/tg/Station 13

Originally our "Code Blue" allowed for random searches. This generated random bullshit when people would get dragged out of the HOP line and pat'd down for cult/rev/gangster starting equipment 2 minutes into the round.

Probable cause made sense, on SS13 that is a very low bar, but it prevents sec from just grabbing random people and hoping RNG delivers valids unto them. It was an easy way to permit aggressive searching during code blue since probable cause is context-sensitive and the threshold depends on whether its 2 minutes into a quiet round or whether its a revolution and the brig is burning. When I play sec I am very proactive with searching but I always do it with at least one reason, they're somewhere they don't have access, they are carrying equipment that they don't have access to, they have blood on them, they turn around and run when they see me, etc... it was never hard to do my job while complying with the rule.

I'm kinda disappointed that we're back to random, I couldn't find anything on Github or the forums to explain why it got reverted.

TBH the rules still say that nonantags aren't allowed to preemptively search for antags so I'd imagine that still applies, and still includes sec.

I don't random search people in the HoP like two minutes in the round (that's cancer) but I will search people if I feel like they could be rogue for whatever reason, and especially if I see they have stuff they shouldn't.

Example: Last night I was at escape as warden waiting for the shuttle. A greyshirt wanders over and waits near me, and I happen notice he has sec bowmans on. I promptly taze and search him, uncovering he had an emag in his box, and execute him.

This is the correct application of searches and is pretty just, I'd say.

ShadowDimentio wrote: Example: Last night I was at escape as warden waiting for the shuttle. A greyshirt wanders over and waits near me, and I happen notice he has sec bowmans on. I promptly taze and search him, uncovering he had an emag in his box, and execute him

Yeah, totes not cancer bruh

>execution for emag when we was just going to leave peacefully on the shuttle


kek

Gotta get them valids.

If he didn't want to get caught he shouldn't have stolen and wore sec gear.

when are we going to add a stamp that just says

VALID.

Armhulen wrote:>execution for emag when we was just going to leave peacefully on the shuttle


kek

>Implying anyone with an emag and stolen sec gear isnt going to emag into the cockpit and launch early

Armhulen wrote:>execution for emag when we was just going to leave peacefully on the shuttle


kek

>letting a syndicate who has most likely sabotaged the station, killed someone or otherwise committed treason against your employer go
>when its your literal job to be the long arm of the (Space) law

i bet you think friendly wizards are the height of interesting gameplay too.

No it wasn't, just the random search language being taken out so you have to provide more information as to why you're searching someone than "Well it says I can in the codes!".

I think if you can make a logical case as to why you're searching someone, then this won't affect you, at least that's what people who wanted this removed were trying to reassure others with.

Arianya and Robustin wrote:letting syndie escape alive

that's why you take the emag and use the shuttle brig, obviously. Letting him go scott free is stupid even for me.

I never take chances with antags unless they literally walk up and hand me their candy or never buy any. Then they'd just get away with a tracking implant.

If the "random search" language is getting removed then why not add the probable cause stuff? If it was "random" for a long time then nobody is going to think otherwise if we just subtly cut it.

Oldman Robustin wrote:Originally our "Code Blue" allowed for random searches. This generated random bullshit when people would get dragged out of the HOP line and pat'd down for cult/rev/gangster starting equipment 2 minutes into the round.

Probable cause made sense, on SS13 that is a very low bar, but it prevents sec from just grabbing random people and hoping RNG delivers valids unto them. It was an easy way to permit aggressive searching during code blue since probable cause is context-sensitive and the threshold depends on whether its 2 minutes into a quiet round or whether its a revolution and the brig is burning. When I play sec I am very proactive with searching but I always do it with at least one reason, they're somewhere they don't have access, they are carrying equipment that they don't have access to, they have blood on them, they turn around and run when they see me, etc... it was never hard to do my job while complying with the rule.

I'm kinda disappointed that we're back to random, I couldn't find anything on Github or the forums to explain why it got reverted.

It Depends(tm)

The honest thing is everyone is too lazy to use red alert when a situation actually warrants it. For example a revolution. Sec is too busy cracking skulls/getting their skulls cracked to deal with the bureaucratic shit and yeah that sucks for players who want to role play but its kinda tough cookies there. Cult is about the same.


Now what if you see something emagged. Is it important to start a "code red"? Roleplaying wise its a maybe.

Obviously to catch a traitor if you have no idea who it is you might have to ask people to turn out their pockets. 9/10 though you won't ever get to catch anyone. Even if you do they'll run away on you/shoot you/cry about it.

Oldman Robustin wrote:If the "random search" language is getting removed then why not add the probable cause stuff? If it was "random" for a long time then nobody is going to think otherwise if we just subtly cut it.

Are we talking about space law?

I was talking about the Code Blue language that is automatically triggered ~2-3 minutes into every round.

Originally that language permitted "random searches" from security. Eventually it got changed (I whined about it back then too) because you had shit like security grabbing random people from the halls for strip searches and ruining rounds for no justifiable reason. The code blue language then said that security searches were permitted with "probable cause" and that lined up with our policy.

At some point, with no documentation or overt change in policy, the "random search" language was re-added and now (apparently) people don't really have a recourse if security is metagrudging or grabbing random crew. The incident that prompted this post was a round where I joined late, got off the shuttle, comms were up and my arrival was broadcast, no apparent emergencies or damage to the station, and as I head to engineering (as a station engineer) without having spoken to a single crew member or interacted with anyone or anything, the HOS runs up and says RANDOM SEARCH!, I tell 'Ro May' that I had just arrived and they had no basis to search me, they said something along the lines of "too bad" and started to pull off my pack, I disarmed and ran, they chased with disabler spam, arrested me (never even searched me, wew), and tossed me into the Gulag for 130 points (probably 15+ minutes of mindless clicking).

I spoke with an admin and neither of us were sure if Code Blue permitted random searching, turns out it does now, so technically 'Ro May' was allowed to search me and I was breaking the law (or whatever) by resisting and since our current sec policy is "do whatever the fuck you want just don't murder random people unless its rev", nothing will come of it.

Gulag'd for resisting a search wow. But yeah i really don't see why RANDOM SEARCHES are permitted 3 minutes into the round.

Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

Why are you mentioning names and guaranteeing this thread will get shut for pseudo-Ban Requesting?

The servers have different messages for code blue:

Basil's ALERT_BLUE_UPTO wrote: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible, random searches are permitted.

Sybil's ALERT_BLUE_UPTO wrote: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible. Searches are permitted only with probable cause.

Basil's message obviously needs to be changed. Rule 4 notes:

non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

Why are you mentioning names and guaranteeing this thread will get shut for pseudo-Ban Requesting?

Because you have literally no reason to let this random sec guy have complete control over you to murder/fondle your dick for ten minutes before releasing/brigging you, especially when they could be a ling or other stealed antag trying to succ/murder you.

Example: The other day I arrived as a latejoin CE. As I'm walking down the arrivals hall, a sec guy covered in blood goes aggro on me. I know he's gone aggro on me because his baton is out and he's chasing me. After a lenthy amount of dodging and the HoS (also covered in blood) joins the fun I finally baton the guard, steal his baton and escape to engineering.

I had literally no time to have done something wrong and zero reason to believe sec wasn't taken over by lings trying to kill heads to prevent shuttle calls.

Jusat after I finish gearing up, the sec guy is beating on my office window with his baton, still aggro. My fellow engineers seeing this start attacking him, and the guard stuns all of them, whereupon I join the fray. I also get stunned, and am dragged into my office where he starts beating me nearly to death before cuffing me as I scream for help over comms.

As he tries to leave a crowd of about 5 people including the engi staff he attacked are there to fight him, and in the fray he grabs a fire axe and cuts my and several others' legs off. Miraculously we get separated and he runs away in fear or retaliation from the mob. I go back to finish gearing up and declare that security will be executed if they set foot (ha) in engineering and pass word to my bros to enforce that.

Minutes later, the same fucking sec guy shows up again, and with the help of the atmos guy who got his axe back and an engineer we murder him. Just later, another sec guy shows up and tries to fight us and also gets murdered.

After dying to a chemist that threw a bomb at me for some reason I asked the sec guy why the hell he went so aggro on me.

It was because he got one report that the CE, there was apparently one before me, was cult.

Moral: Don't trust sec just because they're sec.

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

Why are you mentioning names and guaranteeing this thread will get shut for pseudo-Ban Requesting?

If someone acts one way when they're not antag, then act another way when they are, it's a pretty obvious meta-tell that's just going to make the game unfun for them and the guy on the other end of the stun baton.

ShadowDimentio wrote:

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

Why are you mentioning names and guaranteeing this thread will get shut for pseudo-Ban Requesting?

Because you have literally no reason to let this random sec guy have complete control over you to murder/fondle your dick for ten minutes before releasing/brigging you, especially when they could be a ling or other stealed antag trying to succ/murder you.

Except by all accounts the sec guy was searching him without tazing and cuffs, meaning that he didn't have "complete control" over him.

Example: The other day I arrived as a latejoin CE. As I'm walking down the arrivals hall, a sec guy covered in blood goes aggro on me. I know he's gone aggro on me because his baton is out and he's chasing me. After a lenthy amount of dodging and the HoS (also covered in blood) joins the fun I finally baton the guard, steal his baton and escape to engineering.

I had literally no time to have done something wrong and zero reason to believe sec wasn't taken over by lings trying to kill heads to prevent shuttle calls.

I mean, equally he had reason to believe it was a conversion round and wanted to get you securely to the brig to chip you. Turbohitler tactics are pretty standard in those modes.

Jusat after I finish gearing up, the sec guy is beating on my office window with his baton, still aggro. My fellow engineers seeing this start attacking him, and the guard stuns all of them, whereupon I join the fray. I also get stunned, and am dragged into my office where he starts beating me nearly to death before cuffing me as I scream for help over comms.

Not sure why the guy was beating on windows instead of having the AI or the engineering sec officer get him in, but your engineers are factually in the wrong (ICly) for attacking a officer in the pursuit of his duties. Beating you was probably overkill given the circumstances but you had stolen a stunbaton which is a bit of a red flag.

As he tries to leave a crowd of about 5 people including the engi staff he attacked are there to fight him, and in the fray he grabs a fire axe and cuts my and several others' legs off. Miraculously we get separated and he runs away in fear or retaliation from the mob. I go back to finish gearing up and declare that security will be executed if they set foot (ha) in engineering and pass word to my bros to enforce that.

I'd normally object to sec using lethal means like a fire axe but in a 1 v 5 situation I think its justified all things given

Do you see how from the sec PoV declaring this could look like a cult/gang/other conversion behaviour?

Minutes later, the same fucking sec guy shows up again, and with the help of the atmos guy who got his axe back and an engineer we murder him. Just later, another sec guy shows up and tries to fight us and also gets murdered.

I mean, you were in the right to murder him given his earlier resorting to lethal means, but killing the second sec officer feels kinda scummy. He could just as easily have been told to go investigate what happened to his colleague and seen you covered in blood and had fairly reasonable cause to take you in for searching, but w/e.

After dying to a chemist that threw a bomb at me for some reason I asked the sec guy why the hell he went so aggro on me.

It was because he got one report that the CE, there was apparently one before me, was cult.

So in other words, imperfect information combined with reasonable cause for suspicion. Gee, it almost sounds like he had reasonable cause to arrest you and make sure things were on the level!

Moral: Don't trust sec just because they're sec.

Except your story actually demonstrates "escalation begets escalation until two sections of staff are murdering each other because I didn't want to get stunned because I thought 2 or 3 members of sec were actually secret lings"???

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

Why are you mentioning names and guaranteeing this thread will get shut for pseudo-Ban Requesting?

If someone acts one way when they're not antag, then act another way when they are, it's a pretty obvious meta-tell that's just going to make the game unfun for them and the guy on the other end of the stun baton.

I mean, guilty people act guilty. This isn't some advanced meta tell, this is basic human behaviour. The HoS was obviously in the wrong for gulagging over just resisting a search but ICly theres nothing wrong with sec getting miffed at you for resisting a search that (it seemed) was justified by the alert level.

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR

wew

wew

wew

if you honestly can't see that ambushing someone straight out of arrivals and pre-emptively "random" searching them then gulagging them for saying no is jackbooted bullshit, then please never play security

Screemonster wrote:

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR

wew

wew

wew

if you honestly can't see that ambushing someone straight out of arrivals and pre-emptively "random" searching them then gulagging them for saying no is jackbooted bullshit, then please never play security

I mean, depending on location it could contradict the rules against shuttlecamping, and I already made a note that the gulagging is way overboard, but is there even any way you could have contraband on you, even if you were a brand new mid-round antagonist? Unless one had stopped mid-arrivals to fuck with their uplink (why?) then all they'd see is... well, an empty handed arrival.

Regardless, to avoid this becoming a Pseudo Ban Request and getting closed:

Atlanta-Ned wrote:The servers have different messages for code blue:

Basil's ALERT_BLUE_UPTO wrote: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible, random searches are permitted.

Sybil's ALERT_BLUE_UPTO wrote: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible. Searches are permitted only with probable cause.

Basil's message obviously needs to be changed. Rule 4 notes:

non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause

This sounds like the issue that the thread was originally opened for. If a headmin can change this then we're all solid then.

Screemonster wrote:

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR

wew

wew

wew

if you honestly can't see that ambushing someone straight out of arrivals and pre-emptively "random" searching them then gulagging them for saying no is jackbooted bullshit, then please never play security

Long time ago I ran into a sec officer doing something like that. He was hanging out in the arrivals checkpoint tazing people as they arrived and then searching them because "It was his job as a checkpoint officer". You know, like how airport security tazes you as you're going through security and starts digging through your pockets and shit.

I wish the Arrivals checkpoint was more like airport security.

Atlanta-Ned wrote:The servers have different messages for code blue:

Basil's ALERT_BLUE_UPTO wrote: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible, random searches are permitted.

Sybil's ALERT_BLUE_UPTO wrote: The station has received reliable information about possible hostile activity on the station. Security staff may have weapons visible. Searches are permitted only with probable cause.

Basil's message obviously needs to be changed. Rule 4 notes:

non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause

Fixed. Both Sybil and Bagil have the same message. Someone must have forgotten to update Bagil's when changing Sybil's or thought changing Sybils would have sufficed believing they are shared.

Oldman Robustin wrote:I was talking about the Code Blue language that is automatically triggered ~2-3 minutes into every round.

Originally that language permitted "random searches" from security. Eventually it got changed (I whined about it back then too) because you had shit like security grabbing random people from the halls for strip searches and ruining rounds for no justifiable reason. The code blue language then said that security searches were permitted with "probable cause" and that lined up with our policy.

At some point, with no documentation or overt change in policy, the "random search" language was re-added and now (apparently) people don't really have a recourse if security is metagrudging or grabbing random crew. The incident that prompted this post was a round where I joined late, got off the shuttle, comms were up and my arrival was broadcast, no apparent emergencies or damage to the station, and as I head to engineering (as a station engineer) without having spoken to a single crew member or interacted with anyone or anything, the HOS runs up and says RANDOM SEARCH!, I tell 'Ro May' that I had just arrived and they had no basis to search me, they said something along the lines of "too bad" and started to pull off my pack, I disarmed and ran, they chased with disabler spam, arrested me (never even searched me, wew), and tossed me into the Gulag for 130 points (probably 15+ minutes of mindless clicking).

I spoke with an admin and neither of us were sure if Code Blue permitted random searching, turns out it does now, so technically 'Ro May' was allowed to search me and I was breaking the law (or whatever) by resisting and since our current sec policy is "do whatever the fuck you want just don't murder random people unless its rev", nothing will come of it.

Code blue is/was just part of tgstation roleplaying. Its not in the actual rules. Not to be a powergamer or whatver I'm just stating that if you want to enforce code red blue ect you need to update it.

Also define probable cause in the rules.

starmute wrote:
Code blue is/was just part of tgstation roleplaying. Its not in the actual rules. Not to be a powergamer or whatver I'm just stating that if you want to enforce code red blue ect you need to update it.

Also define probable cause in the rules.

Do we really need to define what is basically reasonable grounds to conduct a search? I rather not bloat out the rules page for what seems to be more or less common sense. Yet for clarity sakes I'll give some examples here. So, security conducting a search of a person found in maintenance near where a whole lot blood is at, searching an individual when the detective comes up with prints belonging to them on something being investigated, and a department being searched when you have found confirmed team antagonist within that department are examples of something that is fine and proper searches.

It's better to show an example of what isn't proper; which the best case I recall is security going to the HoP line at round start randomly tasing people in line for job changes to search them trying to find potential antagonist. Even worse this was done target specific individuals with known names which is also metagaming and metagrudging behavior.

TehPear wrote:Do we really need to define what is basically reasonable grounds to conduct a search? I rather not bloat out the rules page for what seems to be more or less common sense. Yet for clarity sakes I'll give some examples here. So, security conducting a search of a person found in maintenance near where a whole lot blood is at, searching an individual when the detective comes up with prints belonging to them on something being investigated, and a department being searched when you have found confirmed team antagonist within that department are examples of something that is fine and proper searches.

It's better to show an example of what isn't proper; which the best case I recall is security going to the HoP line at round start randomly tasing people in line for job changes to search them trying to find potential antagonist. Even worse this was done target specific individuals with known names which is also metagaming and metagrudging behavior.

If you have to bloat the rules before contracting them you should. You are introducing a new rule to security so it has to be well defined before it is enforced by the administration team. If you want I can write up a whole bit on what probable cause should be on the wiki.

For example reasons to search a assistant

Assistant with blood all over him: You might want to search that guy.
Prints found: Definitely search
Grey shirt found : Might want to search all the assistants

Reasons not to
Assistant found in maintenance
"That guy looks shifty"
"Searching everyone in this area"


The problem in adding this to the rules is you have to explain what probable cause is.

starmute wrote:

TehPear wrote:Do we really need to define what is basically reasonable grounds to conduct a search? I rather not bloat out the rules page for what seems to be more or less common sense. Yet for clarity sakes I'll give some examples here. So, security conducting a search of a person found in maintenance near where a whole lot blood is at, searching an individual when the detective comes up with prints belonging to them on something being investigated, and a department being searched when you have found confirmed team antagonist within that department are examples of something that is fine and proper searches.

It's better to show an example of what isn't proper; which the best case I recall is security going to the HoP line at round start randomly tasing people in line for job changes to search them trying to find potential antagonist. Even worse this was done target specific individuals with known names which is also metagaming and metagrudging behavior.

If you have to bloat the rules before contracting them you should. You are introducing a new rule to security so it has to be well defined before it is enforced by the administration team. If you want I can write up a whole bit on what probable cause should be on the wiki.

For example reasons to search a assistant

Assistant with blood all over him: You might want to search that guy.
Prints found: Definitely search
Grey shirt found : Might want to search all the assistants

Reasons not to
Assistant found in maintenance
"That guy looks shifty"
"Searching everyone in this area"


The problem in adding this to the rules is you have to explain what probable cause is.

That's nice and all but the rule is not new by any means. That rule has been there since an incident where somewhere did literally what I described as a bad example; you can see it here in the history as rule #5. The only thing that changed is fluff text for the alert levels which honestly most people I find don't pay much attention to beyond red alert means faster shuttle call and delta means the station is going to be destroyed.

Also I quite disagree with your example reasons not to; someone creeping around security maintenance constantly who keeps running off when a security officer comes nearby looks quite shifty. That in my mind warrants reasonable cause to detain and search them. If I'm security and I found an engineer in possession of a cult tomb I'm going to be quite suspect that the rest of that department is compromised so I'm going to search everyone in that area; thing is I'd have people willingly submit to a search in that case. Most part for reasons not to search is security not acting on any kind of information or reasonable suspicion to arrest someone and search them. Things like arresting well known players to search them; arresting anyone in the hallway at random to search them without any reason for it, and arresting a scientist in the hallway because they might have a bomb.

The best thing to do if a player feels they were searched without probable cause is to Adminhelp so admins can investigate looking if security had additional information unknown to the player and talk to the security officer if needed.

Again, if you can logically explain why your character would search another character, this isn't going to be a problem.

I know this is policy discussion, but let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

would it kill antags, also, to use the slightest amount of discretion in hiding their antag gear? part of being a good antagonist is anticipating potential searches and covering your tracks

>discretion

Other than buying a storage implant or just not having the antag gear at all, how do you "discretely" carry it in a way that will protect you from someone stunning and brigging you at complete random?

It completely ruins the game if traitors are caught before anything happens or they do anything, why would you even hint at this being a "git gud" issue?

People /actually/ being tazed and searched for absolutely no reason are very rare, usually reports that someone was searched for no reason they had tipped their hand that they were antag by having gear they shouldn't have, reports that they were rogue, or even by just acting suspiciously.

I can't tell you how many antags I've dunked by examining them and singling out that they have gear that they shouldn't.

Kor wrote:>discretion

Other than buying a storage implant or just not having the antag gear at all, how do you "discretely" carry it in a way that will protect you from someone stunning and brigging you at complete random?

It completely ruins the game if traitors are caught before anything happens or they do anything, why would you even hint at this being a "git gud" issue?

I'm pretty sure what they're saying is when you do something involving your antagonist gear or something that may come back to you while acting like an antagonist it might be a good idea to stow away your gear somewhere off your person.

Yet to be honest here I'm not sure what Bandit's post has to do with probable cause other than telling antagonist they ought to try to not generate suspicion. Silly Kor then buys into for the times where security may actually do some unreasonable random ass tase, cuff, and search that catches someone when they only may have went somewhere discreet out of view to use their PDA to buy which again is ahelpable to see if there was actually anything that warranted the arrest.

Random searches only ever existed so that security would have a "reason" to search people they had suspicions and hunches about. Randomly searching people roundstart at the hopline for contraband or whatever has always been shit and everyone seems to agree on that, i dont understand what the point of contention is here

Wyzack wrote:Random searches only ever existed so that security would have a "reason" to search people they had suspicions and hunches about. Randomly searching people roundstart at the hopline for contraband or whatever has always been shit and everyone seems to agree on that, i dont understand what the point of contention is here

To argue over semantics until it goes to the wayside or gets sent to the NTR hut like every other policy discussion.

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:

Arianya wrote:Why are you resisting a search where you were in the clear?

Why are you mentioning names and guaranteeing this thread will get shut for pseudo-Ban Requesting?

If someone acts one way when they're not antag, then act another way when they are, it's a pretty obvious meta-tell that's just going to make the game unfun for them and the guy on the other end of the stun baton.

Also this point is absolutely true and worth reiterating. If we permit Sec to do random searches and dole out hefty punishments for anyone who resists, it becomes pretty easy for a security metagame who the antags are just by asking to search. People (like me) who will run and resist even when we have nothing to hide (I won't resist if they have a good reason, like if im covered in blood or false accused of a crime) are what prevents that kind of bullshit from becoming too predominant. That doesn't mean we should be forced to be a sec officer's fuckboi because we resist shitcurity tactics.

@Wyzack

I don't understand your argument. Probable cause searches allow officers to search based on hunches and suspicions. Like I said in my post, when I play security I search aggressively by most people's standards but I can always articulate a reason for it, maybe they're somewhere they shouldn't have access, maybe they've got blood on their hands, maybe they're displaying an item that belongs to someone else, maybe they're in an area where someone called for help and then went silent, maybe they're just hacking a door... "random" searching is what jumps the gap from "I have a reason to be suspicious about this person" to my case of "I'm searching you for absolutely no reason" and permits security to do shit tactics like grabbing people a few minutes into the round to see if they can win the valid lottery.

The point of my post: if you're worried about being searched, cover your tracks. Disable cameras, avoid fingerprints, FUCKING WASH OFF BLOOD HOLY SHIT, and basically do all the stuff Space Station 13 allows you to do but people never do (and then get surprised when they've been seen.) And if you think there's a chance that you might reasonably be searched, hide your antag shit. There is no end of easily accessible places to hide your shit, and yet people almost never do it.

>take disposal unit
>turn on
>let it pump its contents
>turn off pump, so it is unable to recharge again
>load contraband, corpses, etc into it

this is ALL it takes to make a storage unit that will only get you caught one in 80 rounds or so at most its not hard hell all you need is a spray bottle and some form of gloves, even fingerless which are in a clothes vendor, to ensure you cannot be caught bloody. screwdriver multitool a camera to set its range to 1, less suspicious to observers but far more suspicious to the ai, that is, if they are smart enough to figure out what happened to it. only need a medbay id card to change your prints/swap them with somebody you hate. storage implants exist, so do freedom implants, adrenals, and mulligans (lets be honest though mulligans are useless) the only thing you will ever have trouble with again is figuring out when the best time to strike is so that nobody walks in on you applying the emp flashlight, which costs 2 tc.

I don't have an argument aside from "only shitters do truly random searches and we all know this, what is the point of this thread exactly"

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:Again, if you can logically explain why your character would search another character, this isn't going to be a problem.

I know this is policy discussion, but let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill.

This whole post began when I ahelp'd Durkel and was like "Hi, I got gulag'd for running from a "random search" shortly after I got off the arrivals shuttle, in my default gear, while I was walking towards my workplace, with no apparent justification"

But we were both confronted with the basic question, can security just roll up on someone can search them without any apparent basis? Code Blue language explicitly tells security they can randomly search, so it would seem silly for admins to punish security for doing exactly that... yet it seems like the general sentiment from admins on this forum is that you should be able to provide SOME kind of justification for a search and can't just run around stunning random people and turning out their bags/pockets.

If random search isn't our policy, then it shouldn't be in Code Blue, plain and simple.

Oldman Robustin wrote: If random search isn't our policy, then it shouldn't be in Code Blue, plain and simple.

um

TehPear, ages ago wrote:Fixed. Both Sybil and Bagil have the same message. Someone must have forgotten to update Bagil's when changing Sybil's or thought changing Sybils would have sufficed believing they are shared.