captain as security restrictions [MRP]

[EmpressMaia]

hello, i got inpired by the sec pol rework currently up to alleviate an issue i and several other players have been expierencing recently.

id like to propose we tighten the restrictions of captains acting as members of security, its been a big problem lately on Manuel were captains essentially reject their commanding duties to instead focus on catching valids wherever they may be, often leaving the station to do so, and this being allowed after several ahelps reguarding it.

im not the best rules writer / lawyer, so perhaps a headmin or better poster could make a better rule, but i think something along the lines of "As the captain, you should not be acting as additional manpower to the security force if there is a sufficient staffing of security, and should not go out of your way to arrest people" to the MRP rules. while there are (general rules) that cover this. it is not very enforced at all and this gives admins a direct rule to refer to when dealing with players that use captain to play security

[Archie700]

We've been through this

[conrad]

Repeat after me:

Adding more rules when the people you want following those rules aren't following the current ones and the admins aren't enforcing the current ones doesn't work.

If captains are straying from their lane in MRP or doing things without an IC reason ahelps and admin complaint's are your best friend. Putting a rule a comdom isn't gonna read isn't.

[iwishforducks]

We've been through this

even though this specific entry is about “sea” captains, the rank of “captain” in ss13 comes exactly from that. (starboard, aft, etc are also all terms from naval ship directions)

i think it’s pretty clear that a captain’s duties lie in security just as much as every other part of the station. with that said, some captain going around with sechuds hunting all the greys would be seen as an incompetent fool because they’re not managing engineering, medical, cargo, etc. - but that becomes an entirely separate issue; it’s no longer about security not being the captain’s lane, it’s about the captain not being fit for the job

and i still stand by it!

[EmpressMaia]

Repeat after me:

Adding more rules when the people you want following those rules aren't following the current ones and the admins aren't enforcing the current ones doesn't work.

If captains are straying from their lane in MRP or doing things without an IC reason ahelps and admin complaint's are your best friend. Putting a rule a comdom isn't gonna read isn't.

you cant admin complaint when an admin doesnt do the thing you wanted them to do. "waaah you didnt note them" you arent gonna be taken seriously. you usually dont have any idea what admins are doing with other players at all. you dont know who to admin complaint or when, or how. so we need verbose rules to say "yeah we dont want this play"

[Itseasytosee2me]

I think this is actually an interesting sort of question from a role-playing preservative, which is allegedly the prerogative of the MRP rule set. The events of space station 13 are quite bombastic and almost guaranteed to have an existential threat to the safety of the crew and the captain's station at some point. As soon as antagonists get involved, it would be stranger for the captain NOT to be very invested in the on-goings of the security department.

In this way, I would argue it makes sense for the captain to be more invested in security than other departments once it is clear that this is not going to be a normal shift.

Ducks is right that hunting petty criminals as a captain is pretty dumb and definitely feels out of place given the circumstances, the captain should have more important things to do (supposedly).

BUT we don't want captains wordlessly gearing up and hunting the station for valids. I think behavior like that is already covered by a few different rules.

I think the previous ruling on this topic is sufficient to address these concerns, it just needs to be enforced.

the captain can involve themselves in security matters at their own behest if they have an IC reason driving their actions, beyond an OOC desire to use their position and gear just to hunt antags. this is especially true when it concerns matters of command - heads in danger, critical station infrastructure in danger of being destroyed, whatever the case may be. the captain can choose to take the risk to put themselves in harms way if it's a logical choice for them to make in that IC situation.

captains should not be made to shy away from utilizing their role fully if there is an IC reason to do so.

questionable acts of using/abusing authority to validhunt WITHOUT an IC reason is still disallowed - this includes examples such as the captain using their access roundstart to equip guns from the armoury before any threat or IC reason has presented itself.

[EmpressMaia]

i ahelped this behaviour just today and was told it wasnt actionable under the rules. so like what gives

[conrad]

Repeat after me:

Adding more rules when the people you want following those rules aren't following the current ones and the admins aren't enforcing the current ones doesn't work.

If captains are straying from their lane in MRP or doing things without an IC reason ahelps and admin complaint's are your best friend. Putting a rule a comdom isn't gonna read isn't.

you cant admin complaint when an admin doesnt do the thing you wanted them to do. "waaah you didnt note them" you arent gonna be taken seriously. you usually dont have any idea what admins are doing with other players at all. you dont know who to admin complaint or when, or how. so we need verbose rules to say "yeah we dont want this play"

None of this is what I meant or suggested. Please refer to the resolution of the thread Archie mentioned, particularly:

questionable acts of using/abusing authority to validhunt WITHOUT an IC reason is still disallowed - this includes examples such as the captain using their access roundstart to equip guns from the armoury before any threat or IC reason has presented itself.

[EmpressMaia]

ahelps and admin complaint's are your best friend

[conrad]

Yeah but when you say stupid shit like "waaah you didnt note them" it misconstrues what I meant.

[TheLoLSwat]

i dont really see the issue with captains focusing on the security matters over other matters. The point of being the captain is that you get to be the big boss and stick your nose where you want to stick it. It just makes sense that captains would more often step in for matters regarding the safety of the station. Also captains that really stretch the limits of whats OK can already be handled by other rules

[NecromancerAnne]

If someone is acting as security, they're held to that standard. That's been the case for a long while. Enough that I think sec bans should include captain bans. (Though I think any department ban should include a captain ban tbh)

[conrad]

(Though I think any department ban should include a captain ban tbh)

tbf a captain taking over the functions of a department they're jobbanned is considered ban evasion.

I think on Timber's previous term (which incidentally it was when I was admin) I saw at least one guy getting banned for ban evasion 'cos he was doing like engineering work to get the SM working while being jobbanned as engineer.

[Archie700]

If someone is acting as security, they're held to that standard. That's been the case for a long while. Enough that I think sec bans should include captain bans. (Though I think any department ban should include a captain ban tbh)

They usually should, admins just forget sometimes

[NecromancerAnne]

(Though I think any department ban should include a captain ban tbh)

tbf a captain taking over the functions of a department they're jobbanned is considered ban evasion.

I think on Timber's previous term (which incidentally it was when I was admin) I saw at least one guy getting banned for ban evasion 'cos he was doing like engineering work to get the SM working while being jobbanned as engineer.

I guess what I meant to say is that if there was support for it from headmins to make that change, I think it should be automatic so that, as Archie pointed out, admins don't forget and people accidentally do evade their bans as the role whose job it is is to dip into almost any role at all as needed.

[Timberpoes]

Doesn't look like there's any real appetite to change policy on this.

Please refer to a past term's clarification on this topic instead, which also didn't involve any change to the rules:

viewtopic.php?p=723684

many thanks to everyone who has participated in this discussion. the point of it to begin with was to try and uncover how much the consensus varied across the playerbase and admin team. it seems to be that a lot of us are in agreement, and our headmin discussions have also supported our initial thoughts in the overturning of clara's note.

there is no change being made to existing policy here, rather a simple clarification on our interpretation of the existing rules:

the captain can involve themselves in security matters at their own behest if they have an IC reason driving their actions, beyond an OOC desire to use their position and gear just to hunt antags. this is especially true when it concerns matters of command - heads in danger, critical station infrastructure in danger of being destroyed, whatever the case may be. the captain can choose to take the risk to put themselves in harms way if it's a logical choice for them to make in that IC situation.

captains should not be made to shy away from utilizing their role fully if there is an IC reason to do so.

questionable acts of using/abusing authority to validhunt WITHOUT an IC reason is still disallowed - this includes examples such as the captain using their access roundstart to equip guns from the armoury before any threat or IC reason has presented itself.