Dalekfodder Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 Since I returned I saw a thing or two that buggered me within the game, one of them is this; Arrest Warrants. I don't see the necessity of a warrant aboard a corporate space station as the so called "arrests" aren't arrests but simple detainments, be it for the remainder of the shift or for a short period. In my imagination, security officers aren't police officers. They are basically mall cops that are tasked to keep things running within regulations and et cetera so naming it arrest and creating a warrant for it sounds ridicilous. Not even going to speak about no trials and alike. So what I suggest is simply remove them...
Owen Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 It is meant to keep Security from waving their dick around and forcing entry to other departments and just arresting people without permission. It also gives the peasants the impression that they have actual rights. Hah, as if
Carver Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 In my imagination, security officers aren't police officers. They are basically mall cops that are tasked to keep things running within regulations and et cetera so naming it arrest and creating a warrant for it sounds ridicilous. You had me until this. People seem to continually confuse Corporate Private Security for Mall Security, when there is a massive distinction in quality between the two. With the former being known for well-armed and highly trained, particularly if the property they are employed to protect is high-value, such as a Corporate Laboratory would be. Otherwise yes, Private Security would not require a 'warrant' to search or detain personnel on-site if they believe them to be a security risk.
Zundy Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 As already stated, warrants are just there to stop sec dickwaving. I like it. Encourages RP and doesn't really get in the way because if you see them commit a crime or if it isn't code green you don't need one anyway.
Bedshaped Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 They don't need a warrent if they witnessed a crime directly and a Warden can now stamp for one so they aren't difficult.
SierraKomodo Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I think we should also add 'If the AI witnessed a crime directly' to the list of exemptions from filing a warrant. NT would trust an AI to accurately report a crime needing security, right?
Owen Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 I think we should also add 'If the AI witnessed a crime directly' to the list of exemptions from filing a warrant. NT would trust an AI to accurately report a crime needing security, right? That isn't a bad idea. I can see about getting it changed possibly. It could probably be an Officer, AI or Loyalty Implanted person, directly witnessing a crime. I'll think about it.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Warrants of either kind are not that difficult to get. They are a small hurdle security has to jump in order to run around with full legal authority. It also practically makes communication mandatory within security since officers need to actually say why they want to barge into a department or go after someone. Security are not mall cops, this is a misnomer. They are a private police force. Mall cops do not typically gain access to lethal, military grade weapons and tactical gear.
Dalekfodder Posted July 24, 2016 Author Posted July 24, 2016 Warrants of either kind are not that difficult to get. They are a small hurdle security has to jump in order to run around with full legal authority. It also practically makes communication mandatory within security since officers need to actually say why they want to barge into a department or go after someone. Security are not mall cops, this is a misnomer. They are a private police force. Mall cops do not typically gain access to lethal, military grade weapons and tactical gear. I sort of misworded it, I didn't mean to claim that they are mallcops, what I tried to explain was they are indeed private security contractors but the problem is, it's a corporation as I said, why would a corporation put limitations infront of the contract they hired to assure security? I'm pretty sure the contractors would be removed if they fuck up instead.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted July 24, 2016 Posted July 24, 2016 Because that's how a private security force for a corporation larger than the nation we're playing in has decided to operate. Corporate procedure and laws always evolve, and we're 400 years in the future. 400 years ago we had Guilds, who operated vastly different to corporations of today. Which is another way of justifying why we don't give security all-access. Because of gameplay balance reasons.
Dalekfodder Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 Because that's how a private security force for a corporation larger than the nation we're playing in has decided to operate. Corporate procedure and laws always evolve, and we're 400 years in the future. 400 years ago we had Guilds, who operated vastly different to corporations of today. Which is another way of justifying why we don't give security all-access. Because of gameplay balance reasons. One way to discard opinion, cheers.
Guest Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 I sort of misworded it, I didn't mean to claim that they are mallcops, what I tried to explain was they are indeed private security contractors but the problem is, it's a corporation as I said, why would a corporation put limitations infront of the contract they hired to assure security? I'm pretty sure the contractors would be removed if they fuck up instead. Warrants exist to cover the arse of security operation first and foremost. They are a valuable bureaucratic tool. A signed and stamped warrant allows security to exercise as much authority as they deem necessary in the case that the warrant includes. Warrants permit action to be undertaken by the security department upon a suspect. The choice of words is rather important here: SUSPECT, as in, not 100% sure they did the crime and they weren't witnessed by an officer having done it, but is a likely candidate to vet, charge, and arrest. The way warrants are handled allows NT to utilize their security force to protect assets or even get away with some shady shit because they win by a regulation technicality and are not specifically in the wrong.
Guest Marlon Phoenix Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Because that's how a private security force for a corporation larger than the nation we're playing in has decided to operate. Corporate procedure and laws always evolve, and we're 400 years in the future. 400 years ago we had Guilds, who operated vastly different to corporations of today. Which is another way of justifying why we don't give security all-access. Because of gameplay balance reasons. One way to discard opinion, cheers. I addressed your stance and explained the reasoning for why I disagree. If i discarded your opinion I would ignore you or call your opinion dumb. Cheers!
UnknownMurder Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 Lads. Let's all get along? I'm on no one's side, but I can say this. To be frank, I don't like red tapes but they exist for a reason. But... Let's all get along? Cheers!
veradox Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 if warrants are easily accessible it sounds like they're just needless filler BS to make arrests take slightly longer. it's a mechanically sound idea i guess to permit people some time or ability to avoid getting rando-searched but you're not really cops and don't need a warrant to search your own employed personnel. if they're doing something funky and junky you shouldn't have to file paperwork because of the rights of someone contractually bound to you to do your job and not stir up trouble doing it happens to not be fulfilling that criteria
Recommended Posts