A MATTER OF SECURITY

[TheBibleMelts]

Bottom post of the previous page:

i propose a change to rule 1 and 2 of our current security policy, in order to facilitate less 'judge, jury, and field executioner' security playstyles, and to allow antagonists to feel they may be more capable of playing out gimmicks or sticking their heads out without immediately being flatlined upon discovery due to security being included in the 'treat antags how you want' policy.

CURRENT POLICY

1. 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.

PROPOSED CHANGE

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

[conrad]

Matter of fact is nobody knows how to fucking do it.

The problem is that policy and rules are prescriptive: they exist to be complied with. That creates structure, but it also creates rigidity.

What we need more of right now is the descriptive side: cultural guidance that explains the why, not just the what. Descriptions help players understand the spirit behind the expectations, not just the letter.

If we want to raise RP standards, it won’t come from another rule: it’ll come from better articulation of what good RP looks like, what behaviors support it, and what kind of stories we’re trying to foster. All of that should be rooted in community discussion. We have to stop assuming players will infer the goal from enforcement alone.

That's not something we can just write down and expect people to follow, we need buy-in from community members who share in the group's vision. Ideas spread because people learn them from each other. Some people are better at it than others.

I like this as a theory, but this isn't a solution.

You can note then jobban people for playing in an idiotic way and have people not banned lead by example for new players and for when those people are unbanned. That's how I see "improving RP standards".

An example is people like Lisa Green playing really good sec and captain or Bob Stange playing really good CMO, and people trying to emulate this.

If there is a third way, please educate me.

And in either case. adding more rules isn't the way. Most people don't even read the rules, they gloss over the rules page, catch the general gist of it, and play like a normal person.

[RaveRadbury]

I like this as a theory, but this isn't a solution.

You can note then jobban people for playing in an idiotic way and have people not banned lead by example for new players and for when those people are unbanned. That's how I see "improving RP standards".

An example is people like Lisa Green playing really good sec and captain or Bob Stange playing really good CMO, and people trying to emulate this.

If there is a third way, please educate me.

And in either case. adding more rules isn't the way. Most people don't even read the rules, they gloss over the rules page, catch the general gist of it, and play like a normal person.

Yeah it's a "lead by example" thing but with some community-directed coordination. I'm pretty sure at least one sec metacord like put together their own code of conduct. So it's not impossible or irregular for players to self-regulate and opt-in to further restriction. The biggest difference between what we have now and what we could have is being more deliberate about fostering opportunities for respectful discussion of norms and expectations between players (like community meetings). Things have been awfully good-faith around here lately so I'm thinking we might be able to handle it. I think this kind of approach would feel less "top down" and if people are willing to show up and share in good faith I think it would build a lot of positive energy and resilience.

[BONERMASTER]

Either way, you won't raise the RP standard if you tell our cops that they can't arrest a criminal, so HARD PASS from me!

With secure regards
-BONERMASTER

[Timberpoes]

I'm -1, DrAmazing is +1, I haven't asked Omega cuz he's busy with other headmin stuff, and iain0 is -1 so I'm just gonna half pull-rank and say there's no current appetite in this, although if next headmin term disagrees they can always re-open this. I don't want to implement a change that next term may immediately disapprove of and revert if iain0's input is anything to go by.

Timberpoes: -1, I'll let the incoming term triple-LRP-triumvirate change this if they want, and I believe the RP rules are stronger than this on this exact topic, so it's not needed on MRP and wouldn't change enforcement if it was.
DrAmazing: +1, "Absolutely 100% in favor of this. It was one of my initial ideas to change sec policy in a way like this in my Headmin Campaign, but the idea never made it out of the oven. I believe this is much more applicable now than ever."
Omega: I didn't ask him cuz he was busy with something else headminny at the time
Hostvote Elect Iain0: -1, doesn't believe it will work on LRP in its proposed form