Search status

[MO_oNyMan]

Add another security status. Search status would work similar to the currently existing arrest status, displaying an icon above the character's sprite if looked at through a sec hud, reminding security officers that this person has to be searched without the need of constantly stating so on sec frequency over and over again.

[Bauser]

Kinda just seems like a basic function of the security role, should be second-nature when confronted with a person of interest. Like... it'd be like making an icon appear in medical HUDs reminding doctors to use a health scanner on someone.

[Kaed]

I don't know, I can see where they're coming from. The HUD update for this would allow you to identify the person of interest that needs to be searched from out of a crowd, without relying on the Big W.

[MO_oNyMan]

Kinda just seems like a basic function of the security role, should be second-nature when confronted with a person of interest. Like... it'd be like making an icon appear in medical HUDs reminding doctors to use a health scanner on someone.

 

Security doesn't search anyone they come in contact with. Searches work similar to arrests on Aurora. You need a warrant on code green and you need a probable cause on code blue in order to search someone.

[Faris]

I think the addition of a new hud icon for "search" would be pretty neat.

[Azande]

Kinda just seems like a basic function of the security role, should be second-nature when confronted with a person of interest. Like... it'd be like making an icon appear in medical HUDs reminding doctors to use a health scanner on someone.

 

Security doesn't search anyone they come in contact with. Searches work similar to arrests on Aurora. You need a warrant on code green and you need a probable cause on code blue in order to search someone.

 

Just to correct you, Security can search you in code green with probable cause w/o a warrant.

On Code Blue, random searches with no probable cause are permitted and advised.

[Kaed]

Again, this is a quality of life improvement. It's not about whether you're allowed to search them or not, it's about tagging someone as a person of interest that they want searched. If you have a security HUD, you should be able to identify the person that needs to be searched at a glance, just like someone who's wanted for detainment.

The same principle of clarifying an unknown wanted target applies here. If you go around searching people just because they have a search tag, like that officers who arrest people because 'they were wanted', then you're bad.

[MO_oNyMan]

Kinda just seems like a basic function of the security role, should be second-nature when confronted with a person of interest. Like... it'd be like making an icon appear in medical HUDs reminding doctors to use a health scanner on someone.

 

Security doesn't search anyone they come in contact with. Searches work similar to arrests on Aurora. You need a warrant on code green and you need a probable cause on code blue in order to search someone.

 

Just to correct you, Security can search you in code green with probable cause w/o a warrant.

On Code Blue, random searches with no probable cause are permitted and advised.

 

https://forums.aurorastation.org/viewtopic.php?f=107&t=9124 paragraph 3: security authority under code blue suggests that security must present a probable cause to conduct a search on code blue

https://wiki.aurorastation.org/index.php?title=Corporate_Regulations#Corporate_Regulations A "Misc" paragraph in "Additional" section suggests that every search on code green must have a warrant. Exceptions are witnessing a crime or consent of direct supervisor of the crewmember being searched

I know, the code announcements are confusing as hell and contradict regulations and forums. Probably need to make a suggestion to clarify this mess

[Azande]

Regulations state this:

"have directly witnessed a crime taking place, or feel there is a real and imminent danger to the safety of crew and/or station." < this is probable cause.

For the part about code blue, that post specifically applies to workspaces and heads of staff. You must provide probable cause to a head of staff to search them or their department in code blue - and they have the authority to refuse it. Context for what you are trying to use is important.

[MO_oNyMan]

Regulations state this:

"have directly witnessed a crime taking place, or feel there is a real and imminent danger to the safety of crew and/or station." < this is probable cause.

For the part about code blue, that post specifically applies to workspaces and heads of staff. You must provide probable cause to a head of staff to search them or their department in code blue - and they have the authority to refuse it. Context for what you are trying to use is important.

 

Under code blue you must provide a probable cause to a head of staff if you're searching their department and you must provide a probable cause to a crewmember if you're searching his person as written in the code blue security authority clarification.

But let's stay on topic here

[Azande]

-1. Security should be encouraged to communicate with one another and not rely on hud statuses. Arrest status is primarily for beepskys and can't be translated into searches.

[Butterrobber202]

Literally a QoL improvement, I see no reason this can't or shouldn't be added.

[Kaed]

-1. Security should be encouraged to communicate with one another and not rely on hud statuses. Arrest status is primarily for beepskys and can't be translated into searches.

 

No. It's not.

The tag system in the security records contains a number of tags aside from 'wanted', such 'incarcerated', 'parole', and 'released'. Beepsky and other securitrons only respond to one of those, because they're from a primordial time of lower roleplay and haven't been removed yet because people still think it's funny or memey

The system exists to allow people wearing sec HUDs to receive easy information about people of interest to the security team. The 'wanted' status (or search status) is not there to replace communication, and in fact I I frequently see security members who try to summarily arrest wanted people being shutdown by their own team.

[Azande]

Pretty sure the tag system ONLY contains 'wanted, released/paroled, prisoner/incarerated'

[Kaed]

Pretty sure the tag system ONLY contains 'wanted, released/paroled, prisoner/incarerated'

 

Okay, and? The semantics of the current system isn't really the subject?

it's about adding a new one. How does having Search as a tag undermine things? Do you have further reasoning to give than 'it would discourage roleplay?'

[Azande]

As a roleplay server that is experiencing an issue with communication in Security specifically, I think making it easier to just not communicate things is not an improvement.

[Butterrobber202]

As a roleplay server that is experiencing an issue with communication in Security specifically, I think making it easier to just not communicate things is not an improvement.

 

Hey fellow I just tagged Bob with a search tag so you can spot him easily in a crowd. - warden

Thanks Earden, that will help us since we don’t know what Bob looks like! - officer

[ben10083]

As a roleplay server that is experiencing an issue with communication in Security specifically, I think making it easier to just not communicate things is not an improvement.

 

Hey fellow I just tagged Bob with a search tag so you can spot him easily in a crowd. - warden

Thanks Earden, that will help us since we don’t know what Bob looks like! - officer

 

^ X10000

As a person who dabbles a bit as sec I can say that a search status would be a great QoL improvement, also I do not see how roleplay can be negatively effected by this. The "roleplay" is just the hassle of finding the bastard person even looks like and where we can even find them. You know, like arrest?

[Kaed]

Yeah sorry Xander, I think that's a little condescending to assume that people would stop communicating if they added a search tag. That's something that should be dealt with on a player by player basis, not used as a justification for not adding features.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

We have this feature already. all you have to do is type

'say :s Just searched Bob Melons and he's clear''

[UnknownMurder]

-1. Security should be encouraged to communicate with one another and not rely on hud statuses.

 

I agree with Xander's statement, Butterrobber's hypothetical scenario will become true if this is implemented. Security department should make an effort to search and find the said person instead of relying on the technology to do it for themselves. We should come to an understanding that our general view should not shift to the fact that Security lazy people because we're relying more and more technology to help us rather to do it ourselves. As condescending to assume as you may say but I may say that this suggestion is well-becoming but I can choose to make a rebuttal then say that you are attempting to make officers more lazy to make use of their eyes.

[Kaed]

This is a game where characters are represented by a tiny, low resolution sprites that, aside from xenos, can only be clearly distinguished from each other by their clothing and hair (and theoretically skin tone, but about one in every three dozen people ever touch that setting), both of which can easily be changed in game.

It does not enhance the immersion of the game to have to play where's Waldo every time I walk into a crowded bar, and have to click on every human character to figure out which one's the person that I want to talk to. You could tell me that they're putting on a different outfit as part of role playing, but I can easily see their name by clicking on them, as part of the game mechanics.

A search tag would just be an outcropping of that particular function, and expedite the tedious process of clicking on a bunch of tiny people sprites.

Nor is the HUD infallible, as there are number of ways to disguise your identity in a fashion that makes it not know you are wanted person on sight.

[UnknownMurder]

Let me just shut this reasoning down by pulling off DID YOU KNOW....?

You need not to click on every single person to figure out whose who. You can just simply hover your mouse over crowd of people until you see your person or ask the Warden, Head of Security, officers, or even your fellow friends to help define characteristics of your target? It's not hard for me to hover my mouse over sprites to identify who/what this is. You are pretty much the only minority person of the group having this issue, it is possible to increase the screen size of the game if you know what you are doing. I have pulled this off with Lohikar.

[MO_oNyMan]

Let me adress some things here

1. Security communication and roleplay is not influenced in any way by the status system. It's the improvement of mechanics. Good officers communicate regardless of whether someone is tagged with a "wanted" notice and bad officers don't.

2. Hovering to identify is rarely an option. It's clear to anyone who's played security. Moving targets are impossible to hover over, clicking provides more information.

3. We're on space station we're supposed to rely on tehnology. Providing information about people around you is what HuDs were specifically made for. Saying we shouldn't use them because it's lazy is a bad argument.

4. Security frequency is not the place for deep phylosophical conversations and elaborate roleplay. Communications there should be dry, professional and kept to a minimum as polluting it can get someone injured or even killed. Having to announce every minute that some assistant needs to be searched or arrested is obnoxious. It's not roleplay, it's just white noise. Officers should be encouraged to use statuses and record entries more. Butterrobbers hypothetical scenario will and should become true if it's implemented. It's the point of the suggestion.

In conclusion the search status doesn't discourage communication and roleplay in any way. It instead gets rid of frequency pollution and makes it easier to identify a tagged person which is already a thing with a wanted status.

[Butterrobber202]

I agree with everything said in the above statement