IS security required to give full supporting evidence and fully explain reasoning for an arrest to be valid?

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Okay. So, I had a shift earlier where I said the following prior to an arrest:

"[2023-10-14 16:45:58.600] GAME-SAY: 16:45:58.600] GAME-SAY: Typhnox/(Imitates-The-Lizards) "On the ground! You're wanted in connection with a kidnapping!" (Medbay Treatment Center (77,102,2))"

Followed by the person I was arresting resisting arrest, because their doctor friend shoved me, they stole my gear, and a whole bunch of shenanigans happened. I said I felt like it violated the rules because the rules state:

"Non-antagonists should not harmfully resist or retaliate against valid arrests, but do not have to simply give up and allow the arrest to happen. They may instead non-harmfully escape or avoid the arresting officer in the spirit of the game."

I never ahelped this incident. If I had known how much OOC drama and salt there was going to be afterwards, I would have.

Regardless, in discussion later on Discord, an admin stated they did not feel it was a valid arrest because I did not inform the person I was arresting WHY I thought they were connected with a kidnapping. The lizard in question was a suspect because their prints and fibers were all over a pair of cable cuffs and an eyeball snatcher on the lavaland shuttle. They turned out to be the victim, not the kidnapper, but that does not, in my opinion, make the arrest invalid - I was working on the limited information available to me in the game, and had they come quietly and explained their side, we would have had no issue.

As far as I am aware, the policy is just that I have to talk to them, tell them they're wanted and under arrest, and for what crime. I do not have to give a full paragraph explaining every underlying fact of the case which led me to suspect them, and I think it is an unreasonable expectation to expect that.

Please do not make this thread about the incident which spawned this discussion, it is not about that. I am only interested in discussing whether or not security has to state WHY security gave someone a particular wanted reason for an arrest to be valid, rather than if security merely has to tell someone they are under arrest and for what crime for an arrest to be valid. Thank you.

[blackdav123]

talking to them at all about why you are arresting them is enough to make a valid arrest, so even just saying "on the ground! you're wanted" was plenty to make it a valid arrest

i'd argue that using the riot mask's "HALT!" button is enough

if you really need to tell them why you are arresting them do it once you are secure in sec or a sec checkpoint

[MooCow12]

If i get randomly stun batoned in maint and the only reason given is that "youre wanted" that whole section of maintenance is going to explode.

Wanted does not equal valid arrest, last time i was wanted it was because I didnt pay lisa`s nonhuman tax and got lethaled for just running away.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

If i get randomly stun batoned in maint and the only reason given is that "youre wanted" that whole section of maintenance is going to explode.

Wanted does not equal valid arrest, last time i was wanted it was because I didnt pay lisa`s nonhuman tax and got lethaled for just running away.

If you read the quote I gave, this is not about walking up and random batoning people. This is for cases where security is making good faith efforts to roleplay and inform people they're under arrest, and give them a chance to comply with the arrest.

[Timberpoes]

Just saying why and that you're arresting them is enough to benefit from all sec protections. The admin in the context of the OPs interpretation of the conversation was very mistaken.

The severity of any rule break really depends on if they did it or not. If they're being falsely accused, there's more leeway to resist or escape compared to if they're not.

But in all circumstances the officer announcing intent to arrest and giving a reason is sacrificing certain elements of surprise upon the altar of roleplay. The rules square this prisoner's dilemma circle by protecting sec officers against non antags when sec officers use their words, so as to encourage it to happen more.

Any admin ruling that has the outcome where it would have been better to silent baton the non-antag instead of announce and arrest defeats roleplay. I wanted the rules to give sec the space to roleplay without making them totally immune to SS13 moments, balancing out the inherent threat and danger the role has to be lesser when dealing with non antags but still present when dealing with core antags.

[Vekter]

Regardless, in discussion later on Discord, an admin stated they did not feel it was a valid arrest because I did not inform the person I was arresting WHY I thought they were connected with a kidnapping.

This would be an unreasonable expectation. We would expect you to do this, yes, but only after the arrest has already occurred. If you were required to provide all evidence as to why you were arresting someone before doing so, you'd never actually finish an arrest.

E: Also, it's worth noting that the admin in question specified that they were not speaking on what policy says. When you told them that wasn't what policy said, they responded with "I'm not talking about policy, am I?".

[sinfulbliss]

I think the only thing required is a statement that they’re under arrest for X. Even stating it over comms should be enough if you have reason to worry about typing in front of a potential antag.

The only exceptions are when sec witness you committing an obvious crime. Like say you’re hacking into the bridge, and sec batongs you wordlessly. Or say you steal a seccie’s baton, and 10 minutes later you get wordlessly arrested. Obviously those are valid arrests because the player should damn well know what the arrest is for. But this is definitely the exception and not the rule, I think when there’s even a slim chance the player might not know, the officer should be expected to state very briefly why they’re under arrest before conducting it.

[Vekter]

The way that I understood the rule when we wrote it was that the intent behind it is for Security to explicitly state, in some way, that they are arresting someone. Even something as simple as "Hey, stop!", "You're under arrest!", or "I need to talk to you." should be enough. The intent behind the rule was to put a stop to situations where Sec players were wordlessly walking up to random assistants, slapping them with a baton, cuffing them, and walking off to the brig without actually ever telling them they were being arrested.

Ideally, officers should be telling players "You're under arrest for (x)", but if a token effort is put in to it, I'm willing to overlook players not being explicit about why they're being arrested until they're in the brig being processed.

[Higgin]

It might be worth clarifying - some of this is also contingent on alert level/round state too, isn't it?

The security Miranda Rights policy was only supposed to give protections against resisting wordless/unfounded arrest at quieter levels if I recall.

E1: dropping it in here, but this certainly seems like a case of low-threat - viewtopic.php?t=33708&start=50

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Regardless, in discussion later on Discord, an admin stated they did not feel it was a valid arrest because I did not inform the person I was arresting WHY I thought they were connected with a kidnapping.

E: Also, it's worth noting that the admin in question specified that they were not speaking on what policy says. When you told them that wasn't what policy said, they responded with "I'm not talking about policy, am I?".

Vekter I really don't want this to be about the ooc salt after this one shift, but this had the same energy as someone saying "I'm not punching you!" while they punch you. (Not from you, from the admin in question.)

[sinfulbliss]

Regardless, in discussion later on Discord, an admin stated they did not feel it was a valid arrest because I did not inform the person I was arresting WHY I thought they were connected with a kidnapping.

E: Also, it's worth noting that the admin in question specified that they were not speaking on what policy says. When you told them that wasn't what policy said, they responded with "I'm not talking about policy, am I?".

Vekter I really don't want this to be about the ooc salt after this one shift, but this had the same energy as someone saying "I'm not punching you!" while they punch you. (Not from you, from the admin in question.)

Yeah I read over it and the admin gives pretty awful advice, they are incorrect for what it’s worth — it’s insane to expect sec to explain their whole rationale before arresting or risk being treated like an antag, and to my knowledge no other admins have this view.

To be clear though the policy only forbids “harmfully resist[ing] or retaliat[ing] against valid arrests,” you are still allowed to nonharmfully resist it.

[kieth4]

Hello, rule writer here(one of them). The idea is to give some indication of what is happening to prevent wordless nrp arrests/ allow people to resist if they have no idea wtf is going on. Saying you're wanted for a kidnapping is enough imo

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Gotta know why you're being arrested to know if you did it or not, since greyshirts arent meant to beat sec up for arresting them for things they 100% did

[Vekter]

Gotta know why you're being arrested to know if you did it or not, since greyshirts arent meant to beat sec up for arresting them for things they 100% did

I'm okay with adding the expectation that sec should be telling them why they're being arrested, but being required to present evidence before you arrest someone is stupid. "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is fine. "You're under arrest for kidnapping because we found fibers on the person you kidnapped!" is dumb.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Gotta know why you're being arrested to know if you did it or not, since greyshirts arent meant to beat sec up for arresting them for things they 100% did

I'm okay with adding the expectation that sec should be telling them why they're being arrested, but being required to present evidence before you arrest someone is stupid. "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is fine. "You're under arrest for kidnapping because we found fibers on the person you kidnapped!" is dumb.

Oh yeah, "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is plenty to fully cover an officer and the arrestee because you immediately know if you did it or not

[Vekter]

Gotta know why you're being arrested to know if you did it or not, since greyshirts arent meant to beat sec up for arresting them for things they 100% did

I'm okay with adding the expectation that sec should be telling them why they're being arrested, but being required to present evidence before you arrest someone is stupid. "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is fine. "You're under arrest for kidnapping because we found fibers on the person you kidnapped!" is dumb.

Oh yeah, "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is plenty to fully cover an officer and the arrestee because you immediately know if you did it or not

I'm honestly of the mindset that "You're under arrest" should be enough because most players should understand if they've done something that sec might want to come after them about, but it's best to just remove all ambiguity from the situation, if just to preempt the people going "I didn't know it was against space law to kill Ian and throw his corpse in a blender!".

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Gotta know why you're being arrested to know if you did it or not, since greyshirts arent meant to beat sec up for arresting them for things they 100% did

I'm okay with adding the expectation that sec should be telling them why they're being arrested, but being required to present evidence before you arrest someone is stupid. "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is fine. "You're under arrest for kidnapping because we found fibers on the person you kidnapped!" is dumb.

Oh yeah, "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is plenty to fully cover an officer and the arrestee because you immediately know if you did it or not

I just want to point out, due to some implications in your post, whether or not you actually did a crime is 100% irrelevant to whether or not the arrest is valid from a rules perspective. You still cant harmfully resist.

[Vekter]

Gotta know why you're being arrested to know if you did it or not, since greyshirts arent meant to beat sec up for arresting them for things they 100% did

I'm okay with adding the expectation that sec should be telling them why they're being arrested, but being required to present evidence before you arrest someone is stupid. "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is fine. "You're under arrest for kidnapping because we found fibers on the person you kidnapped!" is dumb.

Oh yeah, "You're under arrest for kidnapping!" is plenty to fully cover an officer and the arrestee because you immediately know if you did it or not

I just want to point out, due to some implications in your post, whether or not you actually did a crime is 100% irrelevant to whether or not the arrest is valid from a rules perspective. You still cant harmfully resist.

Well, right, but the idea is that, if you've explicitly gone out of your way to state that you're arresting someone and why you're arresting them, they have no ground to stand on if they escalate against you for trying to arrest you. As the policy stated when it was implemented:

The flip side is that using your words to meaningfully communicate fully cements any and all of your metaprotections as security and an admin will find it very difficult not to rule in your favour in these cases.

Players are always allowed to non-violently resist an arrest, regardless of its validity. They just can't escalate over it and have to deal with the IC penalties for doing so.

[sinfulbliss]

Players are always allowed to non-violently resist an arrest, regardless of its validity. They just can't escalate over it and have to deal with the IC penalties for doing so.

This is not quite correct.

If an arrest is not obviously valid, it follows standard escalation.

Players are allowed to escalate over arrests that aren't obviously valid - i.e., you can treat the officer as if they were a random player trying to baton you - depending on the communication involved.

6. Security meta-protections rely on communication when dealing with minor threats.

Security gameplay with limited meaningful communication in low threat situations can completely remove security meta-protections, falling back to standard escalation rules instead.

Note this does not say "with zero communication," it says with "limited" "meaningful" communication. If it's a low-chaos round and sec's trying to conduct an invalid arrest on someone based on misinformation, a simple "You're under arrest!" I doubt meets the bar, because this arrest is not obviously valid, and the officer has ample opportunity to explain further.

I drew up a little flow-chart that I think captures it:

The idea, as I understand it, is officers ideally should always communicate in case their arrest is invalid, to protect themselves from lethal resistance. The amount they need to communicate before they receive this protection depends on how chaotic the situation is.

When things fall to standard escalation, it "completely remove[s] security meta-protections," which means the arrestee can treat the officer as if he were an ordinary player. An ordinary player batoning you out of no where under standard escalation would merit some serious lethal retaliation.

[Blue142]

What is an example of "limited" communication?
Most situations I can imagine seem to be either communication or no (effective) communication.

[Vekter]

What is an example of "limited" communication?
Most situations I can imagine seem to be either communication or no (effective) communication.

I specified this before, but the main goal behind it is to get Sec to at least give some indication that they're trying to arrest someone before actually doing it. "Limited" communication would simply just be the officer going "Hey, you're under arrest!" and going after someone.

[Blue142]

What is an example of "limited" communication?
Most situations I can imagine seem to be either communication or no (effective) communication.

I specified this before, but the main goal behind it is to get Sec to at least give some indication that they're trying to arrest someone before actually doing it. "Limited" communication would simply just be the officer going "Hey, you're under arrest!" and going after someone.

I think that second part of "going after someone" is important. If you don't let them respond, then yes I would agree that is limited, perhaps effectively no communication. However, I think that would be a fine starting statement as a declaration of intent.
I don't think someone should hear "Hey, you're under arrest!" and believe they are allowed to follow normal escalation since, assuming the officer gives time to respond, the officer lost the element of surprise by then.

[blackdav123]

I don't think someone should hear "Hey, you're under arrest!" and believe they are allowed to follow normal escalation since, assuming the officer gives time to respond, since the officer lost the element of surprise by then.

this is pretty much it. anything that the officer intentionally does to drop the element of surprise (i.e. opening the arrest with words instead of violence) is enough to make the arrest valid

[sinfulbliss]

I don't think someone should hear "Hey, you're under arrest!" and believe they are allowed to follow normal escalation since, assuming the officer gives time to respond, since the officer lost the element of surprise by then.

this is pretty much it. anything that the officer intentionally does to drop the element of surprise (i.e. opening the arrest with words instead of violence) is enough to make the arrest valid

The rules clearly say that “limited” communication in low-chaos situations is not enough, and the arrest would fall under standard escalation.

Depends what you consider “limited” of course, but “anything that isn’t wordless arrest” is probably not the intention here, because a wordless arrest isn’t even “limited,” it’s zero.

[Vekter]

I don't think someone should hear "Hey, you're under arrest!" and believe they are allowed to follow normal escalation since, assuming the officer gives time to respond, since the officer lost the element of surprise by then.

this is pretty much it. anything that the officer intentionally does to drop the element of surprise (i.e. opening the arrest with words instead of violence) is enough to make the arrest valid

The rules clearly say that “limited” communication in low-chaos situations is not enough, and the arrest would fall under standard escalation.

Depends what you consider “limited” of course, but “anything that isn’t wordless arrest” is probably not the intention here, because a wordless arrest isn’t even “limited,” it’s zero.

I would not strip a security officer of their metaprotections if literally all they said to someone was "You're under arrest" before arresting them. They don't need to have a protracted conversation about everything that led up to the arrest. A simple indication that they're going to arrest the person involved is enough.

What would your definition of "limited communication" be?

[sinfulbliss]

I don't think someone should hear "Hey, you're under arrest!" and believe they are allowed to follow normal escalation since, assuming the officer gives time to respond, since the officer lost the element of surprise by then.

this is pretty much it. anything that the officer intentionally does to drop the element of surprise (i.e. opening the arrest with words instead of violence) is enough to make the arrest valid

The rules clearly say that “limited” communication in low-chaos situations is not enough, and the arrest would fall under standard escalation.

Depends what you consider “limited” of course, but “anything that isn’t wordless arrest” is probably not the intention here, because a wordless arrest isn’t even “limited,” it’s zero.

I would not strip a security officer of their metaprotections if literally all they said to someone was "You're under arrest" before arresting them. They don't need to have a protracted conversation about everything that led up to the arrest. A simple indication that they're going to arrest the person involved is enough.

What would your definition of "limited communication" be?

I would expect the officer to make it clear WHY they want to arrest you, if it’s a low chaos round. That would be enough for FULL communication.

“Kidnapping”? “Theft”? Literally anything, it just needs to be A reason. “I’m going to arrest you” is not a reason, and would fall under “LIMITED communication” clause.

The cool thing about this, is officers don’t HAVE to do any of this. I rarely do. But it’s then a risk you take. If you want protection from the other player even being able to retaliate, you need to ensure the other player knows you’re not tryna kill them or drag them to a room and hack their limbs off. “You’re coming with me,” “you’re under arrest” is definitely not reassuring, and in fact is something I will often say if someone catches me merking a target in public to provide cover.

[Cheshify]

Why would you need to provide Evidence for an arrest? That can be sorted out in the brig with a lawyer.
All a security officer needs to do is provide a proper reason for the arrest for it to be valid. This is just telling them they're under arrest for doing X and having a solid IC reasoning for believing that to be true
Example: Det finds blood of Assistant around murder scene, Det tells Seccie about it, Seccie arrests Assistant on suspicion of murder with "You're under arrest for involvement with a murder scene" or "You're under arrest for murder."
They don't need to sit the arrestee down and tell them how they found prints in maint or had a witness to a crime or anything.


Cheshify - This should be obvious
Fikou - Yeah, agree
TheBibleMelts - Agree