/tg/Station 13

Which reads

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.

There appear to be multiple interpretations of this, with shades of grey in the middle.

Notably some of us have taken this as implying that security should be exclusively using non lethal force (that is stun weapons and disablers, non harmful if you prefer for clarity) unless circumstances justify (armed, suitably hostile, can not be locked down due to hulk, lacking an arm, etc etc).

There appears to be another take where this means as long as you stop short of actually killing the other person then that's okay (as far as I understand the take).

There's probably other takes too.

Given this ambiguity, and the grey scale within (is beating them to crit okay? -50 health? breaking their limbs? - this is literally part of terry's history) where is the line exactly?


My take is that security should generally not be harming their targets in any way (doing so being assault and in its self a crime!), unless the target is an antagonist or acting like one (noting that non antags attacking security harmfully are breaking the rules and would be bwoinked for that, also permitting security to do whatever to the attacker for acting like an antagonist in most cases).

I guess some further guidance to get us all unambiguously on the same page might be in order here?

its good that its vague because it empowers admins to empower players to rp the situation. We dont want officers to have an entire armory / locker room as well as their creative minds but be forced to use the exact same methods because an alternative does 20 brute damage which leads to a note. Throwing an assistant into a wall two times and then telling them off for minor B&E is a bit excessive, for example, but admins shouldn't go out of their way to curb that behaivor if both parties are using that excessive force to create a story. Sam Security wordlessly punching an assistant into crit for shoving him into a wall once and then going on about his business would be a violation because its going a bit too far.

Admins should step in when it gets egregious but its important to remember that the way that a situation is RPd isn't wrong just because its not the way you agree with

I look at the by 4 rule for using "lethal force." 4 harm baton hits maximum for putting someone in their place. That is completely IC and can be considered being rough with an arrest. when youare between 5 and 8, you get into the area of "something isnt right here." this shows some deliberate vitriol to an individual, and this should be looked at in a case by case basis. is the guy being a total shitter? did they guy beat the officer up REALLY bad? (in the orange to red scale) its subjective based on the context, but at that point, its good to question IC motives. 8+ is getting into shitsec territory. if you are smacking someone 8 times that isn't a confirmed antag that needs to be lethaled (freedom implant, etc.) you are being a shitsec and need a reminder to not use that LEVEL of lethal force.

Thats how I see it though. 4 is good, between 4 and 8 is iffy, and 8+ is clearly shitsec.

I broadly agree with Jamarkus.

I think if your character was in some way attacked, humiliated or talked shit to, you should be fine to return a few harmbatons or bust a kneecap in brig, but you also accept IC consequences for this - possible lawsuits, demotions, warnings, and such. If you're beating someone up severely, at 4+ batons, you're going too far.

If no one instigated, talked shit, or humiliated you like balded you or whatever - if you just show up to an arrest and harmbaton someone - I'm not sure about the line there. If you're RPing a super hardass, I feel like I could understand that "their way" would be to harmbaton into harmbaton to stun someone, and then cuff them. I feel like that's really instigatory and that kind of RP would promote a lot of unfun interactions, anger, salt, that kind of thing. For the sake of overall fun you probably shouldn't do that, at least have some IC justification, just as antag needs the thinnest IC justification to kill someone you should be able to at least say why you smashed someone over the head with a batong other than "I felt like it." Curious to see what others think

Congrats iain0, you're now headmin so you get to decide what the policy meant all along!