MO_oNyMan

"Have an officer supervising your interview to protect you from the suspects" they said. But who will protect you from the officer himself? Officer who also wears sunglasses almost all the time as a part of his job

The book printing computer is right outside the librarian area in public access. Librarian used to have his own but i thought it's a waste of space to have two of the same devices in the same room. I'm not sure what do you mean by the book scanner but if it's the EFTPOS scanner then it's in the librarian's locker

How 'bout it? In the upper left corner you can see a little librarian area. It has a filling cabinet and a closet where most of the stuff is along with some folders (two of each colour) and a book bag. Directly opposite of it is an unmarked book case. Right by the main door is a notice board (it's on the outer side of the wall, so visible from the hallway but not from the library). And in the upper right corner is the journalist's office. Librarian can use it as his own since they share access but i would really like for the journalist to be a separate slotso that we could move his office to some other location and make the librarian dedicated area bigger.

None of anything that you just said follows the structure of a logical argument. You've agreed with most of my point and then declared that I'm also wrong and what is given to other people for self defense is insufficient for detectives because 'you don't think they're good enough'. I don't know what all this snide stuff is at the end of your post is about regarding me making myself look bad by misrepresenting facts, but here's a non-misrepresentable fact for you to consider: You are the only person in this entire 70+ post thread that thinks this way, or at least in a fashion that stands out this much due to being stubborn and unrelenting in trying to argue it, no matter how many different people disagree with you. Schev said it adds consequence early on, and a few people agreed with it, but I haven't seen much else about that since then, and a lot more about 'adds consequences doesn't actually mean much in gameplay'. I have not seen such case of 'I'll die on a hill for my Internet opinion' for a long time, and it's getting old. It's clear no matter how many reasoned arguments people give you, how many times they ask you to analyze the situation and consider why you need this, the only answer you will ever give is that you are right and everyone else is wrong. From some of your other comments, I gather that a large part of the reason that you don't want detectives downgraded is because you actually feel that the weapons given to security at round start are not sufficiently deadly. There is a point in this thread where you advocate for giving security lethals at round start. This thread is not about reworking the lethality of security to make them more dangerous. This is about refactoring the detective to match everyone else in the round. It doesn't matter in the least how insufficient you feel the basic security tools and heads self defense weapons are. It's what everyone gets, except right now for literally no reason, the detective. That's what we're fixing. If you want to make a suggestion thread about pumping up security's game to have more oomph, make it, and see how well that goes. What I am going to do is take a stab at coding this myself later today. The general consensus I'm getting is that giving detectives a laser pistol is fine. Does anyone have a differing opinion of what should be given to detectives, for which they can give an actual argument? I'm sorry but you feeling bad because detective has a sufficient tool for his job and you don't doesn't make for a convincing arguement regardless of how badly you wish it to. I understand your frustration over people disagreeing with you on the internet but contain your righteous fury and try to make up an actual arguement for the sake of productive discussion. If you are looking to shitpost, this is not the board, this is a suggestion forum. And if your professional opinion on me being the only person who disagrees with lethal removal from detective is not a mean than read the rules of the thread. The rule in question being Read the whole thread before you post in it. (Yes, that means all of it) As for replacement of the weapon to the laser based one it was already stated that if it was to become reality it should have better capacity and a new sprite to avoid the problem of rubber revolver. I bid you luck in your coding draft

officers absolutely should have lethal option from an IC standpoint, i never said they shouldn't. Detective is not always talking to cuffed suspects in interrogation under the supervision of an officer. If he was he wouldn't need a gun but he isn't. Job specifics. He can't drag an officer with him everywhere he goes either since there's only four of them. Besides, why have a detective that doesn't an investigation and giving him a personal escort for protection instead of a reliable self-protection tool? No reason at all. I'm against implementing a "detecitve's bodyguard" slot for security

It's not really that contentious, it's mostly the same person digging their heels in and being really stubborn about what they want while everyone else goes ??? Your primary argument is based around rubbers not being universally useful is kind of moot, because your equipment is not based on 'what you would prefer', it's based on 'what your job duties entail'. I'm sure most people who are eager to win would prefer to have a lethal weapon at round start, but that's not how things work here, friendo. Everything you've been saying here is indirectly pushing a specific notion on everyone, and this is basically what it is: Detectives are special, they need to be extra protected because they are in more danger than anyone else in their department, and get special snowflake equipment because of it. No, they don't. I'd rate regular officers and CSI as the highest priority targets, because officers are the ones that actually take you down, and CSI have forensics access. What do detectives do, exactly..? They question people? I know you don't do forensics, and you sure don't perform arrests, Your role is entirely support and roleplay based, like the psychiatrist used to be before trauma nonsense. I can't imagine any reason why you would be an especially vital target, except... I don't know... maybe because you start with a lethal weapon that they want to steal and/or make sure you can't shoot them with it? You complain that flashes are unreliable because sunglasses block them. Yep, that's true. Welcome to the game, we have checks and balances. You don't get a lethal weapon because WHAT IF THEY HAVE SUNGLASSES???? The chances are they do not, 90% of the time, because they aren't common access items. "Sometimes spawns in maint' is not 'freely available'. Sometimes, if you get yourself caught in a corner, you just lost. That's it, you let yourself be trapped by an antagonist, and now you can't run away, and you have to deal with the consequences. That's the nature of the game, plan ahead, instead of demanding a safety net. You don't get to have a lethal revolver JUST IN CASE none of the normal methods of avoiding death that aren't 'murder the threat' don't work. That being said, I don't see a compelling reason why Detectives can't have a laser pistol. Just, a laser pistol, Like the heads get. Not some kind of special snowflake detective laser pistol that is better than any of the others. Again, stop trying to demand extra favors because detectives are special. They're not. I'm sorry for the effort it must have taken but the entire post is irrelevant. Detective's job is to directly interact with potential criminals yes? Yes. He needs a mean to protect himself in case they turn violent yes? Yes. Some of those people are impervious to rubber bullets yes? Yes. Sunglasses render the only other tool available completely useless, yes? Yes. Sunglasses are easily acquired and other common means of eye protection exist yes? Yes. Standard e-gun is horrible and will not protect you so it falls into the same pit as rubber bullets. Being a tool of self-protection that doesn't really protect anyone. You have taken the right direction with arguing the OOC side of this issue as from an IC standpoint lethals are undeniably required. However you completely missed the point with trying to spoof powergaming accusations. Nice effort though. If you want to succeed i would suggest arguing for antags being crippled by security having lethals. Cheers P.S. Try to avoid misrepresenting facts in a written discussion in the future. It makes you look bad

Merchant slot has some potential which with the current state of affairs is kind of wasted. He is a singular role that trades random goods from an obscure location somewhere on the station and is kind of obeying the regulations but really or some stuff. Due to the location the merchant's shuttle is situated at it is rarely visited The actual store area we have on main level is never used And the cargo entrance on the surface which is located (as in on purpose) right opposite of the merchant's ship is never used as well. So i would suggest the following system that in my opinion would make merchant a more in-depth and elaborate job as well as giving some work to cargo who suffer very much from the lack of stuff to do. - So, a merchant arrives. He's stocked on goods he would like to sell, he got his trading license from NT, he docks to the station. Is it time to advertise his goods and invite people to the surface? Not yet. Trading off the shuttle is illegal (law words, something about shuttle being merchant's private property and NT wanting merchants to trade on their property to be able to take part of his profits as a part of the contract, could be treated as contraband, could be a separate regulation) - So he contacts the QM. Tells him he's going to be trading. Gets registered with the QM (currently it's just for fluff but could be a real thing if there were more merchant slots, wow look at this cool trading hub suggestion https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=10624 ), declares the goods he's going to trade and registers them with cargo, cargo and merchant agree on the part of merchant's profits that will be taken by NT (QM keeps the paperwork). All of the above is done via a currently unused surface cargo entrance. So can he trade now? Not yet Jimmy, he still needs to get off his shuttle. - So using the close proximity of the surface cargo entrance and the cheap work of underpaid cargo techs crates of goods are hauled to the specially prepared store area (could be the already existing store near the bridge but i would honestly prefer a dedicated room at the construction level near the cargo construction elevator as current store is like on the other side of the station. I can do the mapping. Fuck IT department) - So the merchant is now set up in his own small shop area and can trade declared goods. He can also trade undeclared smuggled goods but it would be considered contraband if security finds out about it (which is not considered self antagging?). Oh by the way they can search the shop with a warrant since it is NT property. And merchant should abide by station regulations since he's on NT property. He still can carry a weapon for self defense if he acquires a permit (yes, security gets something to do too). So the merchant now interacts with various departments is a part of the station has an easily accessible area for crew to shop for their donuts and drugs and everyone is happy ??? Profit

Presuming you're in interrogation which i already stated is not always the case and that dragging every single one of your interviewees to the interrogation is bad practice. Dropping the fact that i already said that i would support swap for laser lethals, despite IPCs being resistant to brute damage i would still take a lethal speedloader over a rubber one every time if i'm going to be attacked by a murderous IPC. You don't need to be iffing every possible situation to realise that if an IPC with eye protection turns violent on you you have absolutely nothing to protect yourself if you're packing rubber bullets. I don't think IPCs are specifically resistant to criminal behaviour either.

Sometimes you have to talk to people that aren't witnesses at the scene. And hauling them to the brig and sitting down in a dark 3x3 room just to ask some informal questions regarding the case is somewhat excessive of a practice and not really inviting for a smooth talk. Cuffing them is even worse, I would consider it borderline illegal detention if you were to do it to a casual witness or consultant Why are we expecting having to use full lethal ammunition against a casual witness or consultant again? And why won't rubbers work in this scenario for the majority of cases? Because casual witness or consultant may be involved with the case or even be the criminal himself with you being unaware of it. While you don't have any reason to suspect him of anything and thus you don't bring a fully armed squad of officers to drag him to interrogation, he can get spooked or decide to get rid of the detective to derail the case. That's when you're going to need self-defense tools. And if he's an IPC or vaurca who just so happened to have sunglasses or a welder mask (which are neither contraband nor even slightly suspicious) you will get murdered without a tool to deal with them. The tool being a lethal weapon. Preferably a laser one since as pointed out, lasers are more efficient against both of these species

Why are they even getting out of their cuffs and why don't you just run out the door? Sometimes you have to talk to people that aren't witnesses at the scene. And hauling them to the brig and sitting down in a dark 3x3 room just to ask some informal questions regarding the case is somewhat excessive of a practice and not really inviting for a smooth talk. Cuffing them is even worse, I would consider it borderline illegal detention if you were to do it to a casual witness or consultant

It doesn't have to be most of the crew wearing eye protection in order to worry about people casually wearing it. The deciding factor here is that it's easily obtainable and fairly common Interview

When a weapon effect is entirely negated by a pair of sunglasses or a piece of cloth it is unreliable. And detective doesn't have a stunbaton. This happens as long as you stand still and not do anything about an attacker closing in. Don't stand still and wait to get robusted. Use your legs, use your arms, lit him up. Keeping your distance isn't hard Except the greater portion of the crew does not carry eye protection. As I've encountered by near solely playing security officer. Again, if you can use your legs, why can't you run away and call for backup? Why do you need to full lethal your opponent in this scenario? Eye protection is not considered contraband is fairly common for some jobs on-station and can be easily found lying around in maint Your ability to maneuver doesn't give you the power to bypass access locked doors or walls. Lethal weapons or very specific technology is required to be able to protect yourself from certain species that crew consists of in such scenarios

When a weapon effect is entirely negated by a pair of sunglasses or a piece of cloth it is unreliable. And detective doesn't have a stunbaton. Wrong. This happens as long as the attack has two hands and a will to live. Your .38 has no advantage in any close quarter scenario unless you land all six hits with high rng damage. This happens as long as you stand still and not do anything about an attacker closing in. Don't stand still and wait to get robusted. Use your legs, use your arms, lit him up. Keeping your distance isn't hard

All of the above only works if the firearm holder has no clue about what he's doing

Obstruction of justice is IRL used when - You lie to an officer (Lying to an officer can be classified as aiding and abetting but i guess you could enforce it with a specific charge) - You fuck with evidence (Fucking with evidence is already covered by sabotage. If someone walks on your scene yuo can charge them with trespassing. If they touch anything you can charge them with sabotage.) - You refuse to aid an officer (Refusing to aid an officer is a bit too vague to be enforced as is) The wording suggests to use it when - Someone tries to hamper officer making an arrest (which is already covered by aiding and abetting) - Someone refuses to cooperate with officer with a warrant (which is imo the best part of the suggested regulation as it is not explicitly covered by any regulation as of now) - Lying to an investigator (which is again sorta covered by a&a but i wouldn't be opposed to having a specific charge for it) there's also a grey area when a crime scene is situated in some department and people ask for a search warrant to get access to it All in all if the regulation was reworked to not overlap with sabotage (It would basically be applied for lying to security, failing to acknowledge a warrant and refusing to let security in to check a known crime scene) I would support the suggestion. It fills blind spots in regulations nicely

As a person very familiar with the flash and its uses i can say that it fails a bit too much to be a reliable self-defense tool. I would not like to gamble on whether a suspect decides to look cool today when my life is on the line. Close quarters where you literally can't get away are about 4x4 and smaller areas. Any bigger and you can effectively break the distance (and most rooms on station are bigger than that). So you can get stuck in a room and still use ranged weapons effectively. You can't always rely on officers as there is a very limited amount of them for a rather big station. You can start with a flash, be my guest but sometimes you can't. Again, it's unreliable. And when flash is not effective, use a gun. I'm not suggesting to ban detective's from using a flash. Yes, lasers are more effective against IPC and Vaurca while not having evil shrapnel. So give the detective a better lethal laser gun, i'm not opposed to that. But handing them rubbers is a mistake as it's not an effective self-defense tool by itself. P.S. I'm currently looking at the e-pistol code. Resprite with higher capacity should be more than sufficient

I'm not talking mechanics, I'm talking logic. it's extremely bad idea to use ballistic weapons in pressurized environments. Logic dictates to have walls that can withstand considerable punishment if you're on a space station where firearms can be used. A detective is not a counter-spy agent. He is an investigator. Corporate detective is very much a counter-spy agent. Detectives on aurora are working in a corporate setting not on the streets. Again. Detective is NOT a combat role. Using a combat role / officer as a comparison for "job tool requirement" is bollocks. If he needs to defend himself, that's all it is, defense. Therefore, lethal weapons shouldn't even be considered, rather, a stun baton, flash, or pepper spray should. Or in this case, rubber bullets. none of the above can realiably defend him from standard encounters such as IPC or Vaurca. Handing him a gun for self-protection on a station where this exact gun will do nothing against certain targets is an absurd decision that presents a huge security risk. That's meta knowledge and can't be used to influence NT officials decision making. Reasoning behind killing or not killing someone is not based on whether they have or don't have a lethal weapon. Besides if we were to take OOC point of view on this specific situation then i don't see how non-lethal takedown would be excluded since you can just take detective's gun while he's down. Not a very good example.

IPC and Vaurca. Security equipment is designed to cover every reasonable scenario and then some. "Reasonable scenarios" should be covered by equipment people carry on their belts or in their pockets. "and then some" should be covered by equipment available in the armoury, orderable via cargo or creatable via RnD. Speaking to IPC or vaurca suspects is not as rare of an occasion as for example fighting space pirates. It's pretty standard actually and should be accounted for. The sudden human-centricity of NT means they are focusing on protecting humans over other species as well. However that doesn't at all mean they ignore tools to deal with xenos and robots. Running away and calling for security is a great alternative for regular crew but not for the detective. His job consists entirely of interacting with potentially dangerous elements in different settings where escape may or may not be readily available. Depriving him of his means for self defense is carelessness that can not be justified ICly any way you look at it Okay, so let's give the detective a better version of an e-pistol to be able to swith between lethal and non-lethal on the fly (since we're in the future or something). I still think it's not a very good idea since it would encourage frivolous use of firearm and validhunting but it's at least better than locking lethal option in the armoury. And if you're concerned with players having rambo mentality, fight the mentality, not the tools used by it.

Flashes are a capable tool, yes. But as a guy who was carrying a flash for almost the entire playtime on Aurora i can say that they are hella unreliable. Eye protection is pretty easily acquired. You don't always expect the suspect to be actively hostile as a detective so you don't always bring backup just in case you need to dogpile a synthetic. CQC with bug or synthetic is a pretty bad idea in general and if they acquire a ranged weapon (like a crossbow) you are in a very bad position. I would somewhat get the reasoning of swap for rubbers if sunglasses were contraband. There is currently this weird system where Odin security bans sunglasses (because they are not available in a loadout) but they are not considered contraband on-station. But i think they should be allowed (however that's entirely another story and another conversation) self defense capabilities of a rubber ammo against an IPC or a vaurca are non-existant. As for the gunmen ruining antag rounds, i don't think antags that do stuff that warrants a lethal response, get showered with bullets should expect to just shrug it off. There not that many situations that would get decent security to fire at you. Just don't murder civilians and you're pretty much good. I mean, look at the ninja for example. The guy shruggs off lethal rounds and the shift turns into cat and mouse with ninja cutting legs off of officers. A more subtle and smart approach where ninja does not provoke security into death and destruction is much more enjoyable (not to confuse with peace ninjas plz)

Station crew consists not only of humans. And not only humans are capable of crime. IPCs and Vaurca are species represented on station as a part of the crew (which detective has to interact with). Rubber bullets is not something you want to have when in a room alone with a giant bug or a robot that doesn't feel pain. The lack of lethal option at hand is questionable even for officers that are far better equipped. As for presense of investigators on station, as was stated before corporate espionage is a thing that exists and realistically happens.

I must point out that "it's just a game and noone gives a fuck about in-game consequences" is the laziest argument i've ever seen. What is even worse it pops up occasionally in a number of conversations. It annihilates the entire concept of HRP server and the principles by which it operates. We have rules for believable characters, we have CCIA, we have security that (contrary to certain people's beliefs) is not only there to validhunt. Removing an ICly reasonable tool that detective (or anyone for that matter) posesses just because they might abuse it is not the solution to the issue. People bring out anecdotes about bad detectives who shoot someone for no reason, while all you have to do is punish them for it. We have tonns of means to do that (ranging from security to CCIA and adminhelp). Instead of mechanically removing every possibility for people to make a mistake and calling it HRP, let them choose what they want to do with their character and suffer the consequences of it.

if you mean the bullets can penetrate the hull than it's not really true. You need to purposfully shoot out an entiremagazine into one section of wall in order to break it. two words: corporate espionage They investigate actual crime while IAA investigate [whatever they investigate]. They need a reliable mean to defend themselves that would cover for most situations (in the same way that officers' belt full of stuff covers for almost every situation), but they don't have a belt full of stuff so they need a universal tool. Which is a lethal gun

During an interview He can but they are sometimes ineffective. There's no room for error when you're working alone most of the time and can't expect support Because officer has a lot of other shit to do besides babysitting the detective. There are 4 officers for the entire station of 50+ people. An officer assigned to constantly tail the detective is a waste of resources again, it's the detective's literal JOB to directly interact with potentially dangerous and violent crewmembers alone. You'd think he would have to have a tool to reliably protect himself and dissuade the potential assailants from making a move Again. PACIFIED. You are interrorgating someone who has already been striped and brought to Security. You are in a room that is visible by cameras and has a mic in it. You should not be expecting to have to shoot this person in the chest lethally. As for "no room for error", why not give Officers .45 lethals then? After all, Officers usually operate alone and are coming in contact with these hostile persons before pacification. Sometimes you interrogate people who are already brought to security and stripped. Most of the time they're not. Half the time you are not even in interrogation. Even when you are there's almost never someone in observation looking at the monitors and listening to intercom. The thing is if officers had to beat the shit out of the suspect, strip him, cuff him and drag him to security there's no real need to interrogate him at that point. Besides, officers have better things to do than sitting in the interrogation through a 20 minute questioning As for officers getting lethals i never said i'm opposed to that. I actually would support that idea, it makes sense ICly. However even with rubber bullets officers are carrying an arsenal of tools with them while a detective only has what, a flash? So a gun needs to be able to cover for everything else

During an interview He can but they are sometimes ineffective. There's no room for error when you're working alone most of the time and can't expect support Because officer has a lot of other shit to do besides babysitting the detective. There are 4 officers for the entire station of 50+ people. An officer assigned to constantly tail the detective is a waste of resources again, it's the detective's literal JOB to directly interact with potentially dangerous and violent crewmembers alone. You'd think he would have to have a tool to reliably protect himself and dissuade the potential assailants from making a move

Yes, they shouldn't be able to use it. And the weight of a lethal chamber helps them in it. You're less likely to attack someone with a lethal weapon than someone with a non-lethal weapon (thus lowering the chance that the defender will have to use a gun to protect himself) and you're less likely use a lethal gun in a situation that doesn't warrant it (read non-emergency and detectives should not use them in a non-emergency). Officers are expected to actively interact with violent crewmembers (hence the less-than-lethal rubber bullets and lethals in the armory). Detective is expected to interact with violent crewmembers after they have already been pacified by the officer (hence the weight of the lethal rounds as a deterrant). Overall it's not the problem of the gun, it's a problem of poor conduct. So fight with poor conduct, not with the tools used as a part of it