CURRENT POLICY
PROPOSED CHANGE1. Rule 1 of the main rules applies to security.
The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.
2. Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.
Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists.
The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.
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. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.
with this, security will still be able to deploy force against both shitters and rampaging antagonists, but otherwise should be held to a higher station of responsibility in allowing a subdued antagonist to be processed as opposed to killed the moment that they're rendered stamcrit by a baton.1. Rule 1 of the main rules applies to security.
In addition, security is held to a higher standard during conflict resolution and during arrests - and should utilize non-harmful methods to detain or subdue criminals before resorting to harmful means, where reasonable.
2. Rule 4 of the main rules does not apply to security.
Security are the exception to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists. When possible, security is to subdue, detain, and process criminals as expected of an employed security team aboard a corporate-ran station. However, there are exceptions where extreme violence may be overlooked, such as against criminals who stun an officer repeatedly, use lethal or restricted weapons on them, or disrupt the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an existential threat and, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.
OPTIONAL BONUS: want to bake a 3-year old headmin ruling into this so that we don't have to drag a crusty ass thread out of the pile when its relevant? put this line into rule 2's adjustment as follows. from the thread here - viewtopic.php?p=632580#p632580
creating...
the intent of that is to cull the "well i guess i'll just grab security gear as an assistant to valid hunt" crowd arguments, which are addressed in that thread itself by timberpoes.2. Rule 4 of the main rules does not apply to security.
Security are the exception to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists. When possible, security is to subdue, detain, and process criminals as expected of an employed security team aboard a corporate-ran station. However, there are exceptions where extreme violence may be overlooked, such as against criminals who stun an officer repeatedly, use lethal or restricted weapons on them, or disrupt the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an existential threat and, when in doubt, err on the side of caution. Security standards can be applied to anyone acting as security, not just roundstart security officers.