Jump to content

Complaint - Conspire2Ignite


Recommended Posts

BYOND Key: SueTheCake

Staff BYOND Key: Conspire2Ignite

Reason for complaint: Contesting decision


Additional remarks:


I am here to contest Conspire's decision in this scenario, and to call to attention this line of thought, because I believe it to be a negative viewpoint; strongarming security into not using justifiable lethal force because of OOC concerns seems more in line with Baystation's motto, and I am loathe to see this sort of thing happen here. I do not have logs with me, but staff are more than capable of retrieving them by themselves, so if anything needs to be posted they can hopefully provide.


During a changeling round on FEB 22, between 6 to 7 PM central, murder victims were discovered on the mining outpost. All suspects except one were eliminated; only one person was with the victim, only one person had access to the victim, and only one person was in a position to commit the murder. That suspect was Imraj Brar, who was suspected of committing a felony with solid ground. While I was bringing the bodies back to mining, Brar was being accosted by an officer who had been ordered to arrest him. At this point, he attempted to flee arrest by forcing the airlock, sucking himself and I out into the vacuum. I pointed my revolver at him, the only weapon I had outside of a flash (which was not usable for obvious reasons) and ordered him to submit or lethal force would be used. His connection then dropped or something, and security eventually came back outside to arrest Brar.


Back in the airlock, the evidence is being moved, but someone cycles the airlock at an improper time. The external door is then forced, and both I and the suspect are once again flushed into a vacuum. Brar was cuffed, but immediately proceeded to attempt to escape. Having been warned that lethal force would be used against him previously, and with zero possibility security could get out there and stop him due to firelocks and cycling airlocks, I shot and killed him to prevent him from escaping into space and returning to commit further violent crimes against station personnel, as having been found out, he would have nothing left to lose.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.


The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).

 

Brar was warned that lethal force would be used against him. We had evidence that gave us more than a suspicion he was guilty of a crime that involved the infliction of serious physical injury, that being murder, and the lethal force was used to prevent the escape of the suspect in line with what would be considered justifiable homicide.

 

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--


1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,


2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,


3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

 

The application of lethal force was justified as far as the law is concerned. Brar was warned, he was suspected and charged - with good reason - of committing a violent felony, and he fled arrest and was then shot and killed. My original intent was to shoot him in the chest, but I had left the target on the head due to having to remove the helmet from a hardsuit earlier. Even still, in this scenario, I was legally justified to kill Brar; when contacted by admin staff, they did not point out a rule I had broken, but moreover simply said that 'killing people is the worse punishment', which it is. However, I argue, that any person who takes part in a violent capital crime on par with murder, such as rape or kidnapping or grand sabotage knowingly puts themselves in the line of fire from security. Officers should not be yelled at or penalized for making use of lethal force when it is in line with reasonable expectations of a law enforcement officer and isn't just about validkilling the antag; for example, allowing a serial bomber to escape can result in further civilian casualties, and as such lethal force should not be disbarred simply because 'ur takin da antag out of the round'. Antags who perform such high profile crimes should not be absolved from such a response due to OOC conerns.


Antags don't stop to think, and are not asked to stop and think by administration, 'what if killing the only security officer would make the round less impactful or make rp worse', yet security is held to a double standard and scorned when justifiable lethal force is applied. 'Why didn't you tase him, why didn't you flash him, why didn't you tase the guy with the .50 cal SMG?' This line of thought is, in my opinion, reprehensible, and we should not expect any character, antag, security, medical, or otherwise to use OOC information to affect IC affairs. Not arresting someone or asking someone not to kill someone because they're an antag is metagaming. Of course, I do not advocate walking up and lasering people for stealing a fork, but in this situation the usage of force was more than reasonable and justifiable and I disagree with the moderator's stance on this issue and feel that this mindset should not be encouraged or enforced due to the fact not only is it a double standard but it is stifling in general.

Link to comment

I know I shouted over general comms, "Get down or your brains will be blown out" or something, but it might have been while you were DC'd. You dropped when I told you to so I didn't think you weren't there. I'm sorry if you were actually disconnected.

Link to comment
I know I shouted over general comms, "Get down or your brains will be blown out" or something, but it might have been while you were DC'd. You dropped when I told you to so I didn't think you weren't there. I'm sorry if you were actually disconnected.

 

It's alright, but next time a restrained suspect is fleeing, you shouldn't try to blow his head off.

Link to comment
It's alright, but next time a restrained suspect is fleeing, you shouldn't try to blow his head off.

See, while I know that killings should generally be avoided in a reasonable effort to keep people in the round, there are some circumstances where it 100% makes sense to use lethal force on a suspect.


Let's look at the situation Sue described.


1. The killed character was the principal suspect in a murder case, with strong evidence against him, and was attempting to escape.

2. The suspect had a reasonable chance at escaping (getting vented into space with a hardsuit, no sec personnel around).

3. Only lethal force was available (detective doesn't have a taser, only revolver).


Given all of this, do you still think it wasn't appropriate to use lethal force against Imraj? If not, what do you think should have been the appropriate course of action, and why?

Link to comment
It's alright, but next time a restrained suspect is fleeing, you shouldn't try to blow his head off.

See, while I know that killings should generally be avoided in a reasonable effort to keep people in the round, there are some circumstances where it 100% makes sense to use lethal force on a suspect.


Let's look at the situation Sue described.


1. The killed character was the principal suspect in a murder case, with strong evidence against him, and was attempting to escape.

2. The suspect had a reasonable chance at escaping (getting vented into space with a hardsuit, no sec personnel around).

3. Only lethal force was available (detective doesn't have a taser, only revolver).


Given all of this, do you still think it wasn't appropriate to use lethal force against Imraj? If not, what do you think should have been the appropriate course of action, and why?

 

The appropriate course of action would be to fire at the suspect, yes, but to aim for the legs or foot to try and take him down. Not firing directly at his head.

Link to comment

The appropriate course of action would be to fire at the suspect, yes, but to aim for the legs or foot to try and take him down. Not firing directly at his head.

I agree with that. But the reason for the headshot has been said. Many a time people forget to change targeting back to the chest.

My original intent was to shoot him in the chest, but I had left the target on the head due to having to remove the helmet from a hardsuit earlier.

Also to continue on that what if the suspect continues to try and get away after being shot in the foot?

Link to comment

The appropriate course of action would be to fire at the suspect, yes, but to aim for the legs or foot to try and take him down. Not firing directly at his head.

 

If I may weigh in here, the act of firing a weapon using conventional ammunition is considered the use of lethal force, no matter what you're aiming at. There is no such thing as using a lethal weapon to nonlethally subdue a suspect or assailant; when you open fire on a target, you always, always SHOOT TO KILL.


Given that, I think Sue/Ana was perfectly justified in their actions, though they'd have a metric shit ton of paperwork to go through, not to mention a hearing.


That being said, I will agree that citing US law on the matter is rather irrelevant. Ana is not a real cop, she is a corporate security employee.

Link to comment

I think the case of citing real-life laws can help serve as an example of what kind of behavior is generally seen as acceptable or called for in situations where no in-game law or rule exists. Of course, the law has to make relative sense, both in-universe and for roleplay/fairness.


Corporate regs and SOP are exhaustive, but not that much so. Since there's little said about this specific situation in the in-game laws, referring to real-life law can be an effective guideline, as long as the law makes sense and doesn't directly go against the spirit of the game or any RP rules.

Link to comment

Alright. I was going to reply last night, immediately after I saw this was up. Then I thought to myself, "Conspire, you're annoyed. Go to sleep." I ended up writing this over the course of the day. I started just shy of noon, when I was still hungry. Saved this, turned it off, and took a walk with my lunch. Then I came back and wiped everything but the bare facts and started again. It's now half-past three. I feel like I've written an essay for my English AP class. But, it was asked for and I deliver my story unapologetically.


I will preface this by saying I was not watching the entire time. I'm not the omniscient Big Brother. I was actually in-game. What I knew of the situation came from those that were commenting on it and some of the mod logs I received. Every time I saw "Canon35 has logged out," I always hissed in sympathy. It was happening pretty often. I knew something was going on because MrImATool kept saying in LOOC "Hold on, he's disconnected" or "He fell SSD again, hold" or something to that effect. But I couldn't keep my eyes on every log as it happened. I'm getting better with noticing things, but it's taking time to learn if what I sift through should be placed in "IC thing" or "Accidental" or "Wait, what's that!"


My understanding of the situation is as follows:


Imraj Brar the Changling killed the HoP Michael Tool. I know of no other victim. I believe Brar killed the HoP with the use of a toolbox. I know the HoP was able to fire a few electrodes after a bit of fumbling. Tool said he was having some great RP, despite the fact Canon's potatonet was being extremely rough. Canon's 'net even cut out as they were fighting, but all action obviously had to come to a pause as best as was able. Anyway, the HoP ended up dead. I know the HoP's body was dumped into a disposals chute on the asteroid. Tool was even making jokes about it. I don't know how security found the body. I don't know about any evidence they have surrounding that. Apparently there was something about fingerprints? I don't know. We received an ahelp that the airlocks/firelocks at the mining outpost were acting up. I aghosted over. I had no idea what the hell they were doing and said as much to the other mods and admins, to no response. But the firelocks pulled back finally and I stopped aghosting, figuring the mechanics situation had righted itself and it was no longer a concern.


Now I did not catch this as it happened, but afterwards during the investigation: Enkas handcuffed Canon while he was SSD. That was investigated by Tish at the end of the round. My understanding is, Brar was told to drop and he did. It was actually SSD. I don't know if Tool said via LOOC "He's SSD" that time or not. The end result was they had the suspect handcuffed, mission accomplished for security. Except not really. Because Brar attempted to escape somehow. I won't lie and say I know how, I'll leave that to their sides of the story. All I know is suddenly there's logs of Ana shooting Imraj repeatedly. Not once. Not twice. Not even a "Shit, I had it still on the head target, let me fix that" amount of times. Maybe six or so? However many it takes to blow someone's head off with a revolver when they have a hardsuit helmet on.


You can say American law allows a police officer to fire on a suspect. I can say that British law only allows it if the suspect is an immediate threat to an officer or civilian. (My Criminal Justice teacher was pretty opinionated about his school vs cornfield argument: Is the felony suspect heading for the middle school? Fire. Heading towards miles of cornfield? Hold fire, call for backup because you have no reason to believe he is an immediate threat.)


Brar was handcuffed. He was in space. Reasonably, there's no reason to assume Brar would even survive if he ran off. He has a limited supply of air. Realistically, if he jumped off the asteroid into space, it's more likely he'd be drifting until he ran out of oxygen or was pulled into the gravity of a planet or star and died. Now, we all know it's more likely he would eventually hit the station. But how would anyone there know that? We throw around the word "meta" an awful lot. A lot of things we take for granted are "meta" but we don't actually see it that way because just how stupid are we expected to pretend to be?


Brar was still a handcuffed suspect with a limited supply of air in a vacuum. He was no threat to anyone in his current state. And he was killed for it. Not only killed, but as a changeling, permanently killed. This isn't the Code of Hammurabi with an eye for an eye. Though, if we're quoting real life laws, I'm rather fond of those ones. Had some good ideas, for being relatively primitive.


This use of extreme force raised my eyebrows. It raised Tool's eyebrows. It raised Scope's eyebrows. Tish said Ana was within her right to shoot because the asteroid is an uncontrollable environment. I can see how that argument can be made, except for the whole "Handcuffed. In space. Limited air" thing. Meowy said "That's just Sue."


It's the second one that worries me.


When I was still relatively new to Aurora, I saw Ana Issek go into the Operating Room and shoot the doctors and workers inside. I was horrified. I didn't know how she knew those people were dangerous or deadly or somehow a threat. Or how she knew everyone in the room was worthy of lasers to the face. Sue, you scare the shit out of me. I kind of cower every time you speak. I avoid your character on purpose because I'm afraid of what you'll do to me. I didn't even want to be the one to raise up this issue because I thought you would claw me in the face. And that's a problem. All this talk of "open community" and "friendly to new players" and here I am, been here several months now, and I'm afraid to hold a civil conversation with another player.


We talk to antags every time one of them goes over-the-top. Every. Single. Time. But it's something that goes unseen. Fades into the background. Security needs to be held to the same standard we hold our antagonists to. Just because you wear a badge does not mean you are always right. Because you have a lethal weapon does not give you the right to use it. And that goes for both sides, antag and security. Security has the added pressure of NanoTrasen's reputation. Imagine that. Front page of the Tau Ceti Daily, "Tajaran Officer Off the Rails! Shoots Handcuffed Suspect! NanoTrasen Under Pressure!"


So what have I accomplished here. Reading over it, looks like a whole lot of nothing. But I guess that's because I think it was kind of silly this was brought up in the first place. Yes, I do believe we need to have clearer regulations regarding the use of force. In fact, it would be a great thing to go into "General Orders" that Skull's been whipping up. But I don't feel like I personally wronged you in some way, just as I know you aren't making this complaint about me personally.


If we step back from the controversy of this entire incident, I gave you a warning for lethally shooting someone in the head and asked you to think before you shoot. Not checking where you're aiming? That's not thinking before you shoot.

Link to comment

Gonna bring a few points into this in an attempt to keep focus.

 

  • 1. @Conspire2Ignite, I know Sue can come off as abrasive generally, but she hasn't expressed any directed anger or frustration against you here, and I don't think she has something against you personally. Keep in mind admin complaints exist for whenever someone has a disagreement with a staff decision; this does not imply that they need to be about fighting, or pissed off users or staff. I simply think the attempt here is to bring light to the way staff are trying to direct roleplay on the server.



    2. We can 100% assume the attempt was to kill Imraj by using lethal force. The number of shots use or the targeted body part are irrelevant, as they only serve to prove Sue's objective was to kill.



    3. The question here is whether Sue was justified in killing her target or not.



    4. Both in universe and OOC, it would be safe to assume that a person drifting off from a large object would be able to affect their momentum to drift back towards said object once they had slipped the cuffs (by throwing them away, for example).



    5. Is it admissible, both ICly and OOCly, for a person to make the split-second decision of executing someone they know or strongly suspect to be a murderer rather than letting them escape?



    6. Should players be punished for, or asked OOCly to avoid making such a decision?

Link to comment

4. Both in universe and OOC, it would be safe to assume that a person drifting off from a large object would be able to affect their momentum to drift back towards said object once they had slipped the cuffs (by throwing them away, for example).

 

Quick OOC note: You cannot remove handcuffs while moving in any way. That includes drifting. You need to land against something first.


OOC effect - You drift until you hit something, slip your cuffs, then start making your way to a safe zone.

IC effect - You slip your cuffs while drifting, then throw things to make your to a safe area before you suffocate.

 

5. Is it admissible, both ICly and OOCly, for a person to make the split-second decision of executing someone they know or strongly suspect to be a murderer rather than letting them escape?

 

A bigger question, why is corporate security intentionally executing anyone (without tribunal or clear, obvious, hostile action)? The fallout from such an act, as they really are not a police force, would be tremendous and very expensive to NT. I would expect the company would be very quick to suspend or fire any officers that shot a handcuffed prisoner dead, regardless of intentions. Defending oneself or another is different and entirely admissable. However, in this case there were no other people at risk at all. I would imagine any non-corporate authorities would have a variable field day with the officer in question if any of this was brought to light. Likewise, I can't see NT Human Resources keeping an officer who is known to execute crew-members.

 

6. Should players be punished for, or asked OOCly to avoid making such a decision?

 

Security should really not, in my opinion, seek to remove players from the round. Shooting enough times to down a hostile is enough, especially if they are cuffed. (It is worse when I see people cuff corpses. Seriously folks? Why are you handcuffing a corpse that isn't a confirmed changeling? They aren't going to rise up and start shooting you.) A player who continues to shoot or beat someone who is downed clearly has an intent to kill, and should be spoken too about it if they have not cleared it with administration first.

 

All I know is suddenly there's logs of Ana shooting Imraj repeatedly. Not once. Not twice. Not even a "Shit, I had it still on the head target, let me fix that" amount of times. Maybe six or so? However many it takes to blow someone's head off with a revolver when they have a hardsuit helmet on.

 

This is probably where the line was crossed. Six intentional shots to the head, while a target was downed. It shows clear intent to kill and remove a player from the round. Only one of those hits is required to knock a target down, perhaps two if you have a long approach, with LtL rounds. With lethal rounds, two or three of those hits would be enough to put a target into crit through a hardsuit. Six? Excessive.

Link to comment

Alright. The way I see it, there's three options.


A) Sue was justified in lethally shooting a fleeing suspect. All security will be allowed to do this in the future.


B) Sue was not justified in lethally shooting a fleeing suspect. No security will be allowed to do this in the future.


C) The answer is somewhere in the murky middle. Perhaps justified in shooting but not lethally. Perhaps justified in shooting only because guilt was almost certain. Perhaps justified in shooting for x, y, or z. Some sort of circumstantial justification occurred.


Whatever the answer that is decided upon, I will help to that end. But I will act on antags and security and anyone else that may pop up equally. That was my aim when I talked to Sue. If an antag shot a fleeing hostage like that, we would be expected to talk to the antag and tell them that was wrong because of roleplay reasons. So, if it is okay for security to shoot escaping suspects with lethal intent, then nuke ops can shoot escaping victims with lethal intent, no remorse or intervention for either side.


I know I have a habit of seeing things in black and white. To me, what is good in one situation must then be good in all situations of similar type. This is creating one big double standard.

Link to comment

What Frances says is true; I have nothing against you, Conspire, I simply find it more productive and less annoying to move disagreements to the forums and simply agree with the administration on server and not argue to avoid any incidents. Since staff complaints are an open forum, my purpose here is not to insinuate you are bad at your job, or are stupid, or anything like that. I simply didn't agree with your ruling in the situation, and I don't purposely seek any punitive action or any big squabble fights over it. I just want to bring this to attention because, my impression, is lots of people seem to think security needs to be totally restrained even when it is logical to use lethal force. If people don't want to be taken out of a round they should not make decisions that lead to that. If I decide to take on three nuke ops by myself and die, that's my fault. If I decide to murder someone and get into a shootout with sec and end up dead, that's my fault.

 

C) The answer is somewhere in the murky middle. Perhaps justified in shooting but not lethally. Perhaps justified in shooting only because guilt was almost certain. Perhaps justified in shooting for x, y, or z. Some sort of circumstantial justification occurred.

 

I think this is the best choice here. Rather than viewing it as just 'Officer X shot fleeing suspect Y', the situations that led up to what happened are important. Brar was a man charged with murder. Standard capacity air tanks can have hours of oxygen, and Brar could affect his trajectory and return, still having his ID, and effect more violent crimes. Brar was warned previously. If it was an antag shooting a fleeing hostage that had stolen a special piece of equipment or had information that could effect their capture, then shooting them would perhaps be justified. A grey outlook when dealing with antagonist and security players, rather than 'killing people is bad' or 'mindless slaughter', and approaching each situation with a fresh slate and a desire to understand circumstances will lead to, in my opinion, better judgement. Just like in real life, regardless of American or English law, when an officer shoots a suspect, it isn't black and white. Outside factors play a major role. If a security guard lasered a guy to death because he thought he had a gun in his hand, but it turned out to be a cap gun, that could be justified. An officer lasering an assistant to death because he is bald isn't.


Just one last clarification, though.

 

This is probably where the line was crossed. Six intentional shots to the head, while a target was downed. It shows clear intent to kill and remove a player from the round. Only one of those hits is required to knock a target down, perhaps two if you have a long approach, with LtL rounds. With lethal rounds, two or three of those hits would be enough to put a target into crit through a hardsuit. Six? Excessive.

 

Target was not downed. On this server, the detective's revolver is a fully lethal weapon and does not possess either holodamage or knockdown. He was still running when he was killed. Further, when using a lethal weapon, you are not trained to incapacitate, if you ever have to shoot a suspect you are trained to shoot until he is dead.

Link to comment
Quick OOC note: You cannot remove handcuffs while moving in any way. That includes drifting. You need to land against something first.

Whoops. My bad on that, I didn't think this through.


That actually changes things a bit, though idk to which point. It's still safe to assume that he would've hit something at some point, being in an asteroid belt. Still looks like the call was made because of the /chance/ he might get away.

 

A bigger question, why is corporate security intentionally executing anyone?

Not executing someone. Using lethal force with no available alternative to disable a fleeing suspect.



 

Security should really not, in my opinion, seek to remove players from the round. Shooting enough times to down a hostile is enough, especially if they are cuffed.

This is where I'm going to agree. When I spoke to Sue and encouraged her to make this complaint, there is one detail she left out, which was the extent of the force that was used against Imraj. I'm not even going to look at it from an IC perspective, because OOCly, all players have a responsibility to not go apeshit when fighting with lethals. A few shots would've accomplished the same job of disabling the suspect without killing them right away, while still drastically reducing their chances at escape (you're going to get as far bleeding out outside a space station as you are inside of one). You wouldn't empty an entire clip into a fleeing suspect in a hallway after seeing several of your shots connect, so it's not really any better to do it here.


I would like to hear Sue's defense on that, although I'm willing to take a guess it has to do with security "letting antags get away on purpose".


To which I'll reply by asking whether we are playing to create an interesting narrative, or a believable one. There seems to be a line between believable and fun actions (which is the reason why we disallow "silent hitmen" type antags, although they might make the most sense ICly), and the crux of this issue remains to find out where on that line Sue's decision stood.




Edit: Sue ninja'd my post, but my question still stands. She elaborated a bit on what gave her IC justification to kill Imraj, but I would like to discuss the OOC side of such a playstyle, as it seems the main difference between shooting someone with lethals a few times and shooting them a bunch is that it takes them out of the round.

Link to comment

The problem arises in that the first time you are shot in the head in real life you are dead. It takes a single shot. In this game, it takes anywhere between six to twenty and then beyond.


The number of shots is really meaningless. I don't buy that 500 years in the future humans have evolved to the point where we shrug off bullets without a care. Six shots to kill is more like the one it takes in reality; I don't complain it takes so many, because 1 shot kills are utter crap, but take into consideration these game mechanics when talking about the number of shots. In reality, officers are trained to aim for center mass and continue firing until the suspect is down, at that point likely dead. Had I not been aiming at his head I would have kept shooting until he was down and or he died. I wouldn't need to have fired six shots, because being hit by one or two bullets is enough to trip up or wind most humans and he would have hit the floor due to the shock of being shot or any other number of things. That also isn't a thing in this game, for balance reasons.

 

That actually changes things a bit, though idk to which point. It's still safe to assume that he would've hit something at some point, being in an asteroid belt. Still looks like the call was made because of the /chance/ he might get away.

 

No it doesn't. In all logic you could slip your cuffs while drifting through space. Just because OOC mechanics don't allow it doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

 

This is where I'm going to agree. When I spoke to Sue and encouraged her to make this complaint, there is one detail she left out, which was the extent of the force that was used against Imraj. I'm not even going to look at it from an IC perspective, because OOCly, all players have a responsibility to not go apeshit when fighting with lethals. A few shots would've accomplished the same job of disabling the suspect without killing them right away, while still drastically reducing their chances at escape (you're going to get as far bleeding out outside a space station as you are inside of one). You wouldn't empty an entire clip into a fleeing suspect in a hallway after seeing several of your shots connect, so it's not really any better to do it here.


I would like to hear Sue's defense on that, although I'm willing to take a guess it has to do with security "letting antags get away on purpose".


To which I'll reply by asking whether we are playing to create an interesting narrative, or a believable one. There seems to be a line between believable and fun actions (which is the reason why we disallow "silent hitmen" type antags, although they might make the most sense ICly), and the crux of this issue remains to find out where on that line Sue's decision stood.

 

I don't agree. You predicted my response; cutting people slack because you OOCly know their role is metagame, and metagame is bad. And also, see previous point about a few shots. You can't compare the function of guns in reality to the guns in game. The laws of physics and how people react to being shot and all the things that make real guns dangerous don't apply to SS13. I've eaten like three .50 cal SMG rounds in the head and managed to limp away to be saved by medical while being conscious for at least three minutes, likely more if it wasn't due to the fact I was in a vacuum. Guns do not operate the same way at all. Seven shots, actually, is the minimum to drop someone, because above 150 damage paincrit sets in and you drop. .38 rounds do 20 damage per shot. Anything less than that and you can shrug off the damage for a few minutes.


I lean towards believability over interesting. Personally, I would rather there be zero antags and 24/7 extended with admin events and hand-picked antagonists working toward a server storyline where all gamemodes can occur and have continuity beyond 'welp back to hellhole #2'. However, in this situation, since I favor reasonable responses and believability over being incompetent to buy an hour of, what, space drifting? Then he comes back and is immediately caught and hallucinogen stings all of security? I chose to shoot Brar with justification to do so; yes, hitman type antags are awful, but being stealthy and being interesting aren't mutually exclusive. Being believable and being interesting aren't mutually exclusive. Were it not for the crew transfer, the HoS could have launched an investigation into the whole thing, as you typically do when an officer discharges their firearm. Get IAB involved; just like an antag killing someone to create RP, killing antags also can create RP. Seto said Brar was 'one of them', a changeling. He could have been MMI'd. His body autopsied and examined, giving science RP.

Link to comment
The problem arises in that the first time you are shot in the head in real life you are dead. It takes a single shot. In this game, it takes anywhere between six to twenty and then beyond.

 

The human body is much more resilient than you give it credit for. Apart from a very small triangle formed by the nose and eyes on your face or where your spine connects to your skull, shooting someone in the head will not instantly kill them - that's Hollywood for you. Granted, your chance of survival is drastically reduced because you will need medical treatment within mere moments, but in a world of autoinjectors, inaprovaline, and cryogenics, I can see someone recovering from a shot to the head with a fair chance of success.


That said, I'm about to deliver some harsh truth, Sue. I haven't seen your characters besides Ana, and I am fairly confident in saying that she is irrationally hostile to anyone who so much as disagrees with her, far beyond logic. An example is when Samuel Avalon dared to keep the revolver from the detective's closet - Ana demanded its return. Since Samuel and Ana's job titles were literally identical as "forensic technicians," there was no basis for the demand, but Samuel agrees to return it to the warden on his request. That's not good enough for Ana - she repeatedly sets Samuel's record to arrest despite the head of security ordering her to cease after fixing them multiple times and insists that she will arrest him, going as far as to point a taser at him ten full minutes after he'd already given the gun up and the records had been rectified.


Why did I just tell you all this story? The incident here is not an isolated one, but rather the end-result of a long string of extremely quick jumps to lethal violence for very little reason. I can understand Conspire's fear of hostility because, frankly, I'm loathe to interact with Ana myself. It's not that he himself is being targeted, but that there's a very long history of Ana flying off the handle and doing very irrationally violent and hostile things, and I'd love to see it settled with one of these Duty Officer reports we've been seeing more of.


tl;dr This is not an isolated incident, this is indicative of a trend with Ana.

Link to comment

Personally, I would rather there be zero antags and 24/7 extended with admin events and hand-picked antagonists working toward a server storyline where all gamemodes can occur and have continuity beyond 'welp back to hellhole #2'

Slightly Off Topic Stuff in spoiler:

... Wow.


Now not to get off-topic here. But there was a very similar server that did this before turning into a work and relationships simulator. The events they ran were boring and didn't include non-security and head sectors. The antags they picked were always within their circle of friends (and admins didn't actually extend forth to check if anyone else had the capability to fill in those slots).


The continuity of a highly long term server storyline was very intimidating to new people and people who weren't involved in said storyline were left out, especially civilian roles (that are kept out of the things, because, y'know, they've got to be protected). Old members grew bored of it eventually and started to fuck off. Once everyone had roleplayed their relationships and shit, things got boring and they SSD'ed. Eventually left the server and continued on with life. So if you need any potential hints of where that can go, there's it right there.

 

Now, I agree with admin events going on, I agree that believeability is important - but I think that the believeability you're drawing here isn't entirely balanced from both an IC point of roleplay, mixed in with gameplay mechanics that make the game actually fun.


Secondly, security are held to a different standard than antags because you're security. From an IC point of view, you're not the police, nor executioners. Killing is the last thing you'd want to do, it would look better from a legal standpoint if a suspect escaped than shot in the head several times. Besides, American law is the last thing you'd want to quote from all the damn corruption *cough*Ferguson*cough*.


That aside, I don't actually disagree with the idea that you shot the antag in the head, especially when crew safety is involved - except for one detail - your suspect is a suspect. Yes, you "narrowed" it down, but there was a possibility this person did not murder someone. Secondly, I assume Imraj was unarmed (remember, we're considering him a suspect, in your words) and does not pose an definite harm to you or people around him. However, if we want to return to American law we can limit to just this:

 

"In the United States, the use of deadly force is often granted to law enforcement officers when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man flaunting a firearm in a shopping mall without regard to the safety of those around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to protect others."

 

Still, even from your previous quotes of US law, from a gameplay perspective I don't believe you can kill someone because you suspect they might be a harm to others. You kill someone because they definitely could be a harm to others in a context applies to a cause where you can see a weapon or a source of harm in that situation - not on hypothetical or "to-be-investigated" matters. The gameplay here needs to be thought of.


The only time I could definitely say I would have supported the idea of you killing him is say, your character had gathered decent IC knowledge of changelings and saw him transform or do something ling-like in front of you so you'd have a definite reason to suspect him, and secondly, he's not human but a hostile lifeform on your station - I don't think the transhuman rights covers changelings but that's something for the lore to consider.


"I narrowed you down" is a nice idea if he were to escape, I understand the risk here but do understand that you're not just playing the game for you, it is the antag's game as well. You can't shoot him in the head asap just because you suspected him, that's basically given the okay to any officer during any round type to corner any potential antag they desire and murder them if they don't cooperate for any IC reason (which an antag is not going to do, because, they're an antag and there's no trials in this game).


All you'd have to do is point and click with hostage mode on and thing will progress that the person will probably be thrown in the permabrig with their round over. Overall, the problem here is that you didn't have non-lethals on you. You used lethals in a non-lethals situation, and that's why we're here.


Not really fair is it?

Link to comment

Butting in once again for two points.

 

  • 1. Sue was the detective, and as such only had the revolver at her disposition (as well as a flash that doesn't work against a hardsuit). Since the detective is not supposed to carry less-than-lethal equipment anyway, she did the best she could given the situation.



    2. The situation was one where Sue's character held a strong suspicion the suspect was a murderer, and after being warned force would be used against him, the suspect attempted to escape, which led to the only available force being used. This is hardly the same as security shooting anyone to death the moment they refuse to heed orders.

 

What would you suggest Sue should have done, and what would have been an acceptable IC reasoning for doing so? What made her reasoning unacceptable, ICly?

Link to comment

Uh, woah, well that changes things. Because I'm pretty sure Detectives aren't supposed to use their revolvers for anything other than arrests. Revolvers, to my knowledge are for self-defense as Detectives are placed in life-threatening situations due to their jobs. To be honest, back in the day revolvers used to stun-only but now they're lethal.


If I were detective I would not have tried this situation, that situation is for a security officer not a detective (though I could be wrong since the server doesn't seem to have a wiki entry for detective, correct me if I am wrong).


A detective's duties are as follows:

  • Patrol for any crimes, and call security to the scene. Then you can do the forensics.
  • Be a general assistant to Security.
  • Use the camera terminal in your office to scan the station - it looks like an old-fashioned TV. Look around for any crimes, then report it over the Security channel or head over there yourself. It's probably not a good idea to announce it over the general radio, or the criminal in question will usually realise that you're onto them and get away.
  • Update the security records. This is meant to be the Warden's job, but you'll be hard pressed to see him actually doing that.

 

The security officer should have been ordering the arrest (if possible) and the detective is not supposed to be doing arrests or calling the shots on what to do with a potential suspect. The detective is supposed to notify a security officer of potential suspects and leave security to do their business.


The reason why the mess happened is because Ana was operating from a job that was not suitable for the task, hence, she was not equipped with the necessary equipment to warrant an apprehension of a fleeing suspect (ie: non-lethal force). I wouldn't ask a bartender with his shotgun to do this situation, and neither should a detective (even if detectives are assigned under the sec department, and bartender shotguns aren't lethal).


Lastly, Ana, being a detective is not a security officer (or police, if we wish to bring in American law) and should not ever use her revolver in situations which isn't direct self defense to her or any nearby personnel. Even if we were to use the American law thing Sue posted, it wouldn't even apply to her because she wasn't a security officer (nor actual police) and it was not her authorization or clearance to do that.

Link to comment
tl;dr This is not an isolated incident, this is indicative of a trend with Ana.

 

I'm going to have to agree with this here. While this particular incident may have been justified due to circumstances, Ana is probably the most hostile character on the server, and one of the least approachable. No matter what character I'm using, I'm expecting a 50/50 chance that my face will be clawed off whenever I see her due to what I've seen and what I hear of what she's done.


Not to say she's a bad character, or that Sue is bad, that is. It's just that a super angry catlady with a gun would make anyone nervous.

Link to comment

OOC mechanics of being shot at with a revolver as I understand them are as follows.

 

Suspect thinks, Damn, I have to try to get away!

Detective thinks, If he runs, I'll shoot him until he's down!

The suspect tries to run. The Detective starts shooting.


One shot


Suspect thinks, OH SHIT


Two shots


Suspect thinks, DROP TO THE GROUND!


Three shots


Suspect tries /rest


Four shots


Suspect waits the few seconds it takes for /rest to kick in


Five shots


Six shots


Suspect is dead.

 

OOC mechanics for shooting are also extremely accurate. There is no "Damn, I missed" or "My hand is shaky, I couldn't hit him." It's almost a guarantee you'll hit where you shoot.

Link to comment

Have to chime in here, because Conspire shouldn't be the one who has the complaint against him. It was me and Scopes that were the ones that had assessed the situation and given our verdicts, then we asked for a mod to carry out the task as is expected. Conspire poor guy has had to defend himself when really it was me and Scopes.


Scopes checked logs and I was observing during. I do think that maybe Sue shooting had a bit of validity, but the problem is, Sue. You've got a history of using lethal force when not necessary, Conspire was only trying to explain to you that it's not acceptable to use lethal force without permission from a tribunal or an official unless your life was in danger. Another point is the detective is not to use their weapon unless in Self defence, the criminal was fleeing, how does shooting prove anything but getting the detective fired for manslaughter of a crewmember without 100% evidence? Because yes, that's the kind of proof you need if you want to end someone's life the other thing I'd like to bring up is that if someone less known or vocal than Sue did this then they'd be severely punished. I'd understand if Sue were a new player without experience of situations like this, however, Sue is an experienced Roleplayer yes? And an experienced server member yes? Then Sue should know better.


Scopes and I were also discussing that this kind of shoot first ask questions later kind of behaviour especially from security is really starting to become commonplace and really ruins any real chances of non-chair RP that's not what we want, right?


Just one last note - I have nothing against any of the people involved I just think we, as role players should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...