Tiding endgame content as security by using your metaprotections

[technokek]

Currently security officers are allowed to just walk into your department and if they see something they like they can just take it and if you refuse to hand it over they can destroy it.

Imagine me sitting in my department doing my autism project trying to get the gamer endgame content, but then a security officer walks in and demands the gygax you have spend 40 minutes building. You have done nothing wrong, you didnt tide, self antag or fuck with anyone the entire round. Security just walks in and says give it to me or i will destroy it. Of course you say no, its not theirs to take they did not spend 40 minutes of their life building it.

Now you ahelp them destroying it: "but you are told its valid because its dangerous and might be used against security".

Why should security be allowed to just walk into your department and take the endgame content for no reason other "you might use it against us". This just encourages tiding as security and hiding behind meta protections. What are you gonna do kill them? The entire security force will then be on you instantly with ion guns and other valid hunters.

I propose that security cannot just take whatever they want from workspaces, this does not include insulated gloves or some other small random shit. Only if there is a actual reasoning behind should security be allowed to confiscate items or objects.


Ahelp for context

► Show Spoiler

From Ticket #11 during round 176659 on Terry
Ticket opened at 2022-01-15 23:20:33 by technokek
Log:
23:20:33: Ticket Opened by-technokek: security is literally killing our mechs because we are not giving to them for free
23:21:39: Reply from-ivanissaccs: Security may not be happy about combat mechs running around on a station with confirmed antagonists. just food for thought.
23:22:10: Reply from-technokek: so they can just kill every mech they see just because there is a antag?
23:23:13: Reply from-ivanissaccs: I mean, you make combat mechs, arguably most useful to the security team, refuse to let them use them, conflict ensues.
23:24:13: Reply from-technokek: yeah but xenobio can also make gaming stuff so can engie. Are you actually saying sec can just take and destroy gamer gear because it might be used for bad stuff?
23:26:12: Reply from-technokek: i would understand if they had any suspicion of robotics or we did something bad before. but this is just you build something cool and now i want it. You could do the same with every departments endgame gear
23:36:50: Reply from-technokek: just so i know what i have to deal with. Security is allowed to take away all gamer gear if said gamer gear is a threat to security?
---- No futher messages ----
This ticket was generated by Statbus v.0.13.3

[technokek]

Just a bit more context for this particular case.

► Show Spoiler

this was when the sec officer heard first of the gygax on coms


the first thing he does is go to the armoury and get a ion gun


he instantly goes gib or else...


after us saying no he starts destroying the mechs


he then uses his meta protection to call for ai when we are just standing there telling him to fuck off after he didnt get his will

i don't see why behaviour like this should be protected as IC. There was no reason other then i want this and i will destroy it if i cannot have it.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Using what metaprotection? This is a misunderstanding of the scope and extent of a meta protection. Meta protection only covers people doing their job not people stealing and being violent when they can use non lethals

[Shadowflame909]

Using what metaprotection? This is a misunderstanding of the scope and extent of a meta protection. Meta protection only covers people doing their job not people stealing and being violent when they can use non lethals

if they tried to get it back in any way, they risk being put into jail or more likely murdered by sec for assaulting them

escalation ahelp are always a pain to deal with

[technokek]

Using what metaprotection? This is a misunderstanding of the scope and extent of a meta protection. Meta protection only covers people doing their job not people stealing and being violent when they can use non lethals

The reasoning the admin gave is "Security may not be happy about combat mechs running around on a station with confirmed antagonists. just food for thought." This clearly implies that security can take/destroy the mech because they can not be antags and i might be.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Seems a tad metagame and powergame to me to pre emptively destroy something that is the one of the interesting draws to robotics and takes a long time to create on the off chance that they MIGHT kill you, so I don't really agree with the admin in this circumstance, also you can see that security are just power gaming because they want the murder robos to themselves, pretty pathetic really. Also this is not like content outside of the robos job it is within it, unlike cargo arming with security restricted crates or the like.

[ArcaneDefence]

Seems a tad metagame and powergame to me to pre emptively destroy something that is the one of the interesting draws to robotics and takes a long time to create on the off chance that they MIGHT kill you

This could apply to chemistry producing bombs and sec getting involved too though. A lot of this is going to be very dependent on the context of the situation which everyone's going to have different limited perspectives of at the time.

Maybe consider offering a compromise between "roboticist has unfettered access to ballistic weapons in an armored combat mech with no supervision with active threats on the station" and "security cannot confiscate aforementioned weapon so they're destroying it", as there's several methods to do so. I'd recommend offering to put a tracking beacon on it and giving them a mech control console so they can see where it is, or volunteering to getting a chem/tracking implant from the armory put into ya.
It's a social game. Consider socializing. The more you've tried to compromise and work with someone if they remain absolutely adamant in their "gotta confiscate or smash it" mentality it just makes them look more like a dick than a seccie trying to keep order. Rule one.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Seems a tad metagame and powergame to me to pre emptively destroy something that is the one of the interesting draws to robotics and takes a long time to create on the off chance that they MIGHT kill you

This could apply to chemistry producing bombs and sec getting involved too though. A lot of this is going to be very dependent on the context of the situation which everyone's going to have different limited perspectives of at the time.

Maybe consider offering a compromise between "roboticist has unfettered access to ballistic weapons in an armored combat mech with no supervision with active threats on the station" and "security cannot confiscate aforementioned weapon so they're destroying it", as there's several methods to do so. I'd recommend offering to put a tracking beacon on it and giving them a mech control console so they can see where it is, or volunteering to getting a chem/tracking implant from the armory put into ya.
It's a social game. Consider socializing. The more you've tried to compromise and work with someone if they remain absolutely adamant in their "gotta confiscate or smash it" mentality it just makes them look more like a dick than a seccie trying to keep order. Rule one.

The problem is that Mech Control Consoles do like, Jack and Shit to mechs. It won't stop it from rampaging if it decides to.

The thing is, most other forms of Weapons obtainable by crew actually serve a purpose (like laser scalpels/knives/circular saws). Science can't really just *make* guns without very specific things, and Sec will usually intervene if it's someone other than the RD. The only ones with real weapons outside of Sec are Miners, and that's because they're actually required to fight.

If Robotics builds a Combat Mech with lethal weaponry on it, Security should be fully within their rights to confiscate or destroy it. You're not SUPPOSED to have a weapon.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Seems a tad metagame and powergame to me to pre emptively destroy something that is the one of the interesting draws to robotics and takes a long time to create on the off chance that they MIGHT kill you

This could apply to chemistry producing bombs and sec getting involved too though. A lot of this is going to be very dependent on the context of the situation which everyone's going to have different limited perspectives of at the time.

Maybe consider offering a compromise between "roboticist has unfettered access to ballistic weapons in an armored combat mech with no supervision with active threats on the station" and "security cannot confiscate aforementioned weapon so they're destroying it", as there's several methods to do so. I'd recommend offering to put a tracking beacon on it and giving them a mech control console so they can see where it is, or volunteering to getting a chem/tracking implant from the armory put into ya.
It's a social game. Consider socializing. The more you've tried to compromise and work with someone if they remain absolutely adamant in their "gotta confiscate or smash it" mentality it just makes them look more like a dick than a seccie trying to keep order. Rule one.

The problem is that Mech Control Consoles do like, Jack and Shit to mechs. It won't stop it from rampaging if it decides to.

The thing is, most other forms of Weapons obtainable by crew actually serve a purpose (like laser scalpels/knives/circular saws). Science can't really just *make* guns without very specific things, and Sec will usually intervene if it's someone other than the RD. The only ones with real weapons outside of Sec are Miners, and that's because they're actually required to fight.

If Robotics builds a Combat Mech with lethal weaponry on it, Security should be fully within their rights to confiscate or destroy it. You're not SUPPOSED to have a weapon.

Im see you've stepped up the pageantry from "No non-sec except robotics should ever have a mech" to "Nobody except sec should ever have a mech"

[Tearling]

You're not SUPPOSED to have a weapon.

Nobody tell the european security mains about toxins, please.
Given that robotics can print everything they need to make a lethal mech in robotics I believe that, roleplay wise, it's completely natural to assume they ARE suppose to have a weapon. Perhaps not out and about in the station, but unless you practice what you preach and force cooks to build their kitchen elsewhere to get rid of their CqC buff I'm not going to respect this argument, personally.

[Sylphet]

Security may not seize anything that was not used to commit a crime and is not illegal to possess. This means Security can't take your insuls, your medical supplies, your unarmed/nonlethal mech. It is illegal to possess a weapon, so Security can take your improvised baton, your bottle of lexorin, your armed mech. Anything that security seizes must be put in the armoury's contraband locker, and not used.

A policy like this (very basic one that needs more work) would prevent security from being dicks by stealing your things without reason, it prevents them from thinking ooh, shiny and seizing things for personal benefit, and in return it would encourage players to not make anything too crazy. It still permits players to build their Gygax or Phazon, but you know. Don't let the redshirts find out, if you're doing it without permission - it's a roleplaying game, so try asking for it. You can still do it illegally if they say no. You're protected from shitsec under this, without making it impossible for them to shut down a threat.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Seems a tad metagame and powergame to me to pre emptively destroy something that is the one of the interesting draws to robotics and takes a long time to create on the off chance that they MIGHT kill you

This could apply to chemistry producing bombs and sec getting involved too though. A lot of this is going to be very dependent on the context of the situation which everyone's going to have different limited perspectives of at the time.

Maybe consider offering a compromise between "roboticist has unfettered access to ballistic weapons in an armored combat mech with no supervision with active threats on the station" and "security cannot confiscate aforementioned weapon so they're destroying it", as there's several methods to do so. I'd recommend offering to put a tracking beacon on it and giving them a mech control console so they can see where it is, or volunteering to getting a chem/tracking implant from the armory put into ya.
It's a social game. Consider socializing. The more you've tried to compromise and work with someone if they remain absolutely adamant in their "gotta confiscate or smash it" mentality it just makes them look more like a dick than a seccie trying to keep order. Rule one.

The problem is that Mech Control Consoles do like, Jack and Shit to mechs. It won't stop it from rampaging if it decides to.

The thing is, most other forms of Weapons obtainable by crew actually serve a purpose (like laser scalpels/knives/circular saws). Science can't really just *make* guns without very specific things, and Sec will usually intervene if it's someone other than the RD. The only ones with real weapons outside of Sec are Miners, and that's because they're actually required to fight.

If Robotics builds a Combat Mech with lethal weaponry on it, Security should be fully within their rights to confiscate or destroy it. You're not SUPPOSED to have a weapon.

Im see you've stepped up the pageantry from "No non-sec except robotics should ever have a mech" to "Nobody except sec should ever have a mech"

When'd I say that? If you've got a damn good reason to have that mech, then fuck yeah, go right ahead my dude. But I'm talking about this as someone who was a Roboticist main. Would still be, too, if most other Roboticist players weren't the most valid-hungry people on the planet, or constantly stole things I was actively working on, leaving me with nothing to do and being very bored. On MRP at least, we have a rule about this, though. It's called the Powergaming rule.

It's also the like. Logic rule. If you KNOW there're threats on station, why the fuck would you trust un-vetted people with giant death machines?

You're not SUPPOSED to have a weapon.

Nobody tell the european security mains about toxins, please.
Given that robotics can print everything they need to make a lethal mech in robotics I believe that, roleplay wise, it's completely natural to assume they ARE suppose to have a weapon. Perhaps not out and about in the station, but unless you practice what you preach and force cooks to build their kitchen elsewhere to get rid of their CqC buff I'm not going to respect this argument, personally.

CQC's not exactly a weapon, it's restricted entirely to their workplace, and it's something they start with.

Weapons Permits are specifically a thing (the Bartender has one for their shotgun only, y'know) that Robotics does not have, it can be taken wherever the fuck they want to take it, and it's something that has to be researched and built. To say that it's fine for them to use is to say that it's fine for Cargo to go Gun Cargo. After all, given they can build and do everything they need to get those weapons within Cargo, I believe that it's completely natural to assume they're supposed to be fully armed. But much like Cargo buying Auto Rifles, or Robotics being able to print Security HUD Implants, their ability to produce lethal mechs are designed not for their own use, but for others.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

This could apply to chemistry producing bombs and sec getting involved too though. A lot of this is going to be very dependent on the context of the situation which everyone's going to have different limited perspectives of at the time.

Sure there is nuance to everything but the logs paint the security in this particular instance highlighted in a bad light, I'm not sure there even needs to be a policy change in this scenario just a better investigation by admins

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Security may not seize anything that was not used to commit a crime and is not illegal to possess. This means Security can't take your insuls, your medical supplies, your unarmed/nonlethal mech. It is illegal to possess a weapon, so Security can take your improvised baton, your bottle of lexorin, your armed mech. Anything that security seizes must be put in the armoury's contraband locker, and not used.

My personal opinion is that there is no need for a policy that says this, they already can't do that and are meant to be punished in game for it(we just need to encourage people to rise up against shit sec administratively) , I also disagree with the part about putting everything in the contraband locker, the policy seems a bit stifling in that I don't believe security should ALWAYS be forbidden from being a little bit antagonistic (not in the mechanical sense of the word) and it can create unique situations

[Tearling]

CQC's not exactly a weapon, it's restricted entirely to their workplace, and it's something they start with.

To say that it's fine for them to use is to say that it's fine for Cargo to go Gun Cargo. After all, given they can build and do everything they need to get those weapons within Cargo, I believe that it's completely natural to assume they're supposed to be fully armed. But much like Cargo buying Auto Rifles, or Robotics being able to print Security HUD Implants, their ability to produce lethal mechs are designed not for their own use, but for others.

Cargo requires sec access to open gun crates, don't they? How is that in any way equivalent to robotics making a gygax? Also, "their ability to produce lethal mechs are designed not for their own use, but for others." is your opinion. Do you have any headmin rulings that would indicate otherwise? Personally I think it's completely fine for robotics to make a lethal mech so long as it doesn't leave robotics, perhaps science if the RD wants to do something with it.

[Valorium]

I mean, there’s a reason why the Concealed Weapon Bay Item exists in the uplink — security isn’t gonna waltz in and confiscate your seemingly-innocuous Ripley or Clarke, but they are usually within their rights to not let you have a massive armor suit with mounted missiles and machine guns. If we add some sort of rule that security is never allowed to confiscate fully-armed mechs, then there’s little to no reason to even spend the TC.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

CQC's not exactly a weapon, it's restricted entirely to their workplace, and it's something they start with.

To say that it's fine for them to use is to say that it's fine for Cargo to go Gun Cargo. After all, given they can build and do everything they need to get those weapons within Cargo, I believe that it's completely natural to assume they're supposed to be fully armed. But much like Cargo buying Auto Rifles, or Robotics being able to print Security HUD Implants, their ability to produce lethal mechs are designed not for their own use, but for others.

Cargo requires sec access to open gun crates, don't they? How is that in any way equivalent to robotics making a gygax? Also, "their ability to produce lethal mechs are designed not for their own use, but for others." is your opinion. Do you have any headmin rulings that would indicate otherwise? Personally I think it's completely fine for robotics to make a lethal mech so long as it doesn't leave robotics, perhaps science if the RD wants to do something with it.

Admins are constantly telling me to ahelp if people build lethally armed combat mechs for no reason. It's, at least by MRP rules, the very definition of powergaming. Valorium raises a fantastic point. If Robotics was supposed to be allowed to have armed mechs, why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist?

Robotics aren't supposed to be building lethally armed combat mechs for no reason. Cargo requires sec access to open gun crates, but you know what they could do? Just grab a PKA and break it open. Or they can spam buy Russian Crates for Mosin Nagants. Those're accessible with just Cargo, I'm pretty sure..

[GamerAndYeahMick]

lets just remove the situation from the policy altogether, my opinion is this, can security tide? sure, can they be treated as anyone else for it? yes, should we encourage heads of staff to demote people and give a guide to players on how they could to react to situations like this, probably yeah, we need to foster a culture in that of whenever security crosses the line they are punished by their superiors and other players, if this is observed to not happen whenever it is encouraged an admin should just mash the create revs button

[Armhulen]

This is insanely broad, I don't know how you expect anyone to make a hard ruling. Generally security should be kept in a higher standard than normal players though

can security tide? sure, can they be treated as anyone else for it? yes

removing special security expectations turns everything into bigger gun diplomacy- as we saw here. sec got away with destroying all the roboticist's work with no punishments from anyone because of said bigger gun diplomacy. if the roboticist attacks (with what? idk), they get upwards of 10 minutes in the brig ALONG with their destroyed mech. We administrate security much harder because they're supposed to administrate the round.

[Tearling]

Admins are constantly telling me to ahelp if people build lethally armed combat mechs for no reason. It's, at least by MRP rules, the very definition of powergaming.

If it's powergaming, then it's a OOC problem, not a IC one that security should handle. In fact, being security and trying to take a lethal mech for yourself is... also powergaming. You SHOULD ahelp it if robotics makes a lethally armed combat mech, you shouldn't try to steal it as a secoff.

Robotics aren't supposed to be building lethally armed combat mechs for no reason

Repeating myself here, but OOC issue. If it's powergaming an admin can decide, this is not relevant to what a security officer should do.

Cargo requires sec access to open gun crates, but you know what they could do? Just grab a PKA and break it open. Or they can spam buy Russian Crates for Mosin Nagants. Those're accessible with just Cargo, I'm pretty sure..

I'm not sure if they're available in cargo anymore, but even if they can... it's very clear that as cargo if you're using a PKA to break open a crate, IC, you're doing something you shouldn't. That's why they're listed as restricted. This is why it's a bad comparison to robotics.

Valorium raises a fantastic point. If Robotics was supposed to be allowed to have armed mechs, why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist?

In order to attach weapons to non-combat mechs and hide them. If I see a Gygax outside of robotics with a bunch of weapons strapped to it, and it's not revs/cult/wizard/etc.. I'll get worried and call security. If I see an Odysseus outside of robotics I won't bat an eye, especially because the weapon is hidden. I somehow doubt this is an abnormal reaction, is it?

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Admins are constantly telling me to ahelp if people build lethally armed combat mechs for no reason. It's, at least by MRP rules, the very definition of powergaming.

If it's powergaming, then it's a OOC problem, not a IC one that security should handle. In fact, being security and trying to take a lethal mech for yourself is... also powergaming. You SHOULD ahelp it if robotics makes a lethally armed combat mech, you shouldn't try to steal it as a secoff.

It's not about stealing it, it's about destroying it. Or making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know there's shenanigans.

Robotics aren't supposed to be building lethally armed combat mechs for no reason

Repeating myself here, but OOC issue. If it's powergaming an admin can decide, this is not relevant to what a security officer should do.

Sure, but if admins can't deal with it (due to being Busy or Not Around, or the fact that even if they do something, it's still a present threat in the round), then Sec has to do something about it.

Cargo requires sec access to open gun crates, but you know what they could do? Just grab a PKA and break it open. Or they can spam buy Russian Crates for Mosin Nagants. Those're accessible with just Cargo, I'm pretty sure..

I'm not sure if they're available in cargo anymore, but even if they can... it's very clear that as cargo if you're using a PKA to break open a crate, IC, you're doing something you shouldn't. That's why they're listed as restricted. This is why it's a bad comparison to robotics.

Valorium raises a fantastic point. If Robotics was supposed to be allowed to have armed mechs, why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist?

In order to attach weapons to non-combat mechs and hide them. If I see a Gygax outside of robotics with a bunch of weapons strapped to it, and it's not revs/cult/wizard/etc.. I'll get worried and call security. If I see an Odysseus outside of robotics I won't bat an eye, especially because the weapon is hidden. I somehow doubt this is an abnormal reaction, is it?

I'm getting lazy so I'm going to respond to these together; Yeah but it's also very clear that if you're just a Roboticist, you probably shouldn't build/have a giant stomping death robot armed with missile launchers and heavy machine guns without permission and a good reason, too. Build 'em for Sec if you want to, sure. I really don't know why this is the hill you want to die on. "Yeah, a corporate research station that doesn't allow the crew to have basic firearms would totally allow standard crew to own a fucking heavily-armed death robot"

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Or making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know there's shenanigans.

Oh, so "Shenanigans" going on are sufficient cause for sec to start raiding other departments and confiscating/destroying stuff they produce with their own job, but not sufficient cause for anyone else on station to so much as make a stunprod or pick out a medkit(As per the rules)?

I'm getting lazy so I'm going to respond to these together; Yeah but it's also very clear that if you're just a Roboticist, you probably shouldn't build/have a giant stomping death robot armed with missile launchers and heavy machine guns without permission and a good reason, too. Build 'em for Sec if you want to, sure.

Build them for security? There isn't an exception in the powergaming rules for preparing by making other people weaponry that isnt imminently/urgently needed, you know. (Otherwise assistants could just mass-produce stunprods for other assistants) Sec don't have any 'good reason' to have a mech roundstart either.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

This is insanely broad, I don't know how you expect anyone to make a hard ruling. Generally security should be kept in a higher standard than normal players though

can security tide? sure, can they be treated as anyone else for it? yes

removing special security expectations turns everything into bigger gun diplomacy- as we saw here. sec got away with destroying all the roboticist's work with no punishments from anyone because of said bigger gun diplomacy. if the roboticist attacks (with what? idk), they get upwards of 10 minutes in the brig ALONG with their destroyed mech. We administrate security much harder because they're supposed to administrate the round.

Just use common sense

[technokek]

This is insanely broad, I don't know how you expect anyone to make a hard ruling. Generally security should be kept in a higher standard than normal players though

can security tide? sure, can they be treated as anyone else for it? yes

removing special security expectations turns everything into bigger gun diplomacy- as we saw here. sec got away with destroying all the roboticist's work with no punishments from anyone because of said bigger gun diplomacy. if the roboticist attacks (with what? idk), they get upwards of 10 minutes in the brig ALONG with their destroyed mech. We administrate security much harder because they're supposed to administrate the round.

Just use common sense

well i tried common sense and ahelped and it got me nowhere

[GamerAndYeahMick]

There is obviously times when an admin should step in and a time when players should step in, all I'm proposing is that we don't need to make a policy for every single thing all the time I mean we already have threads opened about sec metaprot etc etc sometimes an admin complaint is better or something, also no policy that can be created is going to be a silver bullet to solve all problems and security play will always have issues regardless of what we draft it should just be handled on a case by case basis by admins if you're playing like a shithead honestly

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Or making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know there's shenanigans.

Oh, so "Shenanigans" going on are sufficient cause for sec to start raiding other departments and confiscating/destroying stuff they produce with their own job, but not sufficient cause for anyone else on station to so much as make a stunprod or pick out a medkit(As per the rules)?

I'm getting lazy so I'm going to respond to these together; Yeah but it's also very clear that if you're just a Roboticist, you probably shouldn't build/have a giant stomping death robot armed with missile launchers and heavy machine guns without permission and a good reason, too. Build 'em for Sec if you want to, sure.

Build them for security? There isn't an exception in the powergaming rules for preparing by making other people weaponry that isnt imminently/urgently needed, you know. (Otherwise assistants could just mass-produce stunprods for other assistants) Sec don't have any 'good reason' to have a mech roundstart either.

"Shenanigans" is just a catch-all for "there is a known antagonistic threat on the station". But sure, if you're going to be pedantic about it. Making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know that there is a Syndicate Infiltrator, Changeling, Worshipper Of An Eldritch Deity, Violent Revolutionary, Actually Just An Insane Person, or something else I might've forgotten, somewhere among the crew.

Is that better?

And yeah. You probably shouldn't build them for Security without having a good reason, but the threshold is a hell of a lot lower for Security than it is for Anybody Else Who Shouldn't Be Actively Engaging The Threats, y'know?

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Or making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know there's shenanigans.

Oh, so "Shenanigans" going on are sufficient cause for sec to start raiding other departments and confiscating/destroying stuff they produce with their own job, but not sufficient cause for anyone else on station to so much as make a stunprod or pick out a medkit(As per the rules)?

"Shenanigans" is just a catch-all for "there is a known antagonistic threat on the station". But sure, if you're going to be pedantic about it. Making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know that there is a Syndicate Infiltrator, Changeling, Worshipper Of An Eldritch Deity, Violent Revolutionary, Actually Just An Insane Person, or something else I might've forgotten, somewhere among the crew.

.... but that's just weasel words for "Always" you rat. Gosh it's almost like theres a huge blaring announcement saying THERES A THREAT ON THE STATION at roundstart
And again, we don't let people grab tools or weapons pre-emptively against the known antagonistic threats, even when their coworkers are going missing.

[Valorium]

Valorium raises a fantastic point. If Robotics was supposed to be allowed to have armed mechs, why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist?

In order to attach weapons to non-combat mechs and hide them. If I see a Gygax outside of robotics with a bunch of weapons strapped to it, and it's not revs/cult/wizard/etc.. I'll get worried and call security. If I see an Odysseus outside of robotics I won't bat an eye, especially because the weapon is hidden. I somehow doubt this is an abnormal reaction, is it?

Look, if we administratively protect Robotics from receiving in-game punishment for having mech weapons in any way, and make policy that indicates that there should be no concern when they stomp around the station in their heavily-armed mech, then there's basically no reason for the Concealed Weapon Bay to exist because, well, the policy says you shouldn't be concerned! This thread is advocating, at least indirectly, for Roboticists to get the same protections that, say, the Bartender has for their shotgun. You wouldn't call Security if you saw the Bartender with their shotgun because they are, by policy, allowed to have it. So, if we write policy for mechs and Roboticists that function the same way, then...you get the point.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Or making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know there's shenanigans.

Oh, so "Shenanigans" going on are sufficient cause for sec to start raiding other departments and confiscating/destroying stuff they produce with their own job, but not sufficient cause for anyone else on station to so much as make a stunprod or pick out a medkit(As per the rules)?

"Shenanigans" is just a catch-all for "there is a known antagonistic threat on the station". But sure, if you're going to be pedantic about it. Making sure it's at least somewhere secure and not in the hands of an unvetted member of the crew when you know that there is a Syndicate Infiltrator, Changeling, Worshipper Of An Eldritch Deity, Violent Revolutionary, Actually Just An Insane Person, or something else I might've forgotten, somewhere among the crew.

.... but that's just weasel words for "Always" you rat. Gosh it's almost like theres a huge blaring announcement saying THERES A THREAT ON THE STATION at roundstart
And again, we don't let people grab tools or weapons pre-emptively against the known antagonistic threats, even when their coworkers are going missing.

Yes. And I'd stand by that if that's how the rules worked. As a Roboticist player myself.

But that's not how they work. Because that blaring announcement doesn't count.

This is true! Though the rules state if people are going missing and you have to fix a wire in maints you can bring a stunprod. Here's the thing you aren't considering.

ROBOTICS DOESN'T NEED A GIANT DEATH MECH IF THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE ENGAGING THE THREAT. Which they shouldn't be! That's not their job! They should be defending themselves!

Guess what takes like, 5-10 seconds to do? Enter a mech. The only way that Roboticist is using that mech is if he's going hunting.

Which he's not allowed to do unless Security tells him to/gives him permission.

[iwishforducks]

I don't see the issue with roboticists simply having armed mechs in the bay- as long as they're DNA locked and stay in the bay. From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense for roboticists to pilot their own mechs in a station emergency, because they know how to maintain and pilot the mechs. If security wants their own mech, they should ask the roboticists for one rather than seizing mechs when they're created. Also the concealed weapon bay argument is so lame lol it's there to tip the meta on what you can trust and what you can not. (and also because it's funny to see a Ripley with a missile launcher)

If the roboticists start bringing their killer mechs outside of the bay and it's not appropriate to do so then I can see the problem. Security can express suspicion on intent and check bags and whatnot but it should always be a given privilege beforehand.

[Valorium]

I don't see the issue with roboticists simply having armed mechs in the bay- as long as they're DNA locked and stay in the bay. From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense for roboticists to pilot their own mechs in a station emergency, because they know how to maintain and pilot the mechs. If security wants their own mech, they should ask the roboticists for one rather than seizing mechs when they're created. Also the concealed weapon bay argument is so lame lol it's there to tip the meta on what you can trust and what you can not. (and also because it's funny to see a Ripley with a missile launcher)

If the roboticists start bringing their killer mechs outside of the bay and it's not appropriate to do so then I can see the problem. Security can express suspicion on intent and check bags and whatnot but it should always be a given privilege beforehand.

Here's the thing – if we, as is being suggested in this thread, give Roboticists a specific policy that lets them have armed mechs roaming around everywhere, then you SHOULD always trust them. Simple as. You trust the Bartender with their shotgun, Chemists with syringe rifles, yada yada yada, because they are by policy supposed to have them. "Tipping the meta" makes no sense. Do you call Security if someone is walking around with their sanctioned job equipment? No? Then why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist under this policy (and if it were implemented, it would be a MASSIVE shadow nerf to an already ridiculously rare traitor item). If the whole point of it is to conceal something you're not supposed to have, then if you ARE supposed to have it under this policy, it makes no sense to hide it. It'd be like if you used a chameleon holster to hide your sawn-off shotgun as a Bartender.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I don't see the issue with roboticists simply having armed mechs in the bay- as long as they're DNA locked and stay in the bay. From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense for roboticists to pilot their own mechs in a station emergency, because they know how to maintain and pilot the mechs. If security wants their own mech, they should ask the roboticists for one rather than seizing mechs when they're created. Also the concealed weapon bay argument is so lame lol it's there to tip the meta on what you can trust and what you can not. (and also because it's funny to see a Ripley with a missile launcher)

If the roboticists start bringing their killer mechs outside of the bay and it's not appropriate to do so then I can see the problem. Security can express suspicion on intent and check bags and whatnot but it should always be a given privilege beforehand.

Here's the thing – if we, as is being suggested in this thread, give Roboticists a specific policy that lets them have armed mechs roaming around everywhere, then you SHOULD always trust them. Simple as. You trust the Bartender with their shotgun, Chemists with syringe rifles, yada yada yada, because they are by policy supposed to have them. "Tipping the meta" makes no sense. Do you call Security if someone is walking around with their sanctioned job equipment? No? Then why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist under this policy (and if it were implemented, it would be a MASSIVE shadow nerf to an already ridiculously rare traitor item). If the whole point of it is to conceal something you're not supposed to have, then if you ARE supposed to have it under this policy, it makes no sense to hide it. It'd be like if you used a chameleon holster to hide your sawn-off shotgun as a Bartender.

I'm glad that we've skipped past all the fake arguments about roleplay appropriateness and we're just down to "IT MAKES A SECONDARY USE OF AN ULTRA NICHE TRAITOR ITEM SUBOPTIMAL AND ALSO I NEED TO META-TELL BINARY ACCURACY WHETHER SOMEONE IS VALID ON SIGHT BASED ON THEIR GEAR".

And yeah actually running around with a combat mech without saying Hi is grounds for some suspiscion, but that's not the same as it just existing in the mechbay. A chemist with the dart rifle in medbay is a lot less likely to get his ass beat than a chemist equipping the dart rifle outside the brig as an officer is walking past. And I doubt you treat a bartender with a shotgun bandolier and his shotgun the same when he's been lurking outside your department as when he's in his bar.

[Valorium]

I don't see the issue with roboticists simply having armed mechs in the bay- as long as they're DNA locked and stay in the bay. From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense for roboticists to pilot their own mechs in a station emergency, because they know how to maintain and pilot the mechs. If security wants their own mech, they should ask the roboticists for one rather than seizing mechs when they're created. Also the concealed weapon bay argument is so lame lol it's there to tip the meta on what you can trust and what you can not. (and also because it's funny to see a Ripley with a missile launcher)

If the roboticists start bringing their killer mechs outside of the bay and it's not appropriate to do so then I can see the problem. Security can express suspicion on intent and check bags and whatnot but it should always be a given privilege beforehand.

Here's the thing – if we, as is being suggested in this thread, give Roboticists a specific policy that lets them have armed mechs roaming around everywhere, then you SHOULD always trust them. Simple as. You trust the Bartender with their shotgun, Chemists with syringe rifles, yada yada yada, because they are by policy supposed to have them. "Tipping the meta" makes no sense. Do you call Security if someone is walking around with their sanctioned job equipment? No? Then why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist under this policy (and if it were implemented, it would be a MASSIVE shadow nerf to an already ridiculously rare traitor item). If the whole point of it is to conceal something you're not supposed to have, then if you ARE supposed to have it under this policy, it makes no sense to hide it. It'd be like if you used a chameleon holster to hide your sawn-off shotgun as a Bartender.

I'm glad that we've skipped past all the fake arguments about roleplay appropriateness and we're just down to "IT MAKES A SECONDARY USE OF AN ULTRA NICHE TRAITOR ITEM SUBOPTIMAL AND ALSO I NEED TO META-TELL BINARY ACCURACY WHETHER SOMEONE IS VALID ON SIGHT BASED ON THEIR GEAR".

And yeah actually running around with a combat mech without saying Hi is grounds for some suspiscion, but that's not the same as it just existing in the mechbay. A chemist with the dart rifle in medbay is a lot less likely to get his ass beat than a chemist equipping the dart rifle outside the brig as an officer is walking past. And I doubt you treat a bartender with a shotgun bandolier and his shotgun the same when he's been lurking outside your department as when he's in his bar.

I mean. Yeah. I'm talking about it from a gameplay/policy perspective, not a roleplay perspective. Go figure. Dunno why that's supposed to be some kind of silver bullet to my argument but whatever.

Also, if it's their job equipment, I'm not really inordinately suspicious of them. It's their gear, they're allowed to have it regardless of where they are, per policy. It's not about "valid salad", I barely play security outside of cozy Warden shifts.

The point I'm trying to make is that you're suspicious of those mechs at least in part because they're not supposed to/expected to be tromping around the station with them. If we changed that where Roboticists can/are expected to walk around the station with fully-armed mech suits, then people would in part be less suspicious.

Lastly: as always, I don't mean to offend or upset - I have an opinion I hope I can convey while being respectful of other peoples' opinions, and I agree with you that oftentimes policy as a way to dictate traitor validity is restrictive or hard to enforce.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I don't see the issue with roboticists simply having armed mechs in the bay- as long as they're DNA locked and stay in the bay. From a roleplay perspective, it makes sense for roboticists to pilot their own mechs in a station emergency, because they know how to maintain and pilot the mechs. If security wants their own mech, they should ask the roboticists for one rather than seizing mechs when they're created. Also the concealed weapon bay argument is so lame lol it's there to tip the meta on what you can trust and what you can not. (and also because it's funny to see a Ripley with a missile launcher)

If the roboticists start bringing their killer mechs outside of the bay and it's not appropriate to do so then I can see the problem. Security can express suspicion on intent and check bags and whatnot but it should always be a given privilege beforehand.

Here's the thing – if we, as is being suggested in this thread, give Roboticists a specific policy that lets them have armed mechs roaming around everywhere, then you SHOULD always trust them. Simple as. You trust the Bartender with their shotgun, Chemists with syringe rifles, yada yada yada, because they are by policy supposed to have them. "Tipping the meta" makes no sense. Do you call Security if someone is walking around with their sanctioned job equipment? No? Then why would the Concealed Weapon Bay exist under this policy (and if it were implemented, it would be a MASSIVE shadow nerf to an already ridiculously rare traitor item). If the whole point of it is to conceal something you're not supposed to have, then if you ARE supposed to have it under this policy, it makes no sense to hide it. It'd be like if you used a chameleon holster to hide your sawn-off shotgun as a Bartender.

I'm glad that we've skipped past all the fake arguments about roleplay appropriateness and we're just down to "IT MAKES A SECONDARY USE OF AN ULTRA NICHE TRAITOR ITEM SUBOPTIMAL AND ALSO I NEED TO META-TELL BINARY ACCURACY WHETHER SOMEONE IS VALID ON SIGHT BASED ON THEIR GEAR".

And yeah actually running around with a combat mech without saying Hi is grounds for some suspiscion, but that's not the same as it just existing in the mechbay. A chemist with the dart rifle in medbay is a lot less likely to get his ass beat than a chemist equipping the dart rifle outside the brig as an officer is walking past. And I doubt you treat a bartender with a shotgun bandolier and his shotgun the same when he's been lurking outside your department as when he's in his bar.

The problem with your argument is every single one of those examples is different. The Chemist is a lot less likely to get his ass beat if he's standing outside the brig with it sitting on his back. No shit if he pulls it out as an officer walks past he's going to get his ass beat.

The Bartender with his shotgun bandolier and shotgun is going to be ignored no matter where he is because he's supposed to have it. I don't care if I'm in Science and he's walked half way across the station, if he's behaving and not using it poorly, he's allowed to have it. Now if he *drew* the shotgun, that'd be different.

You know what Roboticists get that doesn't arouse suspicion for just having, but will if they suddenly pull it out when someone walks past? A flash. If you search a Roboticist and they have a flash, you shrug it off because that's what their job has. Same as their full set of tools.

The Mech, however, is like the Chemist just having a Chem Grenade sitting around. It's like the MD's defib being EMP'd.

These things can be obtained by that person completely legitimately. But they're going to immediately rouse suspicion on sight, if there isn't a good reason. Much like a Mech should.

[Tearling]

ROBOTICS DOESN'T NEED A GIANT DEATH MECH IF THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE ENGAGING THE THREAT. Which they shouldn't be! That's not their job! They should be defending themselves!

Which they can't do without having a weapon. But, according to you, weapons shouldn't be allowed even in their own departments.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

ROBOTICS DOESN'T NEED A GIANT DEATH MECH IF THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE ENGAGING THE THREAT. Which they shouldn't be! That's not their job! They should be defending themselves!

Which they can't do without having a weapon. But, according to you, weapons shouldn't be allowed even in their own departments.

If there isn't a threat credible to need a mech, they can defend themselves with welders, crowbars, eyestab with screwdrivers.

If a threat is big enough to warrant the mech (like Xenos or the like) then yeah, they can absolutely have the mech. It's very simple.

[Ivan Issaccs]

For some context here.
The round in question that inspired this had both a revolution and a cult active, plus the OTHER lone antags, which to my mind gives a damned good reason that any sane security officer might object to unknown quantities rolling around in death stompas while the snowball-murder-kill-death to security teams show up. Not like the dude was the pinical of high intellect and moral standings in the case but he did relatively little all things considered.
So I hop on over, no mechs had infact been destroyed nor even showed up with damage on my HUD.
I see the officer with an ion rifle, an angry ripley pilot trying to drill said officer and another robotacist trying to de-escalate the situation and musing on the restraint required that the dude didn't empty the rifle after the drilling.
No ones dead, nothings destroyed, deem it all to be an IC interaction that requires no administrative input on my part and I move onto other things.

[Tearling]

If a threat is big enough to warrant the mech (like Xenos or the like) then yeah, they can absolutely have the mech. It's very simple.

For some context here.
The round in question that inspired this had both a revolution and a cult active, plus the OTHER lone antags,

Well, that solves that argument. Thanks for making it simple, Gungnir.

[Pandarsenic]

Honestly, with TWO mass conversion antags, one of which doesn't Halo Up, I think both the robos and the sec team have perfectly reasonable claims to legitimacy for what went down.

[technokek]

For some context here.
The round in question that inspired this had both a revolution and a cult active, plus the OTHER lone antags, which to my mind gives a damned good reason that any sane security officer might object to unknown quantities rolling around in death stompas while the snowball-murder-kill-death to security teams show up. Not like the dude was the pinical of high intellect and moral standings in the case but he did relatively little all things considered.
So I hop on over, no mechs had infact been destroyed nor even showed up with damage on my HUD.
I see the officer with an ion rifle, an angry ripley pilot trying to drill said officer and another robotacist trying to de-escalate the situation and musing on the restraint required that the dude didn't empty the rifle after the drilling.
No ones dead, nothings destroyed, deem it all to be an IC interaction that requires no administrative input on my part and I move onto other things.

I don't know what you are taking about because he shot the Gygax twice and then shot the Ripley with the rest of the mag after he got drilled. Did you even try to check what happened?
https://tgstation13.org/parsed-logs/ter ... attack.txt
Just search for Ion Bolt

If they actually cared about the revolution, just mindshield us. There was no open revolution in the halls at that point.

Also there was a giant spider nest in the maintenance behind robo that I actually wanted to use the Gygax on. But couldn't anymore. The spiders then proceeded to kill everyone as security was not able to deal with them.


Making such a blanket ruling that security can just destroy or take mechs at will in your ticket does not reflect what you are saying now. You should have included that your ruling is on the current situation (you wouldn't have to elaborate what the situation is) and not a blanket "It's okay for security to take or destroy mechs whenever they like".

[technokek]

Honestly, with TWO mass conversion antags, one of which doesn't Halo Up, I think both the robos and the sec team have perfectly reasonable claims to legitimacy for what went down.

But then just say that it's for them to take it in this specific situation. You don't need to elaborate what the situation is. The ruling here was made as a blanket statement that can be applied on any round.

[Pandarsenic]

Yeah, I don't think a "Well no shit, it's either red/delta or should be red/delta" caveat is out of place here. If everything is peaceful, just attach like 20 beacons to the same mech so you can pound it into oblivion if needed or whatever.

[MooCow12]

The first word of the thread title kind of eliminates the last word, you cannot tide as security and still have meta protection.


Considering how many hoops a roboticist has to jump through or how lucky they have to get for all requirements to be satisfied in order to even attempt to build a combat mech
and considering roboticists do have responsibilities, they borg people and tend to be the first thing the ai/borgs go to when asking for stuff, I even play as a partial medical doctor when I`m roboticist.

I would have to say that unwarranted damage to their assets, especially their brand new mech can be met with more extreme force than normal (because the damage the other party is doing IS more than normal), especially considering that mechs tend to have a issue similar to simple mobs where beating someone in self defense usually results in the aggressor crying for help like a little B and then the mech/simple mob now has to either hide somewhere or fight through an endless crowd of people who just wanna valid hunt.






If you really want to avoid this kind of issue/mitigate it you need to make a fortified room that people will have to jump hoops through to even get to you/your assets/mech, it limits the amount of other people you will have to deal with to mainly whoever is willing to go out of their way to be your original aggressor in the first place.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Considering how many hoops a roboticist has to jump through or how lucky they have to get for all requirements to be satisfied in order to even attempt to build a combat mech
and considering roboticists do have responsibilities, they borg people and tend to be the first thing the ai/borgs go to when asking for stuff, I even play as a partial medical doctor when I`m roboticist.

I think the part that you and most other people don't quite seem to realize is that other than Printing Time, it takes like. Maybe a minute to build a mech. It's really not that hard to do, even factoring in your responsibilities. I've printed them in RESPONSE to threats before and still had more than enough time to put it to use.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Considering how many hoops a roboticist has to jump through or how lucky they have to get for all requirements to be satisfied in order to even attempt to build a combat mech
and considering roboticists do have responsibilities, they borg people and tend to be the first thing the ai/borgs go to when asking for stuff, I even play as a partial medical doctor when I`m roboticist.

I think the part that you and most other people don't quite seem to realize is that other than Printing Time, it takes like. Maybe a minute to build a mech. It's really not that hard to do, even factoring in your responsibilities. I've printed them in RESPONSE to threats before and still had more than enough time to put it to use.

The tens of thousands of experiment-gated research point requirements to print even the basic modules, reliance on ORM being active, and the fact that most roboticists aren't gonna be "Im best of the best i only play it I have all key combos memorised from 200hr of muscle memory" ought to be considered too.

Or did you not quite seem to realise that?

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Considering how many hoops a roboticist has to jump through or how lucky they have to get for all requirements to be satisfied in order to even attempt to build a combat mech
and considering roboticists do have responsibilities, they borg people and tend to be the first thing the ai/borgs go to when asking for stuff, I even play as a partial medical doctor when I`m roboticist.

I think the part that you and most other people don't quite seem to realize is that other than Printing Time, it takes like. Maybe a minute to build a mech. It's really not that hard to do, even factoring in your responsibilities. I've printed them in RESPONSE to threats before and still had more than enough time to put it to use.

The tens of thousands of experiment-gated research point requirements to print even the basic modules, reliance on ORM being active, and the fact that most roboticists aren't gonna be "Im best of the best i only play it I have all key combos memorised from 200hr of muscle memory" ought to be considered too.

Or did you not quite seem to realise that?

The OP made it seem like the big deal was that they spent "40 minutes building it", that the SecOff wanted to just Take the Gygax, and not that he wasn't allowed to have one.

The person I responded to also very much made it sound like the Mech was extremely hard to replace (it's not).

Now can you please keep your dislike for me out of this and stop just trying to GOTCHA me instead of having a discussion? It's starting to grow very tiring.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Considering how many hoops a roboticist has to jump through or how lucky they have to get for all requirements to be satisfied in order to even attempt to build a combat mech
and considering roboticists do have responsibilities, they borg people and tend to be the first thing the ai/borgs go to when asking for stuff, I even play as a partial medical doctor when I`m roboticist.

I think the part that you and most other people don't quite seem to realize is that other than Printing Time, it takes like. Maybe a minute to build a mech. It's really not that hard to do, even factoring in your responsibilities. I've printed them in RESPONSE to threats before and still had more than enough time to put it to use.

The tens of thousands of experiment-gated research point requirements to print even the basic modules, reliance on ORM being active, and the fact that most roboticists aren't gonna be "Im best of the best i only play it I have all key combos memorised from 200hr of muscle memory" ought to be considered too.

Or did you not quite seem to realise that?

The OP made it seem like the big deal was that they spent "40 minutes building it", that the SecOff wanted to just Take the Gygax, and not that he wasn't allowed to have one.

The person I responded to also very much made it sound like the Mech was extremely hard to replace (it's not).

Now can you please keep your dislike for me out of this and stop just trying to GOTCHA me instead of having a discussion? It's starting to grow very tiring.

My "dislike of you" stems entirely because of (And only applies to) your freakish takes on this discussion, so you can fuck off with that shit and come back with some arguments other than "nuh uh"

[NamelessFairy]

Security meta-protections do not allow for security officers to freely steal or destroy items belonging to crewmembers without facing either IC or OOC reproductions depending on severity. The exception to this is when the involved items are stuff that can be considered contraband which security can within their meta-protections take.

In your example you bring up security taking a combat mech, roboticists can have weapons they're carrying confiscated by security and in this case a combat mech can be considered a weapon. In the future if you want to make combat mechs then you should seek permission for doing so to avoid having it confiscated.

Headmin Votes:
NamelessFairy: Agree
Dragomagol: Agree
RaveRadbury: Agree