Where does security draw the line?

[Jboy2000000]

This is something Im budding off a complaint thread, since it has no place there.

 

We NEED to use non-lethal force to stop them because they almost killed an officer before. Not to mention all the other things they did that make them very, very, very dangerous."

I don't know how many times we have tried to explain this. Maybe being more firm in putting it across will help.

You are not here to win. Security is not here to win. You are here to provide interesting situations that enhance the rounds enjoyment for other people as well as yourself. You are going to lose, and antags will be better than you in ways that shouldn't make you resort to power gaming.

 

Yes, security is not here to win, per se, however, the IC rule of security is to protect and uphold corporate regs. So, where does security draw the line, so that arresting highly dangerous culprits doesn't become power gaming? Because, not only did they do the things I mentioned above, heres a more complete mentioning of what they did.

 

So far that round, the single cultist that was there; turned the chapel into a fort, attempted murder, resisted arrest, kidnapped and held someone hostage, and as far as we knew, they were part of a bigger group the brought tech to build forcefeilds invisible to human and synthetic eye, with technology able to teleport more efficiently than any of the high tech toys we're given by the multi b-/trillion mega-corporation

 

So, where does power and meta gaming stop, and where does security actually doing they job start?

[Skull132]

Security should remain reactive. It sucks a lot, but generally speaking, lethal weapons become green lit only once the hostiles have shown the capacity for lethal force themselves. In all other cases, non-lethals should be preferred and their successful application striven towards. That is the TL;DR of it, without taking account the millions of variables.

[Jboy2000000]

So, what you're saying Skull, is that the non-lethal force that was applied to the person who earlier almost killed an officer, and took someone as a prisoner, was fair?

[Jakers457]

This will get me a lot of flak saying this. But I do feel a lot of people expect Security to well... die to put it bluntly, even if they don't actually admit it. I mean ICly, an Officer wouldn't take a chance with a dangerous culprit and would use the appropriate force to ensure their own safety while subduing the suspect, to me it makes sense for an Officer to actually take his own mortality into account.... but apparently that's shitty roleplay.

To say the least, combat and all it's accessories are a delicate practice for this community.

[Chaznoodles]

You go with the method that will provide the best roleplay for ALL involved in that situation. A criminal that had murdered someone so you can use lethal weapons on them, but is giving a good monologue or two towards roleplay? Talk to them. Nukeops who are taking the time to take hostages and use them against the station? Try and negotiate, et cetera.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Guest

[Skull132]

I am not actually sure what the fuck I replied to. Can you bring your question and issue out a little more, because this is now smelling like a minefield where anything I say will be misinterpreted.

 

We NEED to use non-lethal force to stop them because they almost killed an officer before. Not to mention all the other things they did that make them very, very, very dangerous.

 

I snagged onto this. Which seemed like a question of lethal force over non-lethal. But it appears that your question is more directed towards: "Should we have done anything?" as opposed to arguing the degree of force utilized.

EDIT: it also seems that my reply derailed Chaz. All is good.

[Jboy2000000]

Right, sorry Skull, basically what Im asking is, if Jack says that arresting a highly dangerous criminal is playing to win by security, when does security actually arresting people stop being play to win?

[Jakers457]

I personally don't think roleplay quality matters on monologues or any Hollywood elements. If an antag wants to take hostages? Then they better have an actual plan on utilizing the hostage opposed to standing out in the open so everyone can hear the villainous monologue. To me, a believable antag is better than a melodrama villain. I want to believe the antag actually intends to fulfill their goals or to actually survive no matter what. I find it very lackluster when someone wants to have some time in the spotlight and expected to be allowed to their time to shine despite how awful their plan was.

I don't really mind too much if Security gets the better hand because to me the thrill and excitement is when nothing is guaranteed, especially people hearing you out after you shanked a man in the face. You get shot up by the Operatives because you got too ballsy? Suck it up, you made a shitty call. You got flashbanged because you decided to make your stand in the hallway with no cover? Suck it up, you had a lapse of commonsense. But that's my stance on it.

[Eliot Clef]

Right, sorry Skull, basically what Im asking is, if Jack says that arresting a highly dangerous criminal is playing to win by security, when does security actually arresting people stop being play to win?

 

I went and read the thread this quote snippet was from. I'm under the impression that the problem was the weird caricature of a Head of Security going disposals diving solo to take some guys down solo while they were being negotiated with, which is all sorts of inappropriate for reasons entirely unrelated to the act of taking his target down.

Jackboot is not the Lord of Appropriate Security Action. If somebody has tried or succeeded at murdering somebody and this fact is known, there is no real problem with using lethals OR non-lethals to subdue them, though non-lethals will generally be preferred.

Disclaimer: I am also not the Lord of Appropriate Security Action.

[Skull132]

Note that everything I say is purely personal MO, and not something to go over, batting others over the head with. But, I would, at that point, move to create an environment where I can call curtains at the click of my fingers, while seeing how entertaining this guy can be. If he's decent enough, I'll see where the chess game takes me -- hopefully towards new RP! Weeee!

But I would intend on keeping the situation under control. Control is the key word: retaining the ability to force the outcome, as is needed. And I do this with the objective of winning, instead of having the outright objective to create RP. Just that, "Winning", to me, is the ensuring in the safety of the crew and maintaining control over the station, not capturing antagonists. RP, usually, happens through my management of trying to achieve that goal. And usually, even if I am successful, people tend to have fun.

Your results with this approach may vary, and I do not recommend it for everyone.

TL;DR: Maybe? There are many ways to approach, many keys to open the same door with.

EDIT: I'm probably most in line to agree with Jakers. If you have a designated adversary, then you should play as if they will grip onto each and every mistake you commit. You should expect this. And so you execute without flaws. And so you beat them, you achieve your objective, you adapt and overcome. Expecting the enemy to take a step back and say, "Oh, hey, you said cool stuff!" is silly. Extend one hand, but arm the other, as a minimum. And anyone who thinks RP is made by monologues is (in my humble opinion) a bad antagonist: they're the type of antagonist who sedate you, arrest you, lock you up, sound off their reasons in a vain attempt to have their kill as justified, and then kill you. An actual antagonist makes the situation properly interesting: they make you feel hunted, they make themselves feel superior, they make you scared.

[Jboy2000000]

Right, sorry Skull, basically what Im asking is, if Jack says that arresting a highly dangerous criminal is playing to win by security, when does security actually arresting people stop being play to win?

 

I went and read the thread this quote snippet was from. I'm under the impression that the problem was the weird caricature of a Head of Security going disposals diving solo to take some guys down solo while they were being negotiated with, which is all sorts of inappropriate for reasons entirely unrelated to the act of taking his target down.

Jackboot is not the Lord of Appropriate Security Action. If somebody has tried or succeeded at murdering somebody and this fact is known, there is no real problem with using lethals OR non-lethals to subdue them, though non-lethals will generally be preferred.

Disclaimer: I am also not the Lord of Appropriate Security Action.

 

Actually, that is not really true. That antag was not, in anyway, negotiation. Talking to an officer and whoever else in the room cares enough to listen about your cult religion is not negotiating.

[Eliot Clef]

Actually, that is not really true. That antag was not, in anyway, negotiation. Talking to an officer and whoever else in the room cares enough to listen about your cult religion is not negotiating.

 

Ok. This doesn't really make it not stupid to make a Head of Staff your disposals delivery point man if you have any other choices.

[Xelnagahunter]

In general it seems like a simple rule of "non-escalation". Don't use excessive force is what it means. If a person is cooperating, don't fucking flash and cuff them for no reason. If the culprit is attacking, use the smallest amount of force required to apprehend the perp. If a perp is on a mass killing spree and shooting first is the ONLY VIABLE OPTION, use it. Most of the time you can use ranged non-lethals.

You aren't real cops. Access to lethal equipment isn't easier to obtain than to their less-than-lethal counterparts. You don't have both a gun and a taser, you have a stun baton, and maybe a flashbang for when situations are really bad or have large quantities of perps.

Non-escalation is common sense and can solve all of these issues. Everyone keeps throwing out the term play-to-win. The way I see it, doing things in an unsafe and unprofessional manner is playing to win. Doing it by regs and while following sop and orders, is always legit, even if you do win. (Sending someone through disposals is not safe and should be against some corprate policy, thus powergaming or playing-to-win.)

Working as a team to storm the facility with non-lethals designed to capture your perpatrating group, is just tactically sound and GREAT teamwork. It's also fun for all sec officers involved. The perps also get a chance to set up ambush points and the like. Want to infiltrate? Go through a wall, it's simple enough to break them down. Use cameras to find unguarded areas for a point of entry. And don't forget that an officer watching the cameras is still being helpful, even if they don't get to robust some cultists.

[Jboy2000000]

Actually, that is not really true. That antag was not, in anyway, negotiation. Talking to an officer and whoever else in the room cares enough to listen about your cult religion is not negotiating.

 

Ok. This doesn't really make it not stupid to make a Head of Staff your disposals delivery point man if you have any other choices.

 

Im not arguing that, that part was still stupid as hell. But you see what I mean, right?

[Chaznoodles]

In the cultist case, I was chatting away to the Captain and a Security Officer, explaining what exactly the religion was, when a locker pops through disposals. Very first thought through my head was "There's going to be an officer inside that, and he can't get out unless I unwrap it, meaning he'll be stuck in there forever. Better unwrap him so he can join in.". I unwrap it, open it, and get a taser shot to the face. There's an issue there in that roleplay was not even attempted.

[Guest]

This thread already has me confused since a few people have taken back their statements on what was deemed rather clear as to how they deal with issues, and then falling back on vagueness and not actually answering the question.

Well, great.

I guess I'll adhere to my own MO and pretend that it works until it doesn't, in which a more adaptive strategy is required to maintain control and deal with an issue.

I dunno. Inherently, my strategy isn't 'play-to-win', nor is it 'play-to-lose'. It's more like, 'play-to-play-and-see-what-happens-while-also-adhering-to-IC/OOC-rules.'

I also have no knowledge nor interest regarding the cases with the HoS ganking the cultists in cargo.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

The incident in question was the HoS using an exploit in disposals code to 'deliver' himself into a room behind a bunch of antags, and robusting them all, while the antagonists were having a conversation with individuals that were apparently invested enough to engage the antagonists.

But the HoS used this exploit to gain the upper hand. It was power gaming at best, and exploiting a bug at worst.

With that specific out of the way, let me confront the essence of the OP.

---

---

You can engage, as a security officer, reasonable pressure without ruining RP or immersions. The problem is when things like the above happen, or when security grab an antag or VIP and lock them in the permabrig or solitary and throw away the key. The security department has a habit of hiding antagonists or breaking regulations by permanently holding people for 'processing' or if they're 'too dangerous' to let go.

The biggest issues we need to overcome is the fact that winning is the most important part of the dominant security philosophy. Almost every secret or cult round, if I play my characters in a certain way then security is breathing down my neck. My shaman, Nioathi, once had the entire security department bust in on him in the morgue after the HoS had the AI lock him inside with a Tajaran engineer. When the HoS burst inside, she silently just stood there and then left when we were found to not be doing anything cultish.

Security needs to draw the line at regulations and fair play. If someone commits a crime, you let them out when their listed brig time is completed. Full stop end of story. And stop being so uptight about not being on the ball with antagonists 24/7. Losing is part of the game, and it can be fun if you aren't bitter about it. Being bested isn't a sign of badsec if something interesting comes out of it.

We've had debates and conversations and arguments on this over and over and over. I really just don't see hand-holding and polite meandering as solving the problem. My stance has put this up for public debate again, which is good. Maybe this time around we can hammer out an understanding.

[Skull132]

Those are just hilariously (and motherfucker, I mean hilarious: shoving yourself or an officer down into a locker, and through disposals, is amazing in the worst way imaginable) bad cases of Sec being legitimately overzealous and shit, provided the information provided matches objectively.

Like, okay, Jboy. We can argue about sec having the authority to arrest people who are a proven threat all day long. All of that goes out of the window if one bright fellow gets an idea similar to what's denoted above. At this point, the means do not justify the end -- the means are simply ridiculous. Also, please re-read the context of the complaint and what it's being assessed on. It is not Security's authority to arrest people that's under scrutiny, it is the command and decisions of this one individual that are under scrutiny.