Arrests, Implantations, and Further Metaprotection Clarifications

[DrAmazing343]

After recently handling a case of mall-cop incineration after a failure to communicate why they were implanting someone out of the blue, I'd like to discuss and take a team temperature here on implanting during an active Revolution. Once it's loud, it's generally accepted that you SHOULD submit, but I've read some player accounts in which they'll avoid both Revs and Sec alike to avoid them. I think this is good emergent gameplay, but what's the level of resistance we SHOULD allow here?

On another note, should we solidly move "mindshield implanting" to the same policy-tier as "arrest?" There was some disagreement about mindshield being equivalent to an arrest in regards to metaprotections, but I'm just really not sure that it's semantic enough to just handwave. Moreover, I'd appreciate some more solid ground to stand on as an admin in situations like these— regardless of whether or not they're a regular occurrence.

[ekaterina]

what's the level of resistance we SHOULD allow here?

Running away without causing harm to the officers seems fair.

On another note, should we solidly move "mindshield implanting" to the same policy-tier as "arrest?"

The two are fundamentally different. A mindshield takes 3 seconds, it does not cause the same disruption to someone's round that an arrest does. Curious to hear what the headmins will say, though.

[DrAmazing343]

They are fundamentally different, but on a policy level (especially concerning allowing pushback from "victims") they're decently similar, so I figure it's a good thing to take a look at.

[Timberpoes]

I'd like to think the non antags resisting arrest policy can apply to this situation too.

The player can evade being mindshielded in the spirit of SS13 non lethality, without harming or looting the officer etc whatever that policy says.

However, just like evading arrest you open yourself up to sec treating you like someone with a reason to run.

[DaBoss]

People are avoiding mindshields to begin with because the rev rules suck. Getting mindshielded outs you to every single rev in the round as someone who is valid for round removal and there's no way of telling who among the crew is allowed to murder you on the spot and toss you out an airlock for no reason, so there is pretty much nothing you can do about it without breaking the rules. If you fight security or murder a couple officers they have rules that stop them just round removing you in response so this is what you get. Resisting security's mindshields and setting officers on fire somehow becomes the safe option.

[Lacran]

My rationale here is that you can't reasonably divorce Implantation from arrest if you plan to resist implantation, because then you get arrested, even if temporarily, to be implanted.

Under space law something like shoving the officer, is a crime. But self defense negates that crime, and you are trying to to defend yourself from that officer, because you don't know if they have any good grounds for implantation, and any arrest as a direct consequence of you fleeing or resisting, would also be wordless and unjustified.

From the Sec officer's perspective this is obviously totally different, but that's also why sec officers are encouraged to communicate, and lose metaprotections for situations where they don't.

Simplest solution, get command or Hos, or A.I to announce there's confirmed revs, this would make your shielding clearly metaprotected in each circumstance.

[TheBibleMelts]

you should be allowed to resist a wordless mindshield on the basis of it being a gross violation of your being - once it's in, whatever, but if i'm given no reason for someone trying to stick a chip into my brain they're catching hands. if i know it's revs or cult, sure, i get why they'd be doing it without needing to be told - but otherwise it's on the officer to inform the crewmember what they're up to.

[Roadto3k]

I'd like to think the non antags resisting arrest policy can apply to this situation too.

The player can evade being mindshielded in the spirit of SS13 non lethality, without harming or looting the officer etc whatever that policy says.

However, just like evading arrest you open yourself up to sec treating you like someone with a reason to run.

Yes but the rules say "If an arrest is not obviously valid, it follows standard escalation."

Escalation policy says "You may begin IC conflicts with another player if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job."

To me this means two things, first, an officer trying to implanting you without saying why is never obviously valid, because even when you know its a mindshield, and you are aware of cult or revolution, theres no reason to be expected to accept any implant if you haven't done something to warrant it, people are people first and not resources that security or revs have the right to claim for themselves.
So second the implanting would be treated as an IC conflict which follows escalation(since it is not obviously valid), and so means you can always resist in whatever way is appropriate to stop them, following escalation means that it does not have to be nonlethal. Throwing a molotov is a good way to get them away from you for a moment, and any means you need to protect yourself from being mindshielded should always be permitted, since like DaBoss explains its usually much more dangerous to implanted than not. Resisting a mindshield is generally a matter of defending yourself from someone who appears to be trying to kill you. Maybe this can be avoided if security gives any promise of protection or equipment for people they recruit, but in my experience you are more likely to be left buckled to a chair in the hallway and beaten to death soon after.

I think that mindshielding should be treated the same as arresting, as lacran says it will very likely be followed with an arrest if you resist it. Imagine if an officer pickpockets you or steals from your department. Now if you hit them or shove them or anything else to get them to stop, would they have metaprotections when they try to arrest you for assault? If you think that mindshielding should be metaprotected then you should think that the pickpocketing should be too.

[TheLoLSwat]

Sec just walking up and mindshielding you is a skill issue on their part. They should either incapacitate before mindshielding or explain that it’s a mindshield and there is a revolution about

Sec should lose meta protections when wordlessly mindshielding or arresting, but the context in which they would wordlessly mindshield is usually urgent enough to label it an IC issue in the rare case that it escalates to a fight.


As sec you need to be good with your words or good enough so that you don’t need words

[CursedBirb]

The problem is that game itself teaches sec to just walk to you, hit you with stun baton and then talk. At first when i was playing sec i was also trying to talk before arrest but most of them were either running away(which is fine since by itself it makes the round more interesting) or shoot you mid sentence(which was majority). Sadly good sec most of the time ends up as dead sec. Wardens also are being hit by it quite often as whever i wanted to be a nice warden i regretted it later. Nowadays (i did not played in a while but this is what i was doing) when there was no other sec officer that can walk with me into a perma i had to wear riot suit(which is a skill issue by itself but atleast it negates some part of bot being robust). So to sum it up. If people were not trying to resist/fight back as often then sec would not feel a need to the ones who starts the wordless escalation

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

The problem is that game itself teaches sec to just walk to you, hit you with stun baton and then talk. At first when i was playing sec i was also trying to talk before arrest but most of them were either running away(which is fine since by itself it makes the round more interesting) or shoot you mid sentence(which was majority). Sadly good sec most of the time ends up as dead sec. Wardens also are being hit by it quite often as whever i wanted to be a nice warden i regretted it later. Nowadays (i did not played in a while but this is what i was doing) when there was no other sec officer that can walk with me into a perma i had to wear riot suit(which is a skill issue by itself but atleast it negates some part of bot being robust). So to sum it up. If people were not trying to resist/fight back as often then sec would not feel a need to the ones who starts the wordless escalation

The counter to people shooting you mid sentence is to have something pre-typed and saved with Ctrl-c like "On the ground, you're under arrest!" and clicking them with the security pen. If they respond by asking you something like "What am I under arrest for?" They are no longer allowed to engage you while you type, as that would be type-baiting, which is against the rules and reportable per this headmin ruling: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=34985&p=705301#p705301

[DaBoss]

The problem is that game itself teaches sec to just walk to you, hit you with stun baton and then talk. At first when i was playing sec i was also trying to talk before arrest but most of them were either running away(which is fine since by itself it makes the round more interesting) or shoot you mid sentence(which was majority). Sadly good sec most of the time ends up as dead sec. Wardens also are being hit by it quite often as whever i wanted to be a nice warden i regretted it later. Nowadays (i did not played in a while but this is what i was doing) when there was no other sec officer that can walk with me into a perma i had to wear riot suit(which is a skill issue by itself but atleast it negates some part of bot being robust). So to sum it up. If people were not trying to resist/fight back as often then sec would not feel a need to the ones who starts the wordless escalation

The counter to people shooting you mid sentence is to have something pre-typed and saved with Ctrl-c like "On the ground, you're under arrest!" and clicking them with the security pen. If they respond by asking you something like "What am I under arrest for?" They are no longer allowed to engage you while you type, as that would be type-baiting, which is against the rules and reportable per this headmin ruling: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=34985&p=705301#p705301

This doesn't explain anything to anyone. If someone's being implanted with a mindshield implant, pasting "I am putting a mindshield implant in you because of revs" in the chat is just redundant. The only reason to do this is because not doing it allows non antags to murder you. Is that really a good rule that improves conflict between security and nonsecurity or is it an obtuse way for bad-faith players to grief security players who don't know the rule?

[DaydreamIQ]

Security already have a huge disadvantage against revs numbers and information wise since they have zero way of telling who's on their side until they're shielded. If things are getting out of hand and you run from a mindshield you shouldn't be suprised when you get gunned down. Sec are on the clock and they don't have time to beg everyone for permission when there could be a group of revs hiding just around the corner ready to type bait them

[ekaterina]

is against the rules and reportable per this headmin ruling: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=34985&p=705301#p705301

Is it? Is TBM agreeing with Fikou or Chesh? I can't even tell what the ruling is meant to be.

[TheBibleMelts]

is against the rules and reportable per this headmin ruling: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=34985&p=705301#p705301

Is it? Is TBM agreeing with Fikou or Chesh? I can't even tell what the ruling is meant to be.

we thought that a strict policy in the rules about it would lead to more debate and lawyering than it was worth for something already covered by it being an exploitation of an ooc mechanic.

[Vekter]

I have mixed feelings on this topic. On one hand, I think we should be encouraging security to be more vocal/tell people what they're doing before outright doing it as part of encouraging better RP, but on the other, I kind of get why you'd just go straight to injecting everyone you can if revs are around and telling someone you're doing it is probably a good way to get murdered.

This is likely going to be one of those context-based things. If sec has captured a head rev and is aware there's a revolution but they're being extremely quiet, I think taking the time to explain what's going on and giving orders to stand still for mandatory injection is good and should be expected. It gives players a chance to react and is good for interactions. If the revs have already killed a few members of command and there's more revs than crew around, sorry bud, all bets are off.

I guess the general statement of "If you try to implant someone without telling them first, you're taking your life into your own hands and it's up to you to do risk management" works here.

is against the rules and reportable per this headmin ruling: viewtopic.php?f=85&t=34985&p=705301#p705301

Is it? Is TBM agreeing with Fikou or Chesh? I can't even tell what the ruling is meant to be.

Off Topic

Typebaiting is against the rules as a metagaming issue more than anything; it's generally considered abuse of meta mechanics that wouldn't make sense in-character. The problem is that the thread Typhnox linked isn't about type baiting as a whole, it's about abusing windows to attack someone, ie "Here, read this", waiting for them to read it, then killing them while their focus is on the new window. The thread rules that this is OK because it has an IC analogue and isn't just abusing an OOC mechanic; it's reasonable that you could trick someone into reading something and then stab them while they're distracted, while it's not really reasonable that you could ask someone a question then expect them to just stand there and let you kill them because they're "speaking" (typing).

So, the thread's not really relevant, but typebaiting can and will get you banned (though it's kind of hard to prove).

[ekaterina]

Thank you for the clarifications.

[Lacran]

I think that's the primary distinction here.

If it's not obvious it's revs, it should be the job of sec to make it obvious prior to shielding. It's inefficient to expect them to explain to every single person, but if revs aren't loud, sec needs to be.

Sec should be expected to follow some basic procedure in revs before they get to start swarming over crew mutely, especially because one of the first things you do on revs is get more mindshields ordered and start deputizing.

Sec shouldn't be expected to become bureaucrats to maintain metaprotections, but they should have some basic responsibility regarding setting the tone for the crew.

[Vekter]

It's inefficient to expect them to explain to every single person, but if revs aren't loud, sec needs to be.

I don't think it's a big ask to say "Hey, there's revs, let me mindshield you." before trying to implant someone. I'm not expecting them to do it to everyone in a crowd, but it's less than 10 seconds of typing.

[MooCow12]

If i'm wordlessly batoned im not going to look for the little line of text that says im being mindshield im blowing the secuwuty rawrficcer away if presented the option, anyone can dress or disguise as security.

[Lacran]

It's inefficient to expect them to explain to every single person, but if revs aren't loud, sec needs to be.

I don't think it's a big ask to say "Hey, there's revs, let me mindshield you." before trying to implant someone. I'm not expecting them to do it to everyone in a crowd, but it's less than 10 seconds of typing.

Despite the fact that me resisting the implant caused this policy thread, I don't think the goal necessarily is to require the officer to talk to EACH crew member inorder to retain protections.

The goalpost should be "has the target of the implant been reasonably informed as to why you're trying to implant them.

If I send you a PDA message, or make an announcement"we are coming to arrest you for X" it's basically completely irrelevant if the officer actually speaks at all now. Because you 100% know they're following space law.

An announcement makes the reason for a mindshield obvious for any crew capable of hearing it. Sometimes sec or the cap avoid confirming revs because they want to quietly implant people, if they make that choice and don't inform each crew as they do it, then they should risk getting hurt.

[dendydoom]

there is a headmin ruling (somewhere) that says that admins should consider the *possible* methods of non-harmful escape before restricting players' choices.

sometimes players will do things that get themselves into trouble and they shouldn't then escalate harder against a response off the back of their own escalation. for example, robbing the captain's office doesn't necessarily mean you get to retaliate as much as you want against the security that comes after you for it. you put yourself in that situation and the consequences are for you to figure out without getting to attack everyone who comes after you.

but if a player is put into a situation by command/security (or any metaprotected role) and they have no realistic way of getting out of it, then admins should consider this and allow for more "creative" problem solving that uses escalation and retaliation. because otherwise you are basically just asking them to surrender by placing them into a completely unwinnable scenario where their agency is restricted through no real fault of their own.

i would consider implanting people to be under the second umbrella, especially if you're attempting to detain someone to do so. at higher alert levels, security are allowed to manhandle the crew and force their expectations on them by subverting their procedure, but doing so should allow the crew to push back harder if they don't want it to happen.

so, i suppose the questions i would like admins to ask themselves is: "did the player get themselves into this situation?" and "is shoving/running away a meaningful choice for the player to make?" if both of these are no, then it's likely that escalating is a fair and understandable response to the situation.

ultimately, these situations will usually be stacked against the target of security - that's just sort of how authority is. but the important thing is to not restrict the player's agency in meaningfully pushing back against that use of authority if they did nothing to bring it upon themselves in the first place.

[Timberpoes]

there is a headmin ruling (somewhere) that says that admins should consider the *possible* methods of non-harmful escape before restricting players' choices.

...

This sounds like something I'd say. Are you talking about:

...

When a meta-protected player initiaties a conflict, admins should keep in mind before IC issuing it what realistic IC actions the player can take to resolve it. Be cautious if your decision is indirectly forcing them to just suck up and take the meta-protected player's behaviour because the only reasonable alternatives lead to death.

This means an admin should handle a similar scenario differently when it's an assistant being a bit of a shitter versus the cap or a sec officer being a bit of a shitter.

...

As a bit of a tl;dr we asked admins to actually consider the realistic options available to players when roles with any meta benefits start conflicts. For example, a head of staff causing grief to someone may not have metaprotections per sé, but their department may side with them in any conflict. Admins should consider what they expect the player to reasonably do without putting their own shift in jeopardy before slamming IC issue.

[8bot]

this raises the point that meta protections are a whole are just stupid and never end well
security officers already have the advantage of the most OP gear in the game; if they decide to use it and still get robusted, they deserve escalation on par with every other role.

as for a take more directly relevant, anything that alters your state in the round without your consent should be considered the same as being arrested. sec have unique authority to alter the course of your round (read: ruin it) after all. it's smart not to interact with sec unless absolutely necessary since 99% of what they do is just put you in timeout or round remove you, so it stands to reason that any interaction they aim towards you should be scrutinized and, if not consented to, fought against - or at least, the act of resisting it should be protected by the rules (ideally within escalation)

[Vekter]

this raises the point that meta protections are a whole are just stupid and never end well
security officers already have the advantage of the most OP gear in the game; if they decide to use it and still get robusted, they deserve escalation on par with every other role.

Well, the main reason they exist is because we expect players to be able to do their jobs without getting their shit kicked in just for doing their job, and Security's job involves attacking other people, so there has to be a slight imbalance in that. I worry that removing them is going to result in Security basically being completely incapable of dealing with anything because players can and will just mob them any time they try to arrest someone.

[8bot]

this raises the point that meta protections are a whole are just stupid and never end well
security officers already have the advantage of the most OP gear in the game; if they decide to use it and still get robusted, they deserve escalation on par with every other role.

Well, the main reason they exist is because we expect players to be able to do their jobs without getting their shit kicked in just for doing their job, and Security's job involves attacking other people, so there has to be a slight imbalance in that. I worry that removing them is going to result in Security basically being completely incapable of dealing with anything because players can and will just mob them any time they try to arrest someone.

so, i will say this and i mean it in a completely unironic fashion: skill issue
now, let me elaborate on that. becoming a sec officer is a voluntary choice. you go into it knowing that your job is going to be having to robust bad men. you are given the tools for massive advantages there, which most sec players foolishly ignore. they think a single batong will save them, which usually just leads to johnny greyshirt getting a batong.
that's the big issue with the role: unlike the other departments, sec is totally superfluous. the metaprotections they're afforded are so they can exist alongside other roles, but other roles actually serve a proper function on the station. security, in practice, exists to fight bad guys and arrest them, but literally nothing but said metaprotections and rules forbid other departments from doing just that.

furthermore, why shouldn't they get mobbed when arresting someone? even ignoring the fact that they can shit out a gorillion flashbangs and use pepper spray, the best case scenario for somebody being arrested is that they afk and watch youtube for 5 minutes or suicide in their cell. and people always say "well good they were being a shitter" but sec's not a fucking admin stand-in, sec is meant to be a job like the others. their purpose is incompatible with the rest of the roles, and that's why metaprotections are needed.

tl;dr: the change sec needs is further than metaprotection alterations; they need a fundamental change in what their stated purpose is, because as it stands, trying to foster organic interaction with the rest of the crew is impossible.

ADDENDUM: i actually think a good solution would be to remove the general security officer role and instead divvy out more specialized ones. make it so they do more as a department than just be stun baton bots that the admins don't let you fight back against adequately. detective's a good example - they provide a unique function that only they're capable of. specialized roles with job mechanics and specific authorities, not just "mom said I can beat you up without getting bwoinked"

[Vekter]

this raises the point that meta protections are a whole are just stupid and never end well
security officers already have the advantage of the most OP gear in the game; if they decide to use it and still get robusted, they deserve escalation on par with every other role.

Well, the main reason they exist is because we expect players to be able to do their jobs without getting their shit kicked in just for doing their job, and Security's job involves attacking other people, so there has to be a slight imbalance in that. I worry that removing them is going to result in Security basically being completely incapable of dealing with anything because players can and will just mob them any time they try to arrest someone.

(words)

I'll just say that I don't think our outlooks on the game are the same and we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I feel like you have a very specific mindset of how the game should work and I don't agree with pretty much any of it.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

so, i will say this and i mean it in a completely unironic fashion: skill issue
now, let me elaborate on that. becoming a sec officer is a voluntary choice. you go into it knowing that your job is going to be having to robust bad men. you are given the tools for massive advantages there, which most sec players foolishly ignore. they think a single batong will save them, which usually just leads to johnny greyshirt getting a batong.
that's the big issue with the role: unlike the other departments, sec is totally superfluous. the metaprotections they're afforded are so they can exist alongside other roles, but other roles actually serve a proper function on the station. security, in practice, exists to fight bad guys and arrest them, but literally nothing but said metaprotections and rules forbid other departments from doing just that.

furthermore, why shouldn't they get mobbed when arresting someone? even ignoring the fact that they can shit out a gorillion flashbangs and use pepper spray, the best case scenario for somebody being arrested is that they afk and watch youtube for 5 minutes or suicide in their cell. and people always say "well good they were being a shitter" but sec's not a fucking admin stand-in, sec is meant to be a job like the others. their purpose is incompatible with the rest of the roles, and that's why metaprotections are needed.

tl;dr: the change sec needs is further than metaprotection alterations; they need a fundamental change in what their stated purpose is, because as it stands, trying to foster organic interaction with the rest of the crew is impossible.

ADDENDUM: i actually think a good solution would be to remove the general security officer role and instead divvy out more specialized ones. make it so they do more as a department than just be stun baton bots that the admins don't let you fight back against adequately. detective's a good example - they provide a unique function that only they're capable of. specialized roles with job mechanics and specific authorities, not just "mom said I can beat you up without getting bwoinked"

Well the thing is that we kinda have to have some kind of sec force in each round, in order to provide an unambiguously crew-sided force who can act against threats with authority. Sec are the guys who have the gear to non-lethally detain people who cause trouble, and powerful lethal tools against the external threats. When theres no sec signed up to be that backbone, the crew tend to get completely rolled by anything more than a minor threat.
I also don't know how replacing sec officers with specialised roles is actually solving any of the mentioned problems - the Detective is a force multiplier that makes the other seccies do their job better by hunting down sneakier criminals, but SOMEONE has to then go and catch and arrest / kill with extreme prejudice johnny traitor. Its unclear how adding a technical officer or a intelligence officer or whatever solves the criticism that sec is inherently a role about stopping other players from doing what they want.

[CursedBirb]

so, i will say this and i mean it in a completely unironic fashion: skill issue
now, let me elaborate on that. becoming a sec officer is a voluntary choice. you go into it knowing that your job is going to be having to robust bad men. you are given the tools for massive advantages there, which most sec players foolishly ignore. they think a single batong will save them, which usually just leads to johnny greyshirt getting a batong.
that's the big issue with the role: unlike the other departments, sec is totally superfluous. the metaprotections they're afforded are so they can exist alongside other roles, but other roles actually serve a proper function on the station. security, in practice, exists to fight bad guys and arrest them, but literally nothing but said metaprotections and rules forbid other departments from doing just that.

furthermore, why shouldn't they get mobbed when arresting someone? even ignoring the fact that they can shit out a gorillion flashbangs and use pepper spray, the best case scenario for somebody being arrested is that they afk and watch youtube for 5 minutes or suicide in their cell. and people always say "well good they were being a shitter" but sec's not a fucking admin stand-in, sec is meant to be a job like the others. their purpose is incompatible with the rest of the roles, and that's why metaprotections are needed.

tl;dr: the change sec needs is further than metaprotection alterations; they need a fundamental change in what their stated purpose is, because as it stands, trying to foster organic interaction with the rest of the crew is impossible.

ADDENDUM: i actually think a good solution would be to remove the general security officer role and instead divvy out more specialized ones. make it so they do more as a department than just be stun baton bots that the admins don't let you fight back against adequately. detective's a good example - they provide a unique function that only they're capable of. specialized roles with job mechanics and specific authorities, not just "mom said I can beat you up without getting bwoinked"

Well the thing is that we kinda have to have some kind of sec force in each round, in order to provide an unambiguously crew-sided force who can act against threats with authority. Sec are the guys who have the gear to non-lethally detain people who cause trouble, and powerful lethal tools against the external threats. When theres no sec signed up to be that backbone, the crew tend to get completely rolled by anything more than a minor threat.
I also don't know how replacing sec officers with specialised roles is actually solving any of the mentioned problems - the Detective is a force multiplier that makes the other seccies do their job better by hunting down sneakier criminals, but SOMEONE has to then go and catch and arrest / kill with extreme prejudice johnny traitor. Its unclear how adding a technical officer or a intelligence officer or whatever solves the criticism that sec is inherently a role about stopping other players from doing what they want.

Dont forget that non sec crew are not allowed to pursue johny traitor outside of their workplace as long as johny traitor is not a round ending kind of antag. All cause it would go under the rules of valid hunting and would result in ban. Which is why sec is needed to remove that kind of threat's

[Timberpoes]

The problem with metaprotections is that they're largely a social construct - in that they're often 1:1 with metabenefits stemming from some gameplay factor.

For example, the Prisoner role cannot roll antag. When players cottoned on to this, security started going to the brig every shift and recruiting their guaranteed non-antag prisoners into the sec team. Even though it makes absolutely zero sense from a roleplay perspective.

Security's metaprotections only partially come from a position of needing them to do their job - the reality is that players who want to get involved in a fight they have no business getting involved in but also not get into trouble for it will side with Sec. Since Sec cannot be antags, in any fight you can basically always side with the Sec officer(s) and you win the argument if you get bwoinked instantly. So players side with Sec.

It's not just the metabenifit of being a confirmed 99% not-an-antag-because-of-code. There's other outliers, like Department Heads being defended by their department and Command crew being generally more important overall that on average makes them harder to retaliate against without their department or the entire Sec team coming down on you like a ton of bricks.

[ekaterina]

furthermore, why shouldn't they get mobbed when arresting someone?

Maybe there's some room for nuance. If there's a fully staffed security department, mobbing an officer performing an arrest will result in potentially interesting IC conflict between a sizeable security force and a sizeable mob. However, if it's just one guy in security, then allowing him to be mobbed is just stopping that guy from playing the game as the role he picked.

anyone can dress or disguise as security.

Can confirm, did so today as a ling. Captured my target and to onlookers it was all a completely normal arrest. Deception 100

confirmed 99% not-an-antag-because-of-code

lol. See above.

[DrAmazing343]

In my first post, I wrote "this is good emergent gameplay." I think I hit the nail on the head right there and made a mistake trying to ahelp the person involved instead of letting it play out IC. This should be up to admin discretion, leaning heavily on context. Since I opened this, I'll close it now and leave it at that with no change.