Captain, Security and RSR 4 (and RSR 9)

[Archie700]

(Yes, it's based on the note appeal)
RSR 4

4. Non-security may only actively hunt global or round-ending threats.
You should not act like a vigilante if a security force is present unless you have a good in-character roleplay reason to believe a global or round-ending threat exists. Restricted antags that are not automatically global or round ending threats may still become so through their actions in the shift, the stronger your reasoning the more action you can take against them.

You can always defend yourself and others from violent antagonists.

Players that choose to act as security will be held to the same standards as security.

Per the admin's ruling, captain isn't security and should not act like a vigilante (i.e. fight/hunt antags when they are exposed), however other admins have disagreed and said that captain should be allowed as part of their "your duty to ensure the stability and productivity of the station".

This also, by extension, applies to RSR 9, on what "lane" the captain falls under.

[DaBoss]

Captain is a military rank and it's a bit silly that new players will have to unlearn that to follow the rules.

[iwishforducks]

A sea captain, ship's captain, captain, master, or shipmaster, is a high-grade licensed mariner who holds ultimate command and responsibility of a merchant vessel. The captain is responsible for the safe and efficient operation of the ship, including its seaworthiness, safety and security, cargo operations, navigation, crew management, and legal compliance, and for the persons and cargo on board.

even though this specific entry is about “sea” captains, the rank of “captain” in ss13 comes exactly from that. (starboard, aft, etc are also all terms from naval ship directions)

i think it’s pretty clear that a captain’s duties lie in security just as much as every other part of the station. with that said, some captain going around with sechuds hunting all the greys would be seen as an incompetent fool because they’re not managing engineering, medical, cargo, etc. - but that becomes an entirely separate issue; it’s no longer about security not being the captain’s lane, it’s about the captain not being fit for the job

[Vekter]

I really don't know why captain players have such an obsession with needing to kill/hunt antags. They are not any more security than HoPs are, yet we're constantly dunking on hopcurity but as soon as a captain, who has completely unfettered access to the station and is usually carrying around the nuclear authentication disk gets asked maybe to not hunt down heretics everyone thinks we're overstepping our boundaries.

I don't think captains should be intentionally hunting any antag that isn't a direct and critical threat to the station, and even then, ideally they should be having security handle the issue. If you want to deal with antags, just fucking play Head of Security.

[kinnebian]

Captains; as stated repeatedly in the wiki page- are responsible for the well-being of the station. That is their job, minimum! If that involves hunting down and antag when theyre free, so be it. If you feel thats *all* the captain does, resolve it IC, you nerds. Its the roleplay server.

[xzero314]

I have something to add but due to this being based on my active appeal I will wait until its resolved.

[Archie700]

I really don't know why captain players have such an obsession with needing to kill/hunt antags. They are not any more security than HoPs are, yet we're constantly dunking on hopcurity but as soon as a captain, who has completely unfettered access to the station and is usually carrying around the nuclear authentication disk gets asked maybe to not hunt down heretics everyone thinks we're overstepping our boundaries.

I don't think captains should be intentionally hunting any antag that isn't a direct and critical threat to the station, and even then, ideally they should be having security handle the issue. If you want to deal with antags, just fucking play Head of Security.

Our own admin team can't agree on whether the captain wasn't allowed to chase the heretic in the peanut thread, that's enough to say that we really don't have any boundaries because they have never been set to begin with.

To quote Timberpoes:

RPR4 ain't a bludgeon to force players to play in the way admins think they should, especially not Cap. Cap's a role that genuinely has a pass to get involved in any part of the station affairs. They're the boss of every department's boss.

RPR4 is to ensure players actually interact instead of deciding they can do the player's job better and breaking in to do it. Using it in this way decreases those meaningful interactions and demotes the Captain to delegator-in-chief. That ain't it for me.

[Vekter]

I really don't know why captain players have such an obsession with needing to kill/hunt antags. They are not any more security than HoPs are, yet we're constantly dunking on hopcurity but as soon as a captain, who has completely unfettered access to the station and is usually carrying around the nuclear authentication disk gets asked maybe to not hunt down heretics everyone thinks we're overstepping our boundaries.

I don't think captains should be intentionally hunting any antag that isn't a direct and critical threat to the station, and even then, ideally they should be having security handle the issue. If you want to deal with antags, just fucking play Head of Security.

Our own admin team can't agree on whether the captain wasn't allowed to chase the heretic in the peanut thread, that's enough to say that we really don't have any boundaries because they have never been set to begin with.

To quote Timberpoes:

RPR4 ain't a bludgeon to force players to play in the way admins think they should, especially not Cap. Cap's a role that genuinely has a pass to get involved in any part of the station affairs. They're the boss of every department's boss.

RPR4 is to ensure players actually interact instead of deciding they can do the player's job better and breaking in to do it. Using it in this way decreases those meaningful interactions and demotes the Captain to delegator-in-chief. That ain't it for me.

Okay, then we set a boundary, and I think that boundary should be "I don't think the captain should be hunting antags".

[AsbestosSniffer]

They are not any more security than HoPs are, yet we're constantly dunking on hopcurity but as soon as a captain, who has completely unfettered access to the station and is usually carrying around the nuclear authentication disk gets asked maybe to not hunt down heretics everyone thinks we're overstepping our boundaries.

I don't think captains should be intentionally hunting any antag that isn't a direct and critical threat to the station, and even then, ideally they should be having security handle the issue. If you want to deal with antags, just fucking play Head of Security.

This is because the HoP is the head of service and has no ties to security whatsoever (albeit some may represent the rights of the crew in a court of law), the captain is above the Head of Security, it is THEIR vessel and THEIR crew, the Head of Security answers to them, including in matters such as executions. If there truly is an incompetent captain too busy playing dress up as security, the crew already has an IC response that does not require a note (Hint: It's called "mutiny").

[TheLoLSwat]

captain and HOP really cant be compared because although the HOP has a lot of "implied" power and whatnot being second in command, they really are just the pencil pusher that gets to demote bartenders sometimes. The captain is the in control of the entire station and their "lane" is running the station however they see fit. Anything from running yoga sessions in xenobiology to hosting executions of people too dangerous to be kept alive all is fair game because its their station

[Archie700]

They are not any more security than HoPs are, yet we're constantly dunking on hopcurity but as soon as a captain, who has completely unfettered access to the station and is usually carrying around the nuclear authentication disk gets asked maybe to not hunt down heretics everyone thinks we're overstepping our boundaries.

I don't think captains should be intentionally hunting any antag that isn't a direct and critical threat to the station, and even then, ideally they should be having security handle the issue. If you want to deal with antags, just fucking play Head of Security.

This is because the HoP is the head of service and has no ties to security whatsoever (albeit some may represent the rights of the crew in a court of law), the captain is above the Head of Security, it is THEIR vessel and THEIR crew, the Head of Security answers to them, including in matters such as executions. If there truly is an incompetent captain too busy playing dress up as security, the crew already has an IC response that does not require a note (Hint: It's called "mutiny").

Sometimes it solves itself with captain mysteriously disappearing from sensors.

[kieth4]

I mean on mrp it's surely going to be related to actually having an ic reason to do it. Captain's Lane is the station just be able to justify why you are doing smth

Ultimately that's all you should need as the captain, a valid justification.

[GPeckman]

snip

One of the problems is this precedent for rule 4:

Actively hunting a threat involves seeking out or pursuing that threat outside the bounds of your normal reasonable play area. Players are not expected to ignore antagonists during the normal course of play and may engage with antagonists who are active within their sphere.

A lot of people seem to assume that the captain's sphere is "the whole station." Its fair to disagree with this, but in that case I have to ask you to clarify what, exactly, the captain's sphere is, if it's not the whole station. Is it just the bridge and their office/bedroom?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I really don't know why captain players have such an obsession with needing to kill/hunt antags.

Ridiculous comparisons aside, maybe we just shouldnt make them the most heavily armed and armored crew member on the station, the target of virtually every antag, constantly under threat from any unchecked threat, the most able to respond to any given location, with near-absolute authority and almost nothing else to do, if we don't want the people who play them to hang out with security or go help their own department members.

[Timberpoes]

Our own admin team can't agree on whether the captain wasn't allowed to chase the heretic in the peanut thread, that's enough to say that we really don't have any boundaries because they have never been set to begin with.

To quote Timberpoes:

RPR4 ain't a bludgeon to force players to play in the way admins think they should, especially not Cap. Cap's a role that genuinely has a pass to get involved in any part of the station affairs. They're the boss of every department's boss.

RPR4 is to ensure players actually interact instead of deciding they can do the player's job better and breaking in to do it. Using it in this way decreases those meaningful interactions and demotes the Captain to delegator-in-chief. That ain't it for me.

The Captain's lane is the station. They're bound more by Server Rule 1 than anything else in exercising that privilege.

We have plenty of room for Kirks as well as Picards on MRP. Plenty of room for Janeways and Siskos.

[DrAmazing343]

-based Timber snip-

I think the Captain really should be the do-everything role for the entire game, because FUCK IT! You’re at the TOP! The key to Captain should be freedom above all else, barring Rule 1 (being a dick) and actually stepping on the toes of someone already doing what you’re doing.

Will I judge a Captain who secludes themselves to do the entire job content of xenobio or atmos? 100%. Will I judge a Captain for VALIDHUNTING 24/7? 200%. Do I think these should be the freedoms of the Captain, the actual owner of the entire vessel?

Yes.

Unless there’s already someone doing that thing and you’re actively shutting them down to do it yourself, in which case it falls into rule 1 and you’re an asswipe.

[RedBaronFlyer]

It's so weird because I've seen captains acting like Rome Total War generals on Manuel for literal ages the entire time I've been there. (it seems like) they rarely go hunting antags alone, but they will 100% rally with security to charge something, especially if there isn't a HOS. They also tend to step in and try and help when it would take over a minute for a sec officer to stop batoning Baldovir Baldvirovich the tiding assistant and make their way over to the scene of the incident.

If we really want to remove the captain fighting antags thing then actually go through and remove their sword, remove their armor, remove their armored spacesuit, remove their laser gun. As it currently stands they're given all this shit with the sword of Damocles over their head where they may or may not get boinked depending on the phase of the moon and the birthsign of the admins of the round. Ideally captains should only be getting in the fight when it's needed, which is what I feel like a majority of captain players (at least on Manuel) do.

The "but what about the disk!" thing is peak IC issue. If a captain player consistently gets killed and loses the disk, then admins can step in. For how dynamic the game can be with random stuff turning out to be the tiny domino that tips over a huge pillar, some admins are absolutely fucking terrified of that happening sometimes for some reason. Then they'll turn around and spawn a bunch of zombies roundstart as an event two seconds later.

[Vekter]

I really don't know why captain players have such an obsession with needing to kill/hunt antags.

Ridiculous comparisons aside, maybe we just shouldnt make them the most heavily armed and armored crew member on the station, the target of virtually every antag, constantly under threat from any unchecked threat, the most able to respond to any given location, with near-absolute authority and almost nothing else to do, if we don't want the people who play them to hang out with security or go help their own department members.

This is a good point, and the more that I read in this thread, the more I understand what people are talking about. I think "Captains should be allowed to address major threats if their assistance is needed or a member of command is already involved/the issue affects more than one department" and "Captains should not be actively hunting minor threats as if they were a security officer with bonus gear" aren't mutually exclusive.

[Archie700]

The original note in question has been lifted per headmin review.

This is now to determine precedent of the captain in RSR4 and RSR9 given the ruling.

[Bmon]

The original note in question has been lifted per headmin review.

This is now to determine precedent of the captain in RSR4 and RSR9 given the ruling.

The ruling didn't even fully affirm or refute RPR 4 applying to the captain. It left this issue in a grey zone of "sometimes" and "depending on the IC reason".

The way RPR 4 is written right now like or not(sorry timber) excludes the captain. I think it is very foolish to believe that the captain is inherently a part of every department and thus is exempt from RRP 4 and 9.

Take a step back and look at other MRP servers, most of them have their validhunt rule apply to the captain since it is out of their realm of duty. The captain should remain a leadership role, not a combat role unless things have gone awry on the station.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

It makes complete sense to me that the Captain is allowed to act as security while the HoP is not, in terms of chain of command, the HoP is not in the security chain, while the Captain is in every chain. Also, there are additional factors to consider such as Security clearly being subservient to the Captain even in terms which strictly relate to Security, i.e how Security is supposed to get the Captain's explicit permission to execute.

[Bmon]

Also, there are additional factors to consider such as Security clearly being subservient to the Captain even in terms which strictly relate to Security, i.e how Security is supposed to get the Captain's explicit permission to execute.

Yes, the captain can overrule security and other departments, but no the captain is not required to execute people.

This is quite the common misconception, the HoS alone has enough authority to execute people and this is how it was explained to me by headmins.

[Sightld2]

I mean on mrp it's surely going to be related to actually having an ic reason to do it. Captain's Lane is the station just be able to justify why you are doing smth

Ultimately that's all you should need as the captain, a valid justification.

+1. I'd rather not see Captains gearing up with stun batons and patrolling with officers roundstart, but if they have a reason then that's fine and dandy.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Also, there are additional factors to consider such as Security clearly being subservient to the Captain even in terms which strictly relate to Security, i.e how Security is supposed to get the Captain's explicit permission to execute.

Yes, the captain can overrule security and other departments, but no the captain is not required to execute people.

This is quite the common misconception, the HoS alone has enough authority to execute people and this is how it was explained to me by headmins.

Its an easy mistake to make, since it's changed back and forth several times over the years and a lot of the wiki articles never get updated. Even the Space Law article still says you need the Captain's permission, along with several guides.

[GPeckman]

I mean on mrp it's surely going to be related to actually having an ic reason to do it. Captain's Lane is the station just be able to justify why you are doing smth

Ultimately that's all you should need as the captain, a valid justification.

+1. I'd rather not see Captains gearing up with stun batons and patrolling with officers roundstart, but if they have a reason then that's fine and dandy.

Honestly I think even patrolling with officers could be fine, given the right context. Silently going into maints, alone, to validhunt? That's not okay. But suppose the captain organized security into two teams for a manhunt; one team led by the HoS, and the other led by the captain themself. That sounds like a goldmine of good IC interaction just between security members and the captain, not to mention interaction with whoever they're hunting. That sort of thing should totally be allowed.

[NecromancerAnne]

I don't particularly care about overgearing specifically for the captain in particular, because we have rules about unprompted excessive preparedness for literally all roles, security included. But I don't feel like captain's shouldn't be allowed to equip themselves with alternative equipment if they want to do something different. If he puts down the energy gun and picks up a riot shotgun, I don't care. So long as he follows the principle of maintaining non-lethality (or at least minimal lethality), that's within the bounds of acting towards what we expect of anyone performing security duties.

I've probably said it a half dozen times at this stage, but the captain should be able to involve themselves in practically any matter, including working alongside security issues. Including direct involvement if necessary. They have the most access, they have HoS equivalent authority and role duties, they have the equipment. Their involvement is a risk. But they should be allowed to decide when they involve themselves and how. They're a component of the security force due to their equivalence to it's head. All we care is that the captain has sound reasoning and ability to extrapolate why they choose to make the decisions they do. But I think in principle, we should trust that captain's involving themselves in combating threats is entirely in their wheelhouse.

[Timberpoes]

If I'm honest I don't think this really needs a policy change or even a policy ruling.

The Cap's limitations clearly isn't causing the players any issues ICly in-game. The only issues it's causing are OOC within a very, very small minority of admins (it's kinda just Vekter and Bmon, and even Vekter's changing vision on it). The only reason this has popped up is cuz like 2 admins out of the entire team have the wrong idea. When 10 or 15 admins get a rule wrong, it's a rule problem. When 1 or 2 get a rule wrong, it's an individual problem.

That can be solved by a simple conversation between the headmins and any disagreeing admins. Usually such conversations go: "The rule is X, please treat it as such".

Admins constantly disagree on rules, but we all try and enforce them the same way. If the headmin needed to wade in and give a policy ruling every time, MSO's servers would run out of disk space from all the additional """headmin rulings""" that would result.

My response to "I don't think the Cap's lane is the entire station" would be "Tough, it is, enforce the rules with that in mind please."

[dendydoom]

If I'm honest I don't think this really needs a policy change or even a policy ruling.

The Cap's limitations clearly isn't causing the players any issues ICly in-game. The only issues it's causing are OOC within a very, very small minority of admins (it's kinda just Vekter and Bmon, and even Vekter's changing vision on it). The only reason this has popped up is cuz like 2 admins out of the entire team have the wrong idea. When 10 or 15 admins get a rule wrong, it's a rule problem. When 1 or 2 get a rule wrong, it's an individual problem.

That can be solved by a simple conversation between the headmins and any disagreeing admins. Usually such conversations go: "The rule is X, please treat it as such".

Admins constantly disagree on rules, but we all try and enforce them the same way. If the headmin needed to wade in and give a policy ruling every time, MSO's servers would run out of disk space from all the additional """headmin rulings""" that would result.

My response to "I don't think the Cap's lane is the entire station" would be "Tough, it is, enforce the rules with that in mind please."

this exercise was mostly fishing for dissenting opinions amongst admins/mrp players that called into question what i already quite firmly believe about the captain's jurisdiction. bmon made what i feel were certainly some relevant and cogent points about the nature of command using their position to validhunt, but in the situation he was using to set an example i found myself unable to be reductive to the appealing player's IC reasoning.

we always tell players that they should follow IC reasoning and they'll never really need the rules, and this situation seemed to exist on two levels at once: bmon trying to enforce a standard that speaks to the universal problem of validhunting, and clara who was trying to appeal against her very specific situation that used IC reasoning to navigate it.

in this instance i found myself siding squarely with clara, but nonetheless i found that bmon may have some worthwhile points to make if given an opportunity to discuss it without the very distracting aspect of a player's fate hanging fearfully in the balance all the while.

i can give you a timber-style headminbus leak by saying that the conversation was indeed very short. it was basically "the captain can do this, right?" "yes" "yes" "yes" and then of course i wrote a small essay.

we were in full agreement that the station is under the purview of the captain, the only thing they need is an IC reason to insert themselves into dangerous combat-heavy situations. this does not have to necessarily be a complicated reason, but it should be enough that the captain letting themselves into the armoury, gearing up and walking the beat like a secoff every round isn't just accepted at face value.

what i, specifically, dendydoom the long-time member of manuel would like to know is how the experience is for captain mains who have to face antags, and how it is for players of restricted antags (namely heretics) when they make a little bit of noise and the entirety of sec and the captain descend on them. are there issues to be highlighted here? are they things we can resolve? or are they just natural consequences of our specific style of running the game and we should just live with them?

[Timberpoes]

Beeg quote

RPR 4 clearly limits its scope to non-security.

4. Non-security may only actively hunt global or round-ending threats.

That is because security's job by necessity is to find conflict with players acting antagonistically (not necessary antags, but anyone self-antagging and breaking space law fall under this remit as well).

The Captain's lane is the entire station, and this gives Captain the authority to act within the entire scope of security. Any Captain acting as security will be held to the standards of security again as per RPR4.

Players that choose to act as security will be held to the same standards as security.

Security's lane can also be read in light of Server Rule 4.

Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so.

I'd argue the security lane itself is automatic reasonable cause to pre-emptively search for or seek conflict with antagonists and that this part of Server Rule 4 isn't overriden by any of the Roleplay Rules. This is because there's genuine roleplay necessity in security being allowed to patrol the station looking for antagonists/evidence of antagonists even before antagonistic activity has been confirmed. Their job is to secure the station and this function is part of security's lane from the moment the shift starts.

This isn't incompatible with the goal of the Roleplay Rules either. Massively reducing them into a sentence; the RP rules seek to restrict the freedom of players to avoid interactions.

We ask security to treat antags in proportion to their crimes on MRP to generate those additional interactions. Going loud just makes it more likely security will be fully aware of the scope and extent of both your crimes and what antag type you are. When security know what you are and what crimes you've committed, they're way less restricted in handling you than if they can only guess. That restriction avoids the supposed non-interaction of "valid, just kill them" except when there's some IC factor that permits such handling.

I think this is the natural consequence of player freedom in general, and is what creates good SS13. Actions and consequences.

[dendydoom]

aye aye, this is a great and much appreciated elaboration.

for a moment lets expand this topic to cover all jobs and their responsibility to abide by RP rules 4 and 9.

i suppose the question i am drilling down to is how much responsibility we place on non-security to recognize when there is enough security present to tackle restricted antags and so to know to disengage. consider a scenario where someone who is not security has a good IC reason to try and hunt a restricted antag like a heretic in the maints of their department. while hunting, security turns up. this is enough of a security response that the player feels confident that they will win easily, but it does not change the terms of their IC reasoning in how they found themselves hunting this antag themselves.

is it a case whereby we have unspoken expectations on the admin team that players should know what "enough" of a security response is to say "they've got this handled, i should leave!" or is it the case that with IC reasoning to get involved players should feel confident that they are allowed to continue with the involvement against restricted antags that are already getting their head kicked in by the security force?

i am aware of the impact these sorts of rulings have on player perception of what is an appropriate response. while we may rule in a certain way that disallows a specific player in a specific situation from interfering because of a very specific set of circumstances, it can still be taken widely by players that "interfering is not allowed!" and i am more or less trying to dig down into what the sentiments behind this are, both for players and admins.

to me personally the consideration for "this situation has enough security for one heretic, i should probably leave" is a good faith OOC decision that is made out of consideration for the antag who is vastly outnumbered and outgunned. where my issue lies is in how much we ask players to make these kinds of OOC considerations when we already put so much importance on IC reasoning. if you have an IC reason to stay involved, how much should this weigh against the OOC reasoning of proportionate response in chasing antags?

[DrAmazing343]

I’m almost always of the opinion that IC should trump OOC; or, rather, that OOC rules should hardly interrupt perfect IC reasoning.

It’s very harsh as a player to restrict your own methods or actions because of something entirely out of character, and it’s just as disruptive to have something OOC force you into IC action your character would have never taken, like the policy thread about mandating sec action would enforce.

Overall, I don’t think we need much of a policy change here, as Timber and Dendy have so wonderfully essayposted about already. I just wanted to +1 IC over OOC, always.

[Timberpoes]

i suppose the question i am drilling down to is how much responsibility we place on non-security to recognize when there is enough security present to tackle restricted antags and so to know to disengage. consider a scenario where someone who is not security has a good IC reason to try and hunt a restricted antag like a heretic in the maints of their department. while hunting, security turns up. this is enough of a security response that the player feels confident that they will win easily, but it does not change the terms of their IC reasoning in how they found themselves hunting this antag themselves.

is it a case whereby we have unspoken expectations on the admin team that players should know what "enough" of a security response is to say "they've got this handled, i should leave!" or is it the case that with IC reasoning to get involved players should feel confident that they are allowed to continue with the involvement against restricted antags that are already getting their head kicked in by the security force?

I think that security numbers should only empower players to act without IC reason, never restrict them from acting with IC reason.

Lower sec player count can allow players to stray into sec's lane, but higher sec player count should not prohibit players with IC reason from acting regardless of whether they're in sec's lane or not. But always with the caveat that a player acting as security will be always be held to sec's standards by simple necessity of not allowing players to bypass sec policy by not rolling sec but still doing sec things.

i am aware of the impact these sorts of rulings have on player perception of what is an appropriate response. while we may rule in a certain way that disallows a specific player in a specific situation from interfering because of a very specific set of circumstances, it can still be taken widely by players that "interfering is not allowed!" and i am more or less trying to dig down into what the sentiments behind this are, both for players and admins.

to me personally the consideration for "this situation has enough security for one heretic, i should probably leave" is a good faith OOC decision that is made out of consideration for the antag who is vastly outnumbered and outgunned. where my issue lies is in how much we ask players to make these kinds of OOC considerations when we already put so much importance on IC reasoning. if you have an IC reason to stay involved, how much should this weigh against the OOC reasoning of proportionate response in chasing antags?

Good IC reasoning trumps everything, universally, without exception. That's the code I live by.

Where the RP rules exist to restrict player freedom in avoiding interactions, the core server rules exist to restrict player freedom in ruining a good SS13 story. Admin discretion to not apply the rules, a rule against being a dick, a rule against metacomms, rules against icky ocky ocky icky and bypassing roleplay entirely, a rule defining antagonists and how the crew can interact with them, a rule about command staff effort, a rule about line toeing to prevent rules lawying around the rules.

My view has always been that the admin team will have failed at its task if it ever lets the rules get in the way of a good story. All the core server rules exist to maximise the chances of good SS13 stories. We should never apply the rules in a way that has players thinking OOCly (will I get bwoinked for [action]?) instead of ICly (is [action] justifiable and proportionate?) about their actions.

[Higgin]

IC should carry.

The concern here is motivated by an OOC interest in keeping stories interesting by preventing dogpiles and brutal stomps where not needed.

The problem is that the IC interest and OOC interest often run headlong into each other, and the OOC interest relies on information players do not have. People don't get told all the antags, the roundtype, the state of all things in the round, and how it's all going to work out. Even admins can't give you a perfect answer to that. This is all in the interest of situating players within their characters, making their choices authentic, and making the story that ends up getting told theirs.

We can't and shouldn't ask people to only take fair fights, and although I think I was the first one to bring up RPR9 as part of talking about this, I'm not sure it should ever be treated as self-executing. It should only ever be a claim made by people who feel and recognize a loss from others cutting into their space.

I would suggest that, if anything, we regear RPR4 to just say "act as security, get judged as security," consider removing restrictions on antags to call back to Rule 4 instead, and look at ways of making it a more natural and rewarding IC path to be a captain who doesn't hunt more than one that does when shit is going down.

There are a lot of internally consistent reasons for Barack Obama to not hop on with Seal Team Six to go challenge Osama bin Laden to a 1v1. Less so here.

[BonChoi]

I shouldn't have to neuter my characters IC reasoning for fear of OOC punishment when I am well within my rights and within the rules to be doing what I'm doing. The Captain is both a member of Security and also a member of every other department. I think it is possible that it could be overdone, i.e. a captain locks themselves in xenobiology just to do xenobiology and doesn't come out for any reason, but then I think that admins should rather take IC actions against them instead of OOC actions. Send an inspector down to inquire the status of the captain and the disk. Bring up formal IC charges against a captain who refuses to see the err of their ways. If said captain player does the same thing round after round bwoink then for it, but for an isolated incident use better judgment before you bring out the long arm of the law upon them.

It's no fun for players to have to constantly worry themselves with thoughts of "will I get in trouble if I do this? will it be a problem to an admin watching if I do this?" if they're playing in good faith and within the rules, which is what I feel like limiting the Captain's scope would do drastically.

[Archie700]

The original note in question has been lifted per headmin review.

This is now to determine precedent of the captain in RSR4 and RSR9 given the ruling.

The ruling didn't even fully affirm or refute RPR 4 applying to the captain. It left this issue in a grey zone of "sometimes" and "depending on the IC reason".

The way RPR 4 is written right now like or not(sorry timber) excludes the captain. I think it is very foolish to believe that the captain is inherently a part of every department and thus is exempt from RRP 4 and 9.

Take a step back and look at other MRP servers, most of them have their validhunt rule apply to the captain since it is out of their realm of duty. The captain should remain a leadership role, not a combat role unless things have gone awry on the station.

For one, "other MRP servers" does not mean we have to follow every rule they have.

TGstation does not explicitly exclude the captain from taking on other roles at any point. The captain wiki page suggests as a guideline that you shouldn't be doing things yourself as captain. Nowhere does this say you can't.

To say RSR 4 excludes the captain would have to be defining the captain's lane, and that also means RSR 9 is violated as well.

The headmins' judgement:

This issue is not complicated, the Captain is in command of the station, and they are allowed to do what they need to do to keep their ship stable and operational, especially when it comes to the matter of heads. Sometimes, this means hunting a valid or two (as a treat).

[Bmon]

For one, "other MRP servers" does not mean we have to follow every rule they have.

TGstation does not explicitly exclude the captain from taking on other roles at any point. The captain wiki page suggests as a guideline that you shouldn't be doing things yourself as captain. Nowhere does this say you can't.

Other MRP are a good baseline of what people expect from a MRP server, we don't have to follow them to a tee but they're a good starting point of what is commonly expected from the genre of server.

Anyone at any time can edit the wiki, it's open to the public for edits. The only thing that matters on the wiki are the rules which are protected. You could very easily argue RPR 9 and 4 prevent the captain from doing other people's jobs.

[Archie700]

Other MRP are a good baseline of what people expect from a MRP server, we don't have to follow them to a tee but they're a good starting point of what is commonly expected from the genre of server.

Anyone at any time can edit the wiki, it's open to the public for edits. The only thing that matters on the wiki are the rules which are protected. You could very easily argue RPR 9 and 4 prevent the captain from doing other people's jobs.

When people are saying that "RPR 9 and 4 prevent the captain from doing other people's jobs" according to the rules but many admins and even headmins disagree, that's a problem that has to be settled quickly through policy discussion.

[Bmon]

When people are saying that "RPR 9 and 4 prevent the captain from doing other people's jobs" according to the rules but many admins and even headmins disagree, that's a problem that has to be settled quickly through policy discussion.

Because that's their interpretation of the rules, rule 0 also plays a part here. I think the captain should definitely be held to RPR 9 at the very least.

If a captain walks into medbay and starts doing surgery on people when that medbay is fully staffed with doctors who are willing to do surgeries and the doctors start to get pissed at the captain I'd call that a breach of RPR 9. The role of captain should not be treated as an all access do everything job.

[Archie700]

If the captain walks in and sees an unattended person and decides to do surgery on him, and does a good job then the doctors should suck eggs if they get angry with him for it. Talk with him if you feel uncomfortable.

If the captain keeps treating people incorrectly then you complain about it to the CMO for a conversation with the captain

If the captain shoves the doctors to get to a person already being treated or kicks out doctors for doing their jobs then you file.a report with centcom (ahelp).

We should not prevent a captain from helping others as long as they have a good reason for it. We should only act if they are interfering with the operation of the department itself (wasting money on guns when cargo doesn't want them, researching clown gear before useful equipment, fucking around with the SM before engineering gets power) or their entire shift is spent doing a single thing without bothering to actually act in response to a crisis.

[Bmon]

If the captain walks in and sees an unattended person and decides to do surgery on him, and does a good job then the doctors should suck eggs if they get angry with him for it. Talk with him if you feel uncomfortable.

If the captain keeps treating people incorrectly then you complain about it to the CMO for a conversation with the captain

If the captain shoves the doctors to get to a person already being treated or kicks out doctors for doing their jobs then you file.a report with centcom (ahelp).

We should not prevent a captain from helping others as long as they have a good reason for it. We should only act if they are interfering with the operation of the department itself (wasting money on guns when cargo doesn't want them, researching clown gear before useful equipment, fucking around with the SM before engineering gets power) or their entire shift is spent doing a single thing without bothering to actually act in response to a crisis.

The issue starts when the captain takes a job from someone in a department who is willing to do it, if no one is doing the job then it is not an issue. This is already outlined in RPR 9.

[Higgin]

If a captain walks into medbay and starts doing surgery on people when that medbay is fully staffed with doctors who are willing to do surgeries and the doctors start to get pissed at the captain I'd call that a breach of RPR 9. The role of captain should not be treated as an all access do everything job.

If the captain shoves the doctors to get to a person already being treated or keeps treating people incorrect then you complain about it to the CMO.

...who then... appeals to security, the captain, or the telebaton, all at their own peril?

If somebody ahelped to say they were frustrated about getting their job stolen from them by the captain in that instant, I'd consider that good grounds for talking to the captain about RPR9 if they didn't have a reason it actually was necessary or the doctor couldn't be trusted.

I don't believe any of the officers involved in the incident in this note* ahelped it. That's where my caution about RPR9 being self-executing has been growing - setting out "the lane" in advance and from above seems to go against the spirit of the rule to me, which is,

This means that you should do the job you signed up for and not try and do other people’s jobs for them or lay claim to their department. If you need something from another player you should attempt to ask them to get it for you instead of just taking it. Straying from your lane at the expense of another player should only be done where strictly necessary.

The heretic isn't losing out on their "lane" from the captain jumping in here, and it's self-evidently an urgent issue of the good running of the station.

At best it's the security team's lane, but they might be just as glad to have the help, and they're a lot better equipped to actually stand up for themselves if the captain is stepping over them or getting in their way.

I brought it up to begin with, but I'm really thinking RPR9 shouldn't be invoked without a complainant, even if people might not now well know that they can.

[Archie700]

-snip-

I edited the reply above because shoving doctors to do the job the doctors are doing would definitely be RPR 9 in any case.

However you bring up a very good point.

Invoking RSR 9 in regards to security chasing after a criminal is very difficult because in that case, more is better to apprehend a criminal, the only case where it's invoked is when you're directly impeding security to chase after the guy alone.

[BonChoi]

I think if it's gotten to the point that the captain is shoving people on top of doing their job for them that's also a rule 1 issue. They're being a dick.

[Screemonster]

Take a step back and look at other MRP servers, most of them have their validhunt rule apply to the captain since it is out of their realm of duty. The captain should remain a leadership role, not a combat role unless things have gone awry on the station.

HRP admin here.
While I'd bwoink a captain for seeking out baddies on his own initiative in the presence of a functioning security team, if someone screamed for help I wouldn't expect them to just throw their hands up and go "welp, not my lane, guess my hands are tied and I'll just stand here while my chief engineer gets murdered".

[Bmon]

HRP admin here.
While I'd bwoink a captain for seeking out baddies on his own initiative in the presence of a functioning security team, if someone screamed for help I wouldn't expect them to just throw their hands up and go "welp, not my lane, guess my hands are tied and I'll just stand here while my chief engineer gets murdered".

Yeah, this is already allowed under RPR 4 I.E. acting in defence of someone's life. This is what I'd like to see for TG instead of saying the captain can valid whoever the heck they want because they're in everyone's lane.

Generally speaking, TG actually has a very open-ended valid hunt rule which allows players to respond to callouts of distress over comms, and not every server is like TG here. For example, Paradise only allows you to act in the defense of others if you are a direct witness to the attack or are security.

[Higgin]

This is what I'd like to see for TG instead of saying the captain can valid whoever the heck they want because they're in everyone's lane.

Why is that?

Is it an issue of OOC balance in the round, or wanting the Captain to have a particular distinct feel as Command rather than Action Hero, or what's the sell of this position for you?

If you'd like the Captain's lane narrowed away from security issues, what would you want to see for that to not just make the role worse?

[Bmon]

Why is that?

Is it an issue of OOC balance in the round, or wanting the Captain to have a particular distinct feel as Command rather than Action Hero, or what's the sell of this position for you?

If you'd like the Captain's lane narrowed away from security issues, what would you want to see for that to not just make the role worse?

Because it changes the focus of the jobs from what I think it should be about (command management, leadership, gimmicks) to being the one person on the station who does everything and steps on everyone's toes.

There are already plenty of exceptions to RPR 9 and 4 that allow the captain to step in when needed, we do not need them to always step in though.

[Higgin]

Because it changes the focus of the jobs from what I think it should be about (command management, leadership, gimmicks) to being the one person on the station who does everything and steps on everyone's toes.

There are already plenty of exceptions to RPR 9 and 4 that allow the captain to step in when needed, we do not need them to always step in though.

while those are personally the things I live for with command, I think that creating the emphasis you're talking about is probably better served by bolstering those areas rather than coming down with RPR 4 and 9.

in the case of the former, the captain can't be disentangled from the fate of the station, especially around heads and security issues - they're also metaprotected in a similar way to security that puts them arm in arm over any other dept.

in the case of the latter, why should we go looking to apply RPR9 except where the people whose lane is actually being touched take issue?

people will talk to Central more, delegate more, and do gimmicks more when it pays off and they have the room to do it - if your voice means nothing, your heads and subordinates are all possibly bastards, and your security force starts getting tipped over (or just doesn't exist) when you want to run a gimmick, what are you supposed to do?

It's not just that the freedom to be a Kirk or a Picard because you want to is good when it isn't stepping on others' toes - I think a lot of the emphasis you're talking about is damned by other things around the captain that make playing to soft skills and influence much less practical and rewarding here than it might be. could that not be improved in other ways than making the cudgel over their heads heavier if they step in and we decide they weren't needed in the middle of everyone clapping for their big damn hero moment?

[Bmon]

in the case of the former, the captain can't be disentangled from the fate of the station, especially around heads and security issues - they're also metaprotected in a similar way to security that puts them arm in arm over any other dept.

in the case of the latter, why should we go looking to apply RPR9 except where the people whose lane is actually being touched take issue?

I don't think the captain should concern themselves with chasing down bad guys unless there is no security presence on the station, it is simply not their job to be doing that. The captain spawning with a mindshield is a rather moot point to me, it doesn't make their job any more or less security, it just restricts them from being an antag.

Kind of irrelevant, admins can already action things which were not ahelped. https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Headmin_Ru ... 20ahelping. If no one is doing the job or no one is willing to do it it's not an RPR 9 issue.

[Constellado]

I think captains should be able to help security as if they are a HoS, or HoS+. Even if a HoS already exists.

Why is that?
1: Captains START with security comms and command no other. They will hear every single bark and callout from the sec team, and will be asked questions by the sec team if the captain talks in there even once. The captain is part of the sec team in the comms channel even if they like it or not.

2: The captain starts with armor, and gear to defend themselves. It is also gear that is good at stopping criminals. The captain has sec gear even if they like it or not.

3: The sec team must ask the captain to authorise executions. The captain has to make decisions for sec even if they like it or not.

4: The captain's job is to protect the station IC. If shit goes down they are heavily encouraged to defend the station even if they like it or not. We will need to change server culture to remove this one.

Notice how none of the above applies to the HoP. This is why people hate HoPcurity, because they do not have the above things.

If we punish captains from doing sec work as in RPR9, we will end up having to bwoink them constantly because they will inevitably have to do some kind of sec job eventually. Heck, when I am acting captain I try to avoid doing sec stuff because I dislike doing the work, and I still end up having to act as sec sometimes. I do not want to be bwoinked for doing things that the game and policy HEAVILY ENCOURAGES.