers would be really weird, though. I do not see the solution.

[Screemonster]

I agree with Vekter. Security mobilising in force and throwing everyone aiding a known criminal into the gulag can be a really cool moment.

... but this isn't always possible. Sometimes you have a lone security officer, and having that officer just be unable to carry out arrests at all is lame. Basing policy off of the number of security officers would be really weird, though. I do not see the solution.

Sometimes you gotta take a leaf out of Outland (1981) when that happens

it's a very cool and ss13-y space western about the lone marshall trying to keep the peace in a mining colony when things go wrong and he's outnumbered

Spoiler:

He uses the shotgun. You know why.

[kieth4]

We have no intent to change anything, however, uninvolved parties should not be interfering without a strong ic reason that is beyond "that is my metafriend"