Non-Security on LRP and their right of rule 4.

[iansdoor]

I am sure that every situation is different and case by case in the sandbox.
So the purpose of this discussion isn't a catch all solution, rather a clarification on what kind of roleplay are we to expect.

What has been bothering me as of late, on Sybil and not as much as Terry, is the bystander effect of non-security exercising their right to rule 4. One can assume, or bear witness to evidence of an "antagonist" actions and come to the conclusion, from space law or Server rules, that "you are allowed to do whatever you want to that antagonist." The bystander effect from the crew members is that person probably deserved whatever, and no questions asked further. I am not looking for more valid hunting from the crew in all cases, but why be radio silent about someone getting murdered or being tortured in front of their eyes.

Is rule 4 correct for a non-security to just kill that person, then and there, after checking up if they were genuinely suspicious, or should a non-security confer about the "antagonist" to a captain or a member of security that is posted on that station?
If there is no security or peers, then situation is a judgement call on your behalf as Timber probably said along the lines in the past "judgement calls are free, but you face the administrative consequences of those being wrong."

Also if non-security players go out of their way to arrest and cuff the "antagonist", are they not bound to establish rules that is setup for security itself? If you aren't going to keep them in perma, gulag, or have them sit in baby time out, you kill them almost immediately.

[MooCow12]

You can't force players to act since the bystander effect is natural but you can empower people to be wary and hostile to bystanders who only simply watch murders being committed.

Bystanders also look identical to people who are personally okay with the way the situation is unfolding and will only step in to help the bad guy as soon as they start losing.


This type of bystander isn't even limited to just antags and non antags, it happens all the time with tiders and security, when security finally regains the upperhand after someone has been tiding them for a little too long and overstays their advantage, another tider will come in and bail them out.

This has also happened to me plenty of times, people will break into my room or escalate against me in some way and other people start watching while we are fighting and as soon as I start winning the bystanders will end up siding with the instigators.

Its gotten to a point where I actively try to relocate fights away from bystanders and if they continue to follow and watch I'll treat them as hostile as well.

Its also a pretty big deal for escalation since admins will raise an eyebrow if you pre-emptively attack someone running at you when youre low health, another big reason to want to be the bystanders of conflicts is you often get the metaprotection of being able to get the first hit which is more than enough to finish off a party that was already in combat.

There is every reason from both an ic and ooc perspective to be extremely wary of bystanders and that's a part of both the atmosphere of the game and the deception.

Being a bystander has alot of advantages and metaprotections and logs that only pick up action rather than witnessing those actions, admins are necessary for these situations but they really shouldn't want to go near them with a 10 ft pole because of how much of a grey area it is.



On the flip side you have people that actually take action and act against antags, they dont have space law or the ic and ooc tools necessary to facilitate following it. They don't have easy access to a flow of information from reliable sources like seccies do with eachother and should be alittle more wary of acting but not so much that they cant.

[NecromancerAnne]

It's weird that the roleplay rules already have this solved; act like security, and be held to their standards. While it might start to infringe upon Rule 4 and its precedents, it probably would go a long way to close any loops to be required to act within the same reasonable bounds as sec. If you don't know the full details, stick to nonlethal. If you're seeing someone getting pretty violently murdered by someone else with antag gear, you don't really need to second guess yourself, even if the person using that gear isn't the antagonist in the equation.

Otherwise, so long as you have a reasonable excuse for why you intervened in whatever way you chose too, I guess that's all that matters.

[Archie700]

This is not a situation that can be helped by admin intervention as it is now.

It's weird that the roleplay rules already have this solved; act like security, and be held to their standards. While it might start to infringe upon Rule 4 and its precedents, it probably would go a long way to close any loops to be required to act within the same reasonable bounds as sec. If you don't know the full details, stick to nonlethal. If you're seeing someone getting pretty violently murdered by someone else with antag gear, you don't really need to second guess yourself, even if the person using that gear isn't the antagonist in the equation.

Otherwise, so long as you have a reasonable excuse for why you intervened in whatever way you chose too, I guess that's all that matters.

Security in LRP is outright allowed to kill anyone who is found with heretic or traitor gear, even if they were just holding it, UNLESS they have a reasonable excuse.

The standards of security in LRP are pretty low compared to MRP, because they do not have this policy:

When dealing with the crew and antagonists, make sure their punishments are in proportion to their crime(s). Minor crimes such as departmental break-ins, stolen equipment should be met with short, but increasing sentences depending on recurring visits by the apprehended. Stealing critical station equipment and items such as the hand teleporter, Chief Engineer's hardsuit, or AI upload boards are more severe crimes and should be met with longer prison times, or potentially permabrigging if the crime is deemed severe enough.

And non-security not being allowed to chase after or punish antags without a roleplay reason is only a rule in MRP, per RPR 4 and RPR 9

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.

9. Stay in your lane.
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.

They are already bound by global rule 4, in that case, in that they're allowed to do anything to antags or people acting like antags that isn't either creepy (rule 8) or bigoted (rule 11) or OOC/metagamey (rule 2).

If they were wrong, then it falls under the same as if a security officer got it wrong, which is actionable.

[Istoprocent1]

Security in LRP is outright allowed to kill anyone who is found with heretic or traitor gear, even if they were just holding it, UNLESS they have a reasonable excuse.

This is kinda cringe and a double standard with the newest headmin ruling where security doesn't become instantly valid for doing the same. Either everybody isntantly valid and people can RDM or people should approach with good faith.

[Vekter]

I definitely like how we handle things on MRP regarding sec, but we can't realistically have rule 4 freedoms for antags on LRP without also giving sec those same freedoms or the game will become hilariously imbalanced.

This is kinda cringe

Stopped there, improve yourself

[iansdoor]

I definitely like how we handle things on MRP regarding sec, but we can't realistically have rule 4 freedoms for antags on LRP without also giving sec those same freedoms or the game will become hilariously imbalanced.

This is kinda cringe

Stopped there, improve yourself

They probably misread just as you were pulled down with them.
This is about Non-security, this ranges from command, to your local tider.
If everyone is an agreement that this is a sandbox and less roleplay, then everyone has "equal" opportunity of being security role. Does that mean for them to be held at what higher standard security can actually do?
Not say rule 4 and go out of your way to be the space asshole to whomever.

[Vekter]

They probably misread just as you were pulled down with them.
This is about Non-security, this ranges from command, to your local tider.
If everyone is an agreement that this is a sandbox and less roleplay, then everyone has "equal" opportunity of being security role. Does that mean for them to be held at what higher standard security can actually do?
Not say rule 4 and go out of your way to be the space asshole to whomever.

Oh okay, it's kind of confusing.

My feelings don't really change here either way - not letting the crew do whatever to antags creates this weird vacuum where antags can do literally anything they want but the crew can't effectively retaliate in any way. I don't think you can reasonably keep rule 4 in its current state without giving the crew the same power.

Now, whether or not rule 4 needs to be in its current state is a different discussion (I would burn it alive if I got the chance, I think it's awful) but as it is right now, assuming no changes can be made to it, removing the crew's ability to retaliate is a non-starter IMO.

[iansdoor]

They probably misread just as you were pulled down with them.
This is about Non-security, this ranges from command, to your local tider.
If everyone is an agreement that this is a sandbox and less roleplay, then everyone has "equal" opportunity of being security role. Does that mean for them to be held at what higher standard security can actually do?
Not say rule 4 and go out of your way to be the space asshole to whomever.

Oh okay, it's kind of confusing.

My feelings don't really change here either way - not letting the crew do whatever to antags creates this weird vacuum where antags can do literally anything they want but the crew can't effectively retaliate in any way. I don't think you can reasonably keep rule 4 in its current state without giving the crew the same power.

Now, whether or not rule 4 needs to be in its current state is a different discussion (I would burn it alive if I got the chance, I think it's awful) but as it is right now, assuming no changes can be made to it, removing the crew's ability to retaliate is a non-starter IMO.

I 100% understand, the situations that I keep watching while playing or adminning is just awkward. This does relate to the policy of folks getting mad at security for not doing their jobs. You can't force someone to put in a ton of effort and you can't ask someone to go out of their way to question what is happening to the man brandishing the knife or antag gear.
Is the feeling of silent dread in folks that makes not question their fate or someone else's. I am not sure what the roleplay is behind that or is it not roleplay?

[Archie700]

It has nothing to do with roleplay.

It's just the fact that people don't really care.

This is ultimately that simple, they're not obligated to stop anyone. So they don't care.

[Timberpoes]

Let's be like France and add a mandated Good Samaritan policy.

[Istoprocent1]

They probably misread just as you were pulled down with them.
This is about Non-security, this ranges from command, to your local tider.
If everyone is an agreement that this is a sandbox and less roleplay, then everyone has "equal" opportunity of being security role. Does that mean for them to be held at what higher standard security can actually do?
Not say rule 4 and go out of your way to be the space asshole to whomever.

Might have been the case. Rule 4 is good with a caveat that good judgement is used as not all antags are the same. If they go loud and/or are uncontainable (heretic, ling, wizard) its fair game to mess them up in any imaginable way. If its security or a group of friends messing somebody up for some combat gloves or because somebody didn't slip on a banana, then its kinda meh. Its worse when they are policing the fun for everybody else - ie. others are not allowed to have things, but its okay when they have it.

As for the bystander effect and the minimum effort, its kinda hard to create policy for other than "hey, if you don't want to help, its cool as long as you don't make it worse by looting or hiding a body".

[dragomagol]

It's weird that the roleplay rules already have this solved; act like security, and be held to their standards.

We do have this as a headmin ruling:

Security standards can be applied to anyone acting as security, not just roundstart security officers.

Besides that I feel the same way I do about forcing security to deal with every confrontation or crime they see: it's too hard to enforce fairly and it punishes players for not playing optimally.

[kieth4]

It's weird that the roleplay rules already have this solved; act like security, and be held to their standards.

We do have this as a headmin ruling:

Security standards can be applied to anyone acting as security, not just roundstart security officers.

Besides that I feel the same way I do about forcing security to deal with every confrontation or crime they see: it's too hard to enforce fairly and it punishes players for not playing optimally.