Security policy

[ekaterina]

What is your vision for security policy? Would you change anything about it, or the way it is enforced?

[Jackraxxus]

I've played a lotta sec on MRP, and I do wish we went slightly easier on antags who were doing something interesting rather than unga'ing objectives or contracting or whatever. U know ppl with gimmicks. But I think it's more of a culture thing than something the rules can be changed around. It can be so difficult (or even impossible) at times to tell the difference between an antagonist who's gonna stun you to take you to a candle-lit dinner with another person they kidnapped, and an antag who's gonna put u in the funny contractor meme pod so their number goes up. It's my (Very biased) opinion that antags are to blame for starting the streak of double-betrays in our MRP prisoners' dilemma but I don't think extra rules for either side will fix it. It's something I've done occasionally (Not as much as I probably should) but I think it's cool to throw antags who were doing something fun but got dunked a bone. They get perma'd early? Give em a syndicate toolbox, must've had an uplink implant. They get killed and left for dead? They were a ling all along and they get up. I get that these kinda interventions in a way reduce the honest consequences of player choice, but I think it's worth it to prevent these players going "Yeah I guess I'll just game super hard next time", even though people who say this rarely do it. Wouldn't do it while sec is mega-losing of course. If u start gaming while sec is getting fucked on from all sides, losing officers left and right, and u get shotgun blasted? They don't got time for you man. If you're going at sec swinging while there's 5 traitors, 4 heretics, 3 ninjas, 2 blobs and a partridge in a pear tree you're gonna get BLAM'd.

Specific examples right. Wizard comes along, to the station, demands people make art or he'll turn them into statues. He's talking loud and being funny, people are playing along and making him paintings and statues. Sec comes along, shoots him in the fucking face and says "HOW'S THAT FOR ART YOU NERD ASS BITCH. GET FUCKED!!!!!!!!!". Rules-wise? Fine, wizards are an unrestricted antag. Can be gamed. But story wise very unsatisfying. Sure would be a shame if the "wizard" they killed was merely an illusion. He uses this chance to run it down mid at sec? Not what I'd do but it seems like that's what sec wants if he gets owned w/e. Continues his gimmick and gets dunked again? Cool, awesome, run it back and put him back in. Wizard who keeps getting gamed but keeps coming back to demand crazier and crazier art sounds like a funny story to me. If deadchat are in on it hit the imposter wizard button a couple times.

Back in the day we'd have malf AIs threaten to delta if people didn't do things for them. Steal the HoS' beret and space it, bring it a drink, make the SM run something wacky, have 10 clownbots patrolling the halls etc. and people would go along with it, as a funny gaffe or to preserve their own lives. Maybe sec would beat up a borg and hold it hostage while demanding the AI alter their challenge in some way (I was the borg it was funny - Maelstrom's never getting his beret back). Nowadays the AI does something similar and there's a whole sec conga thermiting into their sat. Perfectly fine and valid rules wise, malf Ais are unrestricted (And need to remain so to prevent ppl get noted over the silliest things) but not ideal story-wise. I get sat assaults are always fun for sec - it's some of my favourite gameplay personally, even - but is not so fun for the AI. Last time I saw this happen, the next time that AI rolled malf they speedrun any% plasmaflooded. Which they're allowed to do but doesn't lead to the greatest story. I'm not saying the correlation here is at all the causation but I think it's fair to suspect there might be some involvement. I'm not saying like 'lol lmao teleport the AI core away' here, sec worked for the W. It's hard to remember in the moment but shunting exists, you can just BAMF away from your sat before sec gets you. One time when I got speedrun as malf AI admins brought me back a syndie sabo-borg and had me do sabotage things, I thought that was pretty fun.

IDK why I wrote all this it's 6am. Does any of it make sense? I dunno how I'd get anything to happen without just doing it myself. Maybe a token addition to the MRP rules somewhere saying "Don't expect everything to conform to mechanics as normal, admins can intervene in-game through methods other than the bwoink when they think it could make a more fun experience." but we kinda already have that. I dunno.

As for LRP, I wish I could play sec on terry but I average 450 ms ping on that server so I do not think that is entirely possible. Generally I take the opinions of people who I perceive as "not playing" with multiple dead seas worth of salt, so I'd be a hypocrite to have a strong opinion on the topic myself. I tentatively believe that if antags can do whatever they want to sec, sec should be able to do whatever they want to antags but I'd much prefer an opinion from someone more informed than I.

From my memories of 2019 Sybil, pre-manuel, sec got gamed on by Shevi and Hates every round but still left me alone for my gimmicks. I got a 2 minute brig sentence for having Scarp and emagging a comms console to call the syndicate gay, and another round a 5 minute sentence for leading cargonia in an uprising as QM. People were newer, on average, then. Had less hours. Played to win less, probably because we didn't know how to. Maybe my glasses are just extra rose tinted as I write this. Is what makes me think it's a culture thing.

[RaveRadbury]

I have no vision for security. My goals for security as headmin for this upcoming term would be to try and facilitate discussion and understanding between opposing parties rather than seeking to push a side. I believe that with enough thoughtful discussion that clear answers or compromises can be found. It's just a matter of stress-testing ideas.

When I have to weigh in on sec policy I'll be asking a lot of questions in the policy thread to facilitate clarity and deeper discussion while taking in what the community has to say. I'll also be consulting Kieth and other sec policy wonks. It's important now more than ever that we build buy-in on policy changes and that only happens when people feel like they have a part in things.

[iansdoor]

What is your vision for security policy? Would you change anything about it, or the way it is enforced?

Sorry for the delay.
I personally update one thing to request which is already asked of security on Terry of all places. You would need proof of actual evidence to continue forward to beating scum via rule 4, otherwise just minor jail time, this isn't specifically stated on the security policy.. This defaults to catch and release, but there would be the stipulation of if you see a player do the same routine over and over whether on non-antagonist and antagonist, you can either A) bag them to check them, cannot be wordlessly though, to determine their intentions and go from there, or if the level of routine is pretty bad B) just tell an admin about the frustrating playstyle, it has to be something that seems over the top, every single time. There is a difference between being slightly ready for anything, cheap meds, box of crayons, tools and then there is 7 paper bags worth of beakers and guns, slime extracts. We aren't all omnipresent to every person, but we can solve the issue of folks going to far, so not to abuse the system.

[Maxipat]

Honestly, I think our sec policy is mostly fine - gives you metaprotections that depend on good faith play, wording good enough to communicate the idea but also not precise enough to run into the issue of million precedents and microrulings like silipol. The only thing i'd add to secpol is actually clarifying and putting in text how long gulag takes on average, since 100 points = 1 minute is just a verbal tradition passed around. (I miss data for now but it's something that can be tested). If there are any issues with people griefing sec or tiders etc etc, i don't think it's something changing secpol would fix, rather it being already against the rules but going unreported.

For MRP specifically though, ive heard voices coming from sec mains there that they'd like us to bring back adherence to space law as an excuse towards admins? I'm not a big fan of it cause it can be easily used to grief (and i personally accept space law as "good faith" punishment for secpol purpose), but i wouldn't mind inviting security regulars and admins from Manuel to figure out how much it's actually wanted or needed.

[TheRex9001]

Not anything Im an expert in, I would want to consult sec players on it more (POLICY BUS RETURN????), there is nobody better to guide sec vision than a sec player.

[xzero314]

I want Security players to feel backed by the admins. Lately it really feels like they aren't. I would like to re-introduce space law to security policy. Either how it was before as just something sec officers can take as a guide and reference in ahelps. Or going all the way to make it full policy. I have over 1000 hours of security myself across all the roles and I am keen on making sure the security experience is not degraded.

[ekaterina]

I want Security players to feel backed by the admins. Lately it really feels like they aren't. I would like to re-introduce space law to security policy. Either how it was before as just something sec officers can take as a guide and reference in ahelps. Or going all the way to make it full policy. I have over 1000 hours of security myself across all the roles and I am keen on making sure the security experience is not degraded.

How do you plan to prevent things from going too far in the other direction (admin-enforced space law, ahelps taking the place of "playing the game" for sec officers)?

[xzero314]

I want Security players to feel backed by the admins. Lately it really feels like they aren't. I would like to re-introduce space law to security policy. Either how it was before as just something sec officers can take as a guide and reference in ahelps. Or going all the way to make it full policy. I have over 1000 hours of security myself across all the roles and I am keen on making sure the security experience is not degraded.

How do you plan to prevent things from going too far in the other direction (admin-enforced space law, ahelps taking the place of "playing the game" for sec officers)?

I would like to make sure that whatever solution I try does not introduce "admin-roulette" into the situation.

Right now the Rules say "Sec officers should use discretion on when to lethal and always be going for non-lethal methods first" But the times when it is appropriate to escalate to lethal are no longer so clear for sec without the ability to reference space law to admins. So currently admin opinion does play a bit of a role in how security policy is enforced. My hope is that a clear system to point to (space-law) will make things clearer for both sec players and admins cut down on this. I would also be sure to voice my opinion on security situations if they are ever pinged about in bus.