This is also potentially escalated even further from arrest to lethal force if the person in question has presented reasonable justification for 'acting like an antagonist'. To what that constitutes is actually even as low as repeat stuns, which is the basis of most self-defence as it stands.Escalation wrote: Exceptions: Security is expected not to retaliate with random abuse or violence unless the person in question is otherwise eligible for execution. You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for legitimate reasons.
Security Policy & Escalation wrote:
Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.
On the surface, this doesn't seem outrageous given what the role is expected to do. Handle disruptions to the general peace responsibly, and root out and stop antagonists or trouble-makers as part of the gameplay loop. There is, however, potential abuse in how this role can be leveraged in order to loop a player into not only making themselves valid for execution under rule 4, but through this loophole and potential deception on the part of the one abusing this, even pull a non-antagonist player into an effective ban if an admin is careless with their scrutiny of the scenario.Rule 4 Lone Antagonists can do whatever they want wrote: Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.
Issue One: Dragging other Officers into the Problem
One potential way this could be leveraged is a security officer escalating poorly on another player, and opening themselves up to general escalation while their metaprotections no longer apply. This is standard fair, and if a security officer opens with lethal force on a player they would otherwise could be simply arresting, and one who hasn't actually given reason for lethal force, that officer isn't acting in their role and isn't given their regular metaprotections with regards to escalation. If this results in a scenario where the person escalated on would either have killed the officer or horribly maimed them, or so much as stunned and stripped them, which is also valid for being treated as an antagonist under rule 4, it is possible that other officers might believe them to be an antagonist.
Through this action, the victim of this escalation has no justifiable defence against these other officers using anything up and to lethal force on them, since they cannot be escalated upon while they have reasonable justification for arrest. It is possible, through a very ungenerous and tight interpretation of these rules, that even using security gear on these officers to escape harm is a violation of escalation and potentially inviting administrative repercussions.
This hypothetical situation isn't outlandish, as the only necessity for this to occur is an officer being beaten in a conflict where in stuns/lethal force is applied, a common situation during a self defence scenario (note: shoving someone on the floor is a chain stun, tabling does lethal force).
Issue One Conclusion
Through the abuse of escalation from one bad actor, there can be a domino effect from the rules as they exist in which someone can be removed from the round permanently with full justification despite having done nothing wrong under most rules other than someone else having chosen to use their role protections as a weapon. Diligent and mindful security officers might be able to recognize this scenario and work towards de-escalating it and blocking the problem actor (the poorly escalating officer) from causing more problems, but if enough things are happening to keep their attention busy during a round, not every callout is going to be scrutinized properly.
Likewise, if this player so much as attempts to defend themselves from the assisting officers who possibly could be using up to and including lethal force, this player is in fact in the wrong for doing so, as these new officers are simply responding to a potential antagonist manufactured by the bad actor and the player has no justifiable escalation against these officers. Trying to protect themselves here is actually breaking escalation policy.
This might be, if abused, something that would be a Rule 1 issue whose pattern could be and would need to be ascertained over multiple rounds. However, the response from a player targeted by this is a definitive Rule 4 that wouldn't need multiple rounds to establish a pattern for, and this imbalance is something a bad actor might be looking to exploit.
Issue Two: Antagonists can Leverage This as Well
The above scenario and trap is equally usable by anyone impersonating a security officer, and especially so by anyone in an antagonist role. While people regard this scenario as organic roleplay, there is in fact an entirely OOC element that makes this definitively inorganic in nature, as any doctored situation from an antagonist that results in someone being framed as an antagonist cannot be used as grounds for self-defence against other officers when they seek out the victim of this attack. The potential victim in this scenario could be entirely innocent, but there is in no way they can defend themselves from these mislead officers without breaking the rules, and if they choose to do so they are walking into a ban unwittingly.
Up and until this deception is revealed, they're given the freedoms of an antagonist AND the role of a security officer, and escalating into them is impossible while nobody is the wiser. This is effectively an attack via the OOC rulebook and less of roleplay, since given our previous outline of how escalation is very prohibitive of even basic self defence against security officers, these antagonists can do far worse than simply IC repercussions, but as high up as OOC repercussions as well, dragging administrators into their actions as a consequence of their behaviour, or the retaliation against them/security by their victims. This is why security officers were restricted from antagonist roles in order to avoid scenarios like this, but nothing was done for the case of another antagonist using a security officer identity to do the same, and the more something runs the risk of administrative involvement, the less organic the game becomes.
Issue Two Conclusion
These metaprotections can be subsumed by antagonists and weaponized in order to orchestrate metatraps for their victims, ostensibly attacking players beyond the confines of the game and landing them into administrative hot water if not given proper scrutiny. There is no recourse through which these players can protect themselves while they know full well they're innocent. If this scenario results in lethal force being used against them, they're as defenceless as can be and simply must accept round removal. This unfairness is not only existing within the IC boundaries, but OOC boundaries as well. An antagonist should not be able to trick someone into getting themselves banned by their actions.
Proposal:
Since these scenarios are largely reliant on the good faith acting of some of those involved, who may simply have only so much of the information at hand, and the bad faith acting of a single individual (or deception of an antagonist), I believe that victims of these kinds of metatraps should be given leeway for self defence in these situations, and allow them to play out organically, without the threat of administrative scrutiny. That is, should a scenario like this occur off the basis of one person's actions framing another as an antagonist through the misuse of the security protections, the target of this attempt should be given some permission to respond to any arrest/field execution attempts with equal force so as to give themselves the opportunity to either clear their name, or just become the bad guy that security has chosen to make them if security is too bloodthirsty to see reason.
While this may seem like self antagging on the surface, this scenario already assumes the person targeted to BE an antagonist as a core of the issue. As a result, if security truly wants to find an antagonist out of some poor non-antag, this player should be allowed to assume the role apparently given. Or at least try and reverse the misunderstanding through some means, and allowed to protect themselves in the meantime, assuming capture = round removal and acceptance that escalating back is accepting that security intends for this as a conclusion even if their act of self defence might in of itself be justification for round removal.
What This Proposal Doesn't Cover
In situations where the player would otherwise have made themselves valid for being treated as an antagonist, this proposal doesn't allow that individual to escalate against security. That is, if they were being arrested for legitimate reasons (B&E, they were attacking other people, theft, etc.), and the officer was in fact using nonlethal force to arrest them before resorting to lethal force once that officer was attacked with credible lethal force in turn. Nothing here is meant to replace metaprotections, just closing a loophole abuse (and not necessarily add a restriction to antagonists on top of this)
Where this proposal might fall flat on is doctored evidence or mislead security without any members being compromised. I think in a situation like this, a softer variant of this self defence clause would be appropriate. That is, if security is seemingly after you out of the blue, and in fact coming seemingly en-masse, or you're wise to security considering you an antagonist in some way despite doing none of the proposed crimes, then taking the steps to keep yourself safe and out of bloodthirsty hands should be more understandable so long as it's not with lethal force.
