On the subject of security

[Guest]

My problem with security comes from the fact that security players seem to have a tendency to pursue greentext, and then argue that powergaming is justified because it was reasonable.

Stabbing someone with a parapen and silently stabbing them to death in a maintenance hallway, then running away as soon as possible after making the body unrecoverable is also a reasonable thing an Assasin would do, but it is still something which would get you antag banned.

Roleplay isnt taking the most realistic approach to any given situation, it should be about taking the most fun approach to any given situation.

If you're dealing with an armed traitor shooting people to death, by all means fight for your greentext, your opponent is doing it too. However, if you interrupt a traitor who actually put some effort in whatever gimmick he's running, by hitting him in the face with a throwbaton while he's twirling his mustache, you're just hunting for greentext.

I remind you that the station isn't real, the work done on it disappears after every round, and the people on station are imaginery. There will be no long term consequences to security letting the antag do his thing for a bit before rolling in and stuncuffing him.

[VoltageHero]

My problem with security comes from the fact that security players seem to have a tendency to pursue greentext, and then argue that powergaming is justified because it was reasonable.

Stabbing someone with a parapen and silently stabbing them to death in a maintenance hallway, then running away as soon as possible after making the body unrecoverable is also a reasonable thing an Assasin would do, but it is still something which would get you antag banned.

Roleplay isnt taking the most realistic approach to any given situation, it should be about taking the most fun approach to any given situation.

If you're dealing with an armed traitor shooting people to death, by all means fight for your greentext, your opponent is doing it too. However, if you interrupt a traitor who actually put some effort in whatever gimmick he's running, by hitting him in the face with a throwbaton while he's twirling his mustache, you're just hunting for greentext.

I remind you that the station isn't real, the work done on it disappears after every round, and the people on station are imaginery. There will be no long term consequences to security letting the antag do his thing for a bit before rolling in and stuncuffing him.

 

This is an issue I personally don't like either, and something I can actually agree with. Being Security, it's always an iffy situation when it comes to antags.

I for one don't like the use of flashbangs because "it's realistic" during hostage RPs. That always ends up the the antag annoyed, and them less willing to try and actually RP as antags.

That said, and antag only has a few chances to actually get out of things. Security shouldn't hand the antag a win. It still should be difficult for an antag to win, because that's the point of antag. It's not supposed to be too easy.

Antags also get annoyed in LOOC whenever they lose, which is kinda silly in my opinion.

[Guest]

It's not supposed to be too easy.

 

I know what you mean. I often see this happen in cult mode.

The cult either gets destroyed half an hour into the round by security busting down on every department and loyalty implanting all the cultists, or security completely ignores the cult out of what I assume is fear of being accused of P2W, which ends up with the cult winning with no resistance from security's side.

However, every once in a while we get what I'd consider the perfect cult round, both security and the cult fight each other with neither faction getting prematurely annihilated, untill it all culminates into one massive showdown.

I dislike how things with Antags and Security seem to swing between what i'd consider two different types of bad. Cant we think of some sort of compromise that makes both sides happy?

[Guest]

You know, it's almost never antagonists I'm ever concerned with as security. It's the people that are not antags that I'm watching.

I personally have not really cared about dealing with antagonists up until the point where they start killing, looting or yelling "i got GRENADE." As soon as they get violent, I put them down. Because it makes sense from a gameplay perspective.

An antagonist doesn't have to be violent 24/7 to make the round interesting, lol. It's honestly disappointing that changelings go for the blade arms and then start complaining in LOOC that they got taken in custody by security for it. I mean, what did you really expect?

There's easier, subtler, and otherwise more fun ways to interact with the crew as an antagonist without even dealing out or receiving a single blow.

[Frances]

I'm going to suggest something absolutely revolutionary.

But.

Maybe we should judge security on the quality of their RP.

Here's two examples. The first is a corrupt security officer. They keep one of a prisoner's belongings, pretending they have never seen said item, or ask for a bribe in exchange for a reduced sentence ("perhaps I can let you off the hook, if you do me a... favor.") The second example is a security officer who constantly enforces the rules without question, gives maximum prison sentences, and arrests people by flashing them no matter what.

They're both doing a terrible job from an IC standpoint. But the difference between them is that officer A is contributing worthwhile roleplay (as long as their shittiness is executed realistically and organically), while officer B does essentially nothing.

Officers acting like they're concentration camp guards and the station is full of Jews obviously don't belong. But if the abuse is entertaining and thought-out, I think it should have its place on the server. The problem that stems from that is that security might eventually end up with *too* many abusers, but a combination of OOC-disciplining the ones that do nothing but be annoying, and ICly dealing with those that create RP (now that DOs exist) should hopefully be able to bring a good balance.

The only problem I have is people that are being consistently bad (even if their characters are cool!). I'm not really sure what DOs are supposed to do, but I've seen people flagrantly break workplace regulations every day for months (Phoebe's creepy-ass comments over comms, Roy's constant tantrums), and these sort of situations seem to go on unchecked. It might be the same thing in security, and perhaps it's time to crack down on those people ICly.

 

---

---

tl;dr I think people should be allowed to be bad (if they execute it well), but they currently don't seem to be facing any lasting IC consequences for doing so.

PS: I've got no issue with security trying their best to come out on top of a situation. Your 85 year old captain in a wheelchair should probably not run around guns blazing, but your run-of-the-mill spessman perfectly has the rights to be as robust as they can. This is a SS13 server, not kindergarten.

[Erik Tiber]

I'm going to suggest something absolutely revolutionary.

But.

Maybe we should judge security on the quality of their RP.

Here's two examples. The first is a corrupt security officer. They keep one of a prisoner's belongings, pretending they have never seen said item, or ask for a bribe in exchange for a reduced sentence ("perhaps I can let you off the hook, if you do me a... favor.") The second example is a security officer who constantly enforces the rules without question, gives maximum prison sentences, and arrests people by flashing them no matter what.

They're both doing a terrible job from an IC standpoint. But the difference between them is that officer A is contributing worthwhile roleplay (as long as their shittiness is executed realistically and organically), while officer B does essentially nothing.

Officers acting like they're concentration camp guards and the station is full of Jews obviously don't belong. But if the abuse is entertaining and thought-out, I think it should have its place on the server. The problem that stems from that is that security might eventually end up with *too* many abusers, but a combination of OOC-disciplining the ones that do nothing but be annoying, and ICly dealing with those that create RP (now that DOs exist) should hopefully be able to bring a good balance.

The only problem I have is people that are being consistently bad (even if their characters are cool!). I'm not really sure what DOs are supposed to do, but I've seen people flagrantly break workplace regulations every day for months (Phoebe's creepy-ass comments over comms, Roy's constant tantrums), and these sort of situations seem to go on unchecked. It might be the same thing in security, and perhaps it's time to crack down on those people ICly.

 

---

---

tl;dr I think people should be allowed to be bad (if they execute it well), but they currently don't seem to be facing any lasting IC consequences for doing so.

Yeah, I agree with both this and the OP. The problem is that people are being blatant about being bad, when really they should at least put in minimal effort to keep up appearances. Plausible deniability at the least.

[VoltageHero]

Another thing that was noted in another thread, is that it helps people actually give good feedback to departments like Security, if you play a few shifts there. A lot of people who are strongly against Security ( although not saying people in this thread are ), have never played a shift as security, ever. This same reason is why I try to avoid being too harsh on Engineering.

I just want to make this point, before this thread gets too far in. It's kind of hard to say much about a deparment, if your only experience is on the outside.

[josh1133]

I'm going to suggest something absolutely revolutionary.

But.

Maybe we should judge security on the quality of their RP.

Here's two examples. The first is a corrupt security officer. They keep one of a prisoner's belongings, pretending they have never seen said item, or ask for a bribe in exchange for a reduced sentence ("perhaps I can let you off the hook, if you do me a... favor.") The second example is a security officer who constantly enforces the rules without question, gives maximum prison sentences, and arrests people by flashing them no matter what.

They're both doing a terrible job from an IC standpoint. But the difference between them is that officer A is contributing worthwhile roleplay (as long as their shittiness is executed realistically and organically), while officer B does essentially nothing.

Officers acting like they're concentration camp guards and the station is full of Jews obviously don't belong. But if the abuse is entertaining and thought-out, I think it should have its place on the server. The problem that stems from that is that security might eventually end up with *too* many abusers, but a combination of OOC-disciplining the ones that do nothing but be annoying, and ICly dealing with those that create RP (now that DOs exist) should hopefully be able to bring a good balance.

The only problem I have is people that are being consistently bad (even if their characters are cool!). I'm not really sure what DOs are supposed to do, but I've seen people flagrantly break workplace regulations every day for months (Phoebe's creepy-ass comments over comms, Roy's constant tantrums), and these sort of situations seem to go on unchecked. It might be the same thing in security, and perhaps it's time to crack down on those people ICly.

 

---

---

tl;dr I think people should be allowed to be bad (if they execute it well), but they currently don't seem to be facing any lasting IC consequences for doing so.

Yeah, I agree with both this and the OP. The problem is that people are being blatant about being bad, when really they should at least put in minimal effort to keep up appearances. Plausible deniability at the least.

 

Easier said then done, for example take my last torture of a prisoner. Being one of the more well known abusive officers, I have learned to cover my tracks pretty well. I've had a engineering friend cut cameras to the cells so I couldn't be caught at CC, called in favors, etc.

In my last scenario a man had killed Kate McMullen because he wanted to test a new gun out and she didn't agree to be the subject or something. Point is, he stabbed her with a few poles and she bled out. Seeing the man taunt security about his kill, I called in a few favors. The warden looked the other way while the Detective in RP stood in front of the camera as I beat the man until my character felt satisfied, I left followed by the detective and removed my bloody armor before coming into view of any cameras. The detective waited a bit after my departure so that I had some deniability in the matter, and taking Maintenon I washed the jumpsuit and armor in the shower. The three of us then separated where I went to the medical lobby, and decided to call in that the man was hurt. (( curse my inability to remove someone from the round without feeling bad)), and was met by Vira and Ana who know Cartons history well asking him not if he did it, but what he did. While he doesn't abuse prisoners much anymore, and I guess has some deniability, it was clear he did it and he made a flimsy excuse for the pair as he knew they had no real evidence besides what they thought and a crazy guy who murdered someone with poles word against him. Even medical made a comment about it.

Sorry, turned into story time but point is, you can cover your tracks well but if people know you are not a nice guy they will still know it was you, or in rare cases when a prisoner kills themselves and you find them they may blame you for murder too.

[Susan]

Flashbangs aren't ganking. Shooting armed people isn't ganking. I am still of the opinion allowing OOC information (that being the player is an antag) affect IC behavior is metagaming. What everyone seems to be suggesting is that hostage situations should be a hands-down instant win for antagonists and security is never justified ever to do anything except be super polite to Mr. Antag and give him everything he wants and never consider any other responses because people will cry of gank.

If there is antagonist with a revolver, and he is shooting at me and or others, what is wrong with shooting him? If negotiations fail in a hostage situation, what is wrong with responding with force? If the antag is actively a threat to innocent people, why can't I shoot him? Antags have shot at me before unprovoked simply because I am security. That is a double standard.

Antagonist or not, everyone should be treated the same and fairly. Just because someone is a traitor doesn't mean we should pretend they don't exist to foster fun, interesting [citation needed] roleplay.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

except be super polite to Mr. Antag and give him everything he wants and never consider any other responses because people will cry of gank.

 

You have a really bad habit of ratcheting proposals to tone down security up to like, 11.

 

If there is antagonist with a revolver, and he is shooting at me and or others, what is wrong with shooting him?

 

Nothing. No one is arguing that you can't. The problem is that hostage situations are ruined by the station forces, because only the antagonists have a reason to care for their safety. The only way to keep hostages safe as antagonists is to get them away from security. This is an RP server, you don't get to wordlessly run in with a flashbang or snipe them from across the map before attempting negotiations.

 

If there is antagonist with a revolver, and he is shooting at me and or others, what is wrong with shooting him? If negotiations fail in a hostage situation, what is wrong with responding with force?

 

You have a CSI agent that snipes antagonists from across the map, and you haven't had character complaints or incidents reports (that I know of), so I don't know why you're on the defensive here, you shoot/execute people in droves with no repercussions.

 

Antags have shot at me before unprovoked simply because I am security. That is a double standard.

 

It depends, but mostly you're right. Case by case basis.

[VoltageHero]

Flashbangs aren't ganking. Shooting armed people isn't ganking. I am still of the opinion allowing OOC information (that being the player is an antag) affect IC behavior is metagaming. What everyone seems to be suggesting is that hostage situations should be a hands-down instant win for antagonists and security is never justified ever to do anything except be super polite to Mr. Antag and give him everything he wants and never consider any other responses because people will cry of gank.

 

Nobody said that.

What is silly is that security often times don't really care if a hostage has a gun pointed at them, a sword to their neck, or is right front of their target.

Why? Because we have a flashbang. Just toss it in there, and close the door. Boom, antag is down, you win.

Is that gank? No. Is it fun? Yes, but only for security. Hell, even the person who was being taken hostage may have their fun ruined by a "lolflashbang".

People refuse to actually speak to an antag with a hostage, if there is a "way to end the situation". When a person takes somebody hostage, a good deal of the time, they have sort of RP planned for this. Cutting their RP short is not only a rude thing to do, it's even more-so to say "well, they should have known it would happen".

That's basically telling the person, "if you attempt to take a hostage, you're always going to be arrested with little to no RP, so why bother," then that person goes and kills somebody, and suddenly LOOC is full of arguments about if it was justified or not.

You have taken a situation out of context, and decided to go to an extreme, and take offense to a subject. People should be stopped, yes. They're entitled to at least a little RP though, before they get flashbanged and cuffed, which next-to-never happens, when flashbangs are used. Am I saying never use flashbangs? No. I am saying, don't just run in, flashbang, cuff, then get upset when people call you out.

[Dreamix]

What I feel worth adding to the discussion: When playing security and when you want to roleplay with 'antag', you don't have any guarantee that he will care about your "What are you doing here?" or "/me looks at antag, suprised" and that he won't just shoot you before you are even done typing that.

As I am not playing antag roles (because I apparently have problems with antagging, ), I think antagonist 'ganking' is a issue, because they have no guarantee that the person they want to RP a murder on has no "; Help me, Im murdered by..." ready to copy-paste-enter.

[VoltageHero]

What I feel worth adding to the discussion: When playing security and when you want to roleplay with 'antag', you don't have any guarantee that he will care about your "What are you doing here?" or "/me looks at antag, suprised" and that he won't just shoot you before you are even done typing that.

As I am not playing antag roles (because I apparently have problems with antagging, ), I think antagonist 'ganking' is a issue, because they have no guarantee that the person they want to RP a murder on has no "; Help me, Im murdered by..." ready to copy-paste-enter.

 

Yep, this goes hand-and-hand with the above statements.

Antags have their own share of no-RP, where people just go around killing. This isn't acceptable by any means either, and is part of why a good deal of Security members are less out to RP with antags.

[Frances]

People are expected to provide a minimum of RP, thus the ideal course of action is to play assuming they will roleplay, and adminhelp if they gank you out of the blue.

Of course, there's a difference between ganks, and the ERT/nuke ops running at each other with guns. In the latter scenario, silly things such as yelling at each other to drop their weapons before shooting is not mandatory.

[fate/nermul]

So, because I feel that a lot of the conflict is caused by the following questions not being answered, I think a lot of the discussion and debate around security can be solved with the following questions being answered, preferably by admins but discussion is fine too:

1. Is good security RP-focused or OOC focused?

(Explanation: Well, I am already aware security is there to combat antags, and deter workplace regulations being broken, sometimes deal with griefers (I personally think they shouldn't have to). But the question is asking if security is RP-focused - IE: Round events and victory outcomes don't impact on ability as sec officer, but rather the ability to roleplay an interesting security officer, or OOC-focused on keeping the round 'clean'. Or both? Is security judged by how well they can catch crooks or shoot a gun?

Take this analogy: On a HRP server, is a bartender skilled at the amount of recipes the player can make from memory, and how fast they can make a drink? Or how much of an RP-creating service person they roleplay as?)

2. Security vs. antags. Play to kill the antag or play to make an interesting and unpredictable drama?

2a. How serious is security ganking vs antag ganking?

3. When can security come off patrol?

(In this regard, sounds very boring to do this every round with minimal interaction. Especially during extended. *shudder*)

4. Should security be allowed to verbally abuse crewpeople?

(I understand this is an RP server, and also in real life you get security officers/police who are verbally abusive even though it would be in their job description specifically not to arouse more fear/anger on the station. My complaint is that abusive sec is not actually RP'ed, or just isn't RP'ed well, and it's not kept "secret" or, "under wraps" like how real corrupted people act. and if their commander like the HoS or Captain is nearby they don't blink an eye. More realistically, they would flinch and say "Excuse me, Powells, that is a violation of 'Conflict Management', where did you get your licence?".

All in all, not limiting freedom, but I'm just asking for the above to be taken in consideration. Security is infamous for provoked and unprovoked verbal assaults, at this point it's not OOC'ly enjoyable or funny, here's an example:

 

------ (follow) says, "Fucking bitch caught my baton with her teeth."

------ (follow) says, "Heheheh."

------ (follow) says, "Whore."

 

I don't wish to name names since this is a systematic example and not an attack on a specific individual. But yes, can security do that?)

5. Are players OOC'ly allowed to commit crimes (within reason)?

{I don't mean to not get arrested because that's fine, I mean the OOC'ly outlook - are they allowed? I'm not talking about robbing the vault, or being clownish in general. I am talking about the minor-regulation testing employee you see in your regular workplace, maybe the one who climbs over the bar table for a drink with their friendswhen the bartender is SSD, or RP'ed barfights, or the person who ties a cable coil to a coin to get those premium cigars from the vending machine, etc. Harmless fluff crimes. )

Thanks.

 

I'm gonna throw my 2 cents in

1 RP Focused if you ask me

Most of this game is RP, and so should security, we're a RP server so yeah, plus also Security isn't a miniature moderator too, they should just act like they're in some Cop TV show. they RP a lot and they do they're job while RPing

2 Well I think both,

The first response with a antag is to engage Police RP with him and have fun for both sides but if lets say,

the antag is just playing to win. like a TPing Wizard who does nothing but TP around and TP then go ahead and get your Shotguns in' Lazurs

2a

good question. I say about the same usually, I lack a lot of evidence to answer this question though since I haven't exactly seen Security in action very much

3

They should only go off patrol if they were told to or had some IC reason to, like to catch a criminal the officer really really hates ICly or the officer has been working all shift and he is so lazy that he wants to go to the bar or something ICly

4

I believe security officers should be allowed to engage in this kind of RP but it should be Subtle, like for an example instead of blaring insults infront of your boss (which can and probably Will get you fired IRL) be really subtle or wait until your boss is gone like for an example

Joe is in jail. Jeff is a cop who really has a bone to pick with Joe, Jasmine is the Hos

like this.

Jasmine: Alrighty good job jeff. now see you later

Jasmine leaves

Jeff turns to Joe

Joe: Hey bud. come at me now.

Jeff: I'm in jail joe piss off.

Joe: Ha ha Loser. not so tough with your cuffs, Jasmine is also a stupid bitch

Instead of this

Jasmine: Alrighty good job jeff.

Joe: Ha ha loser not so tough with your cuffs

Jasmine: Shut up Jeff or you'll be in prison too

Joe:shut up boss. Jasmine is also a stupid bitch

Jasmine flashed joe!

Jasmine: THATS IT YOUR GOING IN A JAIL WITH HIM!

Jasmine has handcuffed joe!

the Latter is very bad. a real officer wouldn't do that stuff in front of his boss and he would probably be fired, the first is very good and very planned, kinda similar to Unbound's Racism RP

5

Yep go ahead, the regular workplace always has one or two people whos always Messing around and getting in trouble, also it will give Security more of a Blurred line whenever they see a imprisoned person, so they don't immediately think

oh this dudes probably a traitor

since Antags are always the people commiting crimes

Also what happens when all the antags or caught? dead or SSD? or maybe all at once. Whats security going to fight now?

[Vanagandr]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|-------------------------------------The Tator's Dilemma------------------------------------|

|------OGOD A GUN------|--------Tator shoots first----------|-----Tator arr-pees------|

|Shitcurity shoots first |-----may the robustest man win--|--GG no re enjoy nofun -|

|Shitcurity arr-pees----|------*ahelp halp gank ban he-----|------------FUN!------------|

Obviously FUN! is the best option, but Glory to the Robust is infinitely preferable to being locked up and iGGNoRed in some dank cell, and if you aren't sure if the security in question are going to behave like Susan or not, it's safest to stunheadsetcablecuff first and arr-pee once you've dragged them somewhere quieter.

[Jakers457]

If anything, I'm starting to avoid security. No one will be happy with whatever decision you make, sure you might provide good rp for one party but not the other. I've found myself sitting around as a carcass because I gave antags breathing room. All I can say is if you haven't played Security, do so, on a messy round too.

[VoltageHero]

All I can say is if you haven't played Security, do so, on a messy round too.

 

This, again. I cannot stress this enough.

[Cassie]

Phew, how to put this? Hmm... okay.

Just because someone identifies and points out flaws of security does not mean they are oblivious to how hectic and dysfunctional the game is to security and/or has not played as one. I've played sec on here quite a few times (I'm not fond of the role any more), and I only play during peak hour due to timezones so I know how messy it can get. Believe it or not, I played security for ages on Hypatia before coming here - Hypatia has more grief and nonsense (as well as disorganization) than Aurora, and at one point I came close to being the shitcurity I criticize today. My flaws were not listening to the people I arrested (like even to check if the person was innocent because I was too busy going to arrest the next dubiously 'uninnocent' person), taking the side of more respectable job positions, assistant prejudice, and allowing other sec members to do questionable things (like electrochair or laser people who were just doing the crime of being verbally rude).

That can be associated with some people here - however! With time, I just grew out of it. Reason is I just changed my perspective and motive on playing the game, I believe I just lost the ideals of keeping a station... crime free? Overall when it comes to security, chill. Lay back. It's a game. Especially when I've seen security overreact to small regulation breaks, I'm thinking "Mate yes, it's written in the books. But pick your battles smart on this one if you have more serious stuff to follow up on.", and there's no need to be stressed. Unless the floor is literally coated with blood, everything is tg/goon tier, chaotic, no RP hospitable environment, and the station is about to blow up, it will be okay (OOC'ly) if you don't catch them all. It's not Pokemon.

[Frission]

Especially when I've seen security overreact to small regulation breaks, I'm thinking "Mate yes, it's written in the books. But pick your battles smart on this one if you have more serious stuff to follow up on.", and there's no need to be stressed. Unless the floor is literally coated with blood, everything is tg/goon tier, chaotic, no RP hospitable environment, and the station is about to blow up, it will be okay (OOC'ly) if you don't catch them all. It's not Pokemon.

 

Amen to that.

[Jakers457]

Phew, how to put this? Hmm... okay.

Just because someone identifies and points out flaws of security does not mean they are oblivious to how hectic and dysfunctional the game is to security and/or has not played as one.

 

And I said, if you haven't played Security. Wasn't accusing everyone complaining of not having experience in Security.

I was merely inviting a group of people to a different perspective, not an attack to anyone.

But my original point is, at the end of the day. Not everyone will be happy with how Security reacts. Some will be pissed because they felt like Security ignored their plea for help, or perhaps they will be pissed because they felt Security overreacted. You can't make the round fun for everyone, that's the nature of Security.

I also feel Security on Aurora isn't that bad compared to most servers. Now speaking from a perspective of an antag where I've been caught raiding vaults, partaking in revolutions and homicide. I've also found brig time to be enjoyable for what it is, I've had corrupt Officers abuse my characters for what they are or what they did and sometimes I see acts of compassion where the Warden would offer consul to the unfortunate criminal and help them overcome whatever IC reasons they had for committing the act.

The biggest issue is, when Security attempts to give breathing room for antags, they either get killed off or get the crew angry. If the antags round shouldn't be cut off short, then neither should an Officers. When they meet in a dark alley, it's about which one of them makes the right call not who has the most enhancing roleplaying experience to date. Yes, there have been hostage situations that get ganked but then I've seen hostage situations poorly executed and they usually hold up in some insecure area. But what do you think happens in reality? They don't really turn out well for the criminals. Sure, the Security must take an IC mindset of the hostage's livelyhood but then the antag should take an IC mindset of 'am I making the right call.'

What should make the round interesting with antags, is not if the antags should have room to move around and cause havoc but making the right call between life and death. The adrenaline of being in a tight situation. If you get caught early in the round sucking a protohuman/crew member into a husk, sucking blood from people or carrying around a lethal firearm then you've fucked up, you made the wrong call and that's the consequence. It's supposed to be an incredibly expensive research station.

But on the topic of minor crimes, we should change the SoP from two minute sentences to fines. Yes, fining people for littering or harassing another crew member. Anything below a medium crime shouldn't really be arrest worthy unless the person stupidly makes a runner.

Sorry for the typos and such, I tend hammer out a post before the good old editorial check.

[VoltageHero]

Overall when it comes to security, chill. Lay back. It's a game.

 

See, now this applies to people who are against Security as well. People want security to do a lot, then will go on rants if they get arrested or something bad happens to them. That's an issue, not just related to departments. I find it funny how people will be die-hard Security supporters, but the moment they get arrested, it's suddenly "security is terrible" and all that. This is not applying to any certain player, so please do not take this out of context, and act as if you are being targeted, to whoever may want to do that.

People, a lot of times, as I've said before, want Security to be their ideal police-force, never actually inching off this straight line. As soon as they do, threads like this blow up.

Now, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to give Security feedback. What I don't like is how much of the playerbase wants to be able to do whatever they want, but Security can not. If people want to hold Security to a "professional" standard, every department and character should have to be under these same guidelines. You don't get to pick and choice who falls under a watchful eye, and without a doubt, can't exempt yourself if you're calling out others.

As Jakers stated, the entire playerbase will never be one-hundred percent supportive of Security, because that's how it is. People have different ideals, and ideas of good Security RP. Everybody wants their ideal to be everybody else's as well.

And to the "it's okay if there is no blood or death" to ignore a crime issue you raised up, no. This is telling people it's cool to go bust open windows, or go run into other people's departments. There are quite a good deal of crimes under regulations, that still need to be taken care of. Just because it isn't "chaos" doesn't make it okay to break regs.

[Erik Tiber]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|-------------------------------------The Tator's Dilemma------------------------------------|

|------OGOD A GUN------|--------Tator shoots first----------|-----Tator arr-pees------|

|Shitcurity shoots first |-----may the robustest man win--|--GG no re enjoy nofun -|

|Shitcurity arr-pees----|------*ahelp halp gank ban he-----|------------FUN!------------|

Obviously FUN! is the best option, but Glory to the Robust is infinitely preferable to being locked up and iGGNoRed in some dank cell, and if you aren't sure if the security in question are going to behave like Susan or not, it's safest to stunheadsetcablecuff first and arr-pee once you've dragged them somewhere quieter.

I see what you did there.

[Guest]

Honestly, I don't like where this thread is going anymore.

Non-sec regulars are now telling sec regulars how to do their job. Like, ok.

Actually, you know what. Unless you have sufficient enough experience on both sides and a decent enough argument that doesn't have a hint of bias against or for either party at all, you are in the wrong for telling people how to play/RP either security or as an antag.

Because I have done both. I happen to find the most success and least damage out of playing an intolerant, by-the-book security commander that doesn't take shit from people anymore. Unless they had a perfectly justifiable reason to do what they did, they're still going to be put into a cell, whether they surrendered/fessed up to it or not. But it's really obvious when people are in the wrong. But I do this because people act shitty for the sake of being shitty and try to make other people's experiences full of unnecessary, completely avoidable grief. I deal with non-antag regulars more than I do antags as security, which is bloody appalling.

I happen to find the most enjoyment out of being a very assault-heavy antagonist. I don't like peace-like antagonists, because I know I'm going to get meta'd either by: 1) "holy shit you're not actually a trader are you, what are you, some kind of SYNDIECATE?" *pulls out katana* 2) "Oh hahaha you're a trader with lethal weaponry and paramilitary gear, that totally makes sense, but it really doesn't, but im still going to give you leniency anyway because you're an antag and i don't wanna ruin your fun! mr. antag, do you want to be king of the station, too?" Which are pretty much my experiences every single damn time. But hey, those are my reasons and experiences as to why I play chaotic antags. So, as soon as people start displaying hostile intent towards me? You're damn right I'm going to react in kind. In fact, I'm gonna make it so fucking painful for you that I'll end up turning half the station against you.

Being able to do shit like that is hilarious. I enjoy both sides of the spectrum, that of upholding and maintaining order, and wreaking total havoc and perpetuating chaos. I love doing crazy shit that makes people laugh. But hey, I have a serious side too, and I won't tolerate stupid shits that are shits for the sake of it, either.

But I'll be damned if you're gonna tell me that I can't maintain order the way I can or cause chaos the way I can. Because that's fucking stupid and even more anti-fun than metasecurity or murderboning antagonists.

Hell, you know what, IC is IC. Let IC things develop and be dealt with, ya? If those IC things are never dealt with or they become stupidly unbelievable OOC issues, then you make complaints on them.

Trigger warning: Hostility; Fuck any kind of person who thinks it's okay to start lawyering how other people roleplay. It is not your cup of tea and you cannot judge another person's tastes. I like my coffee black. Don't insult my coffee, k?

[Guest]

But I'll be damned if you're gonna tell me that I can't maintain order the way I can or cause chaos the way I can. Because that's fucking stupid and even more anti-fun than metasecurity or murderboning antagonists.

Hell, you know what, IC is IC. Let IC things develop and be dealt with, ya? If those IC things are never dealt with or they become stupidly unbelievable OOC issues, then you make complaints on them.

Trigger warning: Hostility; Fuck any kind of person who thinks it's okay to start lawyering how other people roleplay. It is not your cup of tea and you cannot judge another person's tastes. I like my coffee black. Don't insult my coffee, k?

 

Actually, I share this viewpoint entirely.

However, a quick look into the complaints subforum reveals that playing this way is literally fucking impossible.