Jump to content

lonesoldier55

Contributor
  • Posts

    1,024
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

Community Answers

  1. lonesoldier55's post in Random Search on No Emergency Code at Shift Start was marked as the answer   
  2. lonesoldier55's post in Head of Personnel / Captain Promoting a new HoP was marked as the answer   
    Promotions need to be considered with the well-being of the station in mind and how it affects the rest of the players. The person being promoted should at least:
    shown some interest in doing the tasks demanded of the job (meaning they don't just want the job for the perks it offers and not to actually perform it ex: grabbing extra access and never being heard from again) shown to some degree to at least be somewhat competent or trustworthy (ex: not just picked at random from the first seen crewmember or picked just to be funny [clown]) Ideally, but not always, be from a member of the department you plan to promote them in control of (ex: a good place to look for a CMO replacement is medical doctors and chemists). In the case of the HoP, the job's position is unique and precarious because they have the ability to assign permissions to crew members which can heavily enable people to cause problems in other departments, especially if the HoP does not particularly care for performing due diligence and only seeks to please those asking for access.
    To clarify, Heads of Staff who need to leave the game generally only need to notify admins via ahelp of such. It is nice if you do, but it is not required, for you to arrange for a promotion prior to leaving. Forcing players to arrange promotions would result in frequent ham-fisted promotions upon the first available person, which is what still happens sometimes.
    The issue with the scenario in question was the crew member appeared to be randomly picked for funny factor and/or was being put into the position prior to any real need of the original player to leave. So as long as you follow the above three bulletpoints you'll be fine.
  3. lonesoldier55's post in Alert levels and random searches. was marked as the answer   
    I'll be brief on the extent of searches for LRP only:
    RED/BLUE Alert - Security can randomly search anyone at any time, for any reason, so as long as it isn't causing undue danger to the crew.
    GREEN Alert - Green alert only forbids "random" searches. This would generally mean a search with no articulatable reason, cause, or pretense. A search on green alert must be done with "reasonable suspicion" that a crime occurred, is being committed, or may occur in the near future due to the circumstances. To establish reasonable suspicion, the officer should be able to present articulatable facts that makes them feel that searching the person may uncover evidence of a crime or may reveal contraband. Facts like this do not include a "gut feeling" or "intuition" that the offender should be searched, as well as opinions such as someone "looking suspicious" or "out of place".
    Immediately resorting to incapacitating weapons to perform a search can be done, however officers should be aware how this looks to bystanders and should avoid using them when compliance might be gained verbally instead. Depending on the potential danger presented by the offender, utilizing stunning weapons instead of making verbal contact may be the better option.
    A few examples to help clear this up:
    Ex 1: G. Tider is reported by a medical doctor to have stolen an ID card from a patient who was being treated. This report is corroborated by another doctor. G. Tider is seen leaving Medbay. You ask if G. Tider has stolen an ID, to which he says no. You ask if you can search him, which he says no since he doesn't have a stolen ID. In this case, a search would be justified due to G. Tider being reported and identified as a person who potentially stole an ID by someone in Medbay. G. Tider's proximity to Medbay and more than one person substantiating the claim also lend a lot of leeway to a search on green.
    Ex 2: You hear over security radio that someone with yellow glove fibers broke into the detective's office. Shortly after, you see a Musician, Rocks-the-Casbah, walking into a maintenance tunnel. While he did not appear to be wearing any gloves, you don't recall seeing him in public areas doing his job and you feel like you saw him earlier nearby the detective's office. All these factors considered, a search would not be justified since you lack any concrete evidence or facts to tie the musician back to the alleged crime. A search here would be considered random.
    I don't know the full context of this situation that took place, but provided the officer received enough information to potentially search this offender, it seems like a valid search.
  4. lonesoldier55's post in insulated gloves confiscation was marked as the answer   
    This is covered more generally in the existing rules:
    Detainees should be released from the brig in a timely manner once their sentence is up and given back any gear taken from them, minus contraband which may remain confiscated. Security may choose to confiscate dangerous items (weapons, firearms, etc.) as well as items used to commission crimes or items that prove problematic in possession of the detainee (tools, insulated gloves, etc). If Security exercises this privilege they will be expected to produce a good reason for confiscating it. In general terms security may exercise the privilege to confiscate anything the detainee probably should not be in possession of, and especially those things which are proving to pose a problem to the security or safety of the crew or station (such as weapons, tools, and in this case, insulated gloves used in hacking). In general, security may also confiscate things they believe to be stolen or things that otherwise have little alignment with the crew member's current assignment, which would generally include insulated gloves if the crew member has no real purpose for having them.
  5. lonesoldier55's post in Lethal force to perform arrest of multiple perpetrators was marked as the answer   
    In an ideal scenario it would be preferable to attempt the following options in an effort to avoid escalating to lethal force if possible:
    Attempt to call for backup or solicit additional help which evens the odds  Remove yourself from the situation to obtain help and come back if it is feasible to do so and if the suspects continuing isn't an undue danger to the station/crew (i.e; if you're trying to break up a simple bar scuffle and nobody's life is in immediate danger, it might be a good idea to quickly slip out and come back with help) If either of these options fail or are otherwise not practical for the given situation (ex: you are under direct attack), and especially if you are already justified in using lethal force (you believe your life or someone else's is in danger, etc.), you may escalate to lethal force to protect yourself and effect an arrest. Lethal force escalation also provides a clause for "the suspect is unable to be safely detained by less-lethal means. This includes suspects who continue to resist efforts to be cuffed or suspects who cannot quickly and safely be detained less-lethally".
    Again, it is preferred to attempt alternative options to lethal force where practical, but it should be weighed against the need to immediately stop/arrest the suspects, the severity of the crimes being pursued, and the need to protect yourself, another innocent, or the station at large.
    In the case lethal force is used in this manner, you would be expected (to the best of your ability) to attempt to limit the amount of collateral damage and attempt to prevent the suspect(s) from dying. If enough of the suspects were to abandon their attack on you after you deploy lethal force (ex: the second suspect thinks better about getting shot to death and flees the scene while the first suspect has been heavily injured or knocked into critical by your attack) it may be appropriate to de-escalate to something less-lethal instead of further pursuing the suspects with lethal force after immediate danger has passed, however this is up to the totality of the circumstances.
  6. lonesoldier55's post in Security's reach when overhearing possible criminal activity was marked as the answer   
    This question is rather vague in many aspects and doesn't really seem to be asking about a specific rule, however we think illustrating the bounds and reasonable actions of security in some scenarios would be beneficial. To answer your question, here is the information you provided of this scenario:
    There are three people in maintenance somewhere They are talking about something Based on whatever you heard (you never specify) you assume they are up to illicit or syndicate activity At this point, the strongest intrusion you can probably wager on that information alone is randomly searching one or more of the individuals as Code Blue enables Security to conduct random searches of crew for any reason at any time. If these people were to refuse a random search, that could be cause for an arrest and forcible search. To be clear, this random search does not have to be conducted immediately and can simply be done the next time you see them.
    Alternatively, unless someone's life is in immediate danger, you probably would not be expected to directly intervene into this situation as security as there could be a high likelyhood of being ambushed. Simply making note of the names of the individuals you overheard/what they were talking about and using that intelligence later (and sharing it with security) can be sufficient instead of being required to interject yourself into this situation.
    Depending on what exactly you heard, if you actually witness any criminal activity, and if you actually uncover any contraband by fruits of a search (via arrest or random search), will dictate if you can take any further action. The act of merely hearing someone talk about illicit activity alone would generally not be enough to brand them a hostile agent.
    EDIT: Also of note here is that depending on what information you hear, a search based upon your suspicion during code green would also be justified, with further action being justified by what you do/do not find upon that search.
  7. lonesoldier55's post in Appropriate escalation from non-violence into violence was marked as the answer   
    This is a difficult question to answer clearly. Naturally, almost every situation is different and has a degree of subjectivity to it, so the amount of force you may use against someone will proportionally vary. Different players may opt to use different levels of force, but that isn't to say there is always one level of force that is appropriate to use in a given situation. I will try outline general guidelines that may be useful to determine if/when/how much force should be used against someone to resolve an IC conflict:
    1) If there is no immediate or clear danger to yourself or others, it is strongly preferred to meet a situation verbally first. Request the person stop what they're doing, demand they leave, ask them what they're doing, call security and see if they can resolve it. We understand security is not always willing or available and that troublemakers frequently decline to respond positively to verbal instruction, so this leads to...
    2) If the individual is non-compliant with verbal requests or commands, then dragging, moving, disarming, or otherwise trying to interfere directly with what they're doing can be a next step. You can opt for this step first, but keep in mind someone who has a valid reason for being somewhere who has someone wordlessly walk up to them and try to drag them somewhere probably won't take kindly to it. When this fails, or when it isn't feasible, this leads to...
    3) If security hasn't come to resolve it or isn't available and they seemingly won't stop what they're doing or leave, you can start a fight with that person to encourage them to leave or be beaten up. Generally you may also immediately attack someone less-lethally if you or someone else is in significant danger or if the situation requires an immediate response due to the danger it is causing or could potentially cause.
    4) Escalation goes both ways. As you escalate, your opponent may escalate in turn. You can always opt to try and de-escalate or leave the area and come back with security, or stop your attack if they suddenly decide they want to leave.
     
    Of course, everything here assumes knowledge of what you have laid out in your question. This assumes the crit or killed party is properly sent to medical, assumes neither are antagonists, assumes no other prior lawbreaking has happened, assumes there are no other non-lethal alternatives. Naturally knowledge/ignorance and presence/absence of these factors influences the best course of action.
    These also assume that you are not readily breaking the law yourself and are in a place you are supposed to be to begin with. To try and boil it down as simply as possible, the above escalation rules would typically apply if you are protecting your department, protecting part of the station from damage or degradation, or you are otherwise protecting yourself or another crew member (so as long as you're otherwise acting lawfully). Generally speaking, security is allowed to be in most station areas so as long as they are not actively causing disruption of normal, lawful workflow or activity (an exception to this would be sensitive areas such as the Bridge, Armory, or Head of Staff offices if they have no valid purpose for being there to begin with). If a head of staff takes issue with security being in a particular area they see over, it is an IC issue that should be brought up to the Head of Security or designee.
     
    As for a general opinion on the scenarios you outlined:
    1) Assistant steals something from the Captain's office after breaking in, refuses to return it and leave.
    In general you would probably want to get security involved with a bridge trespasser, especially one with something from the captain's quarters. You could escalate with this person if you wanted, and you may possibly be justified IC if what you observed is what happened. It could also be considered a minor amount of vigilantism/valid hunting though, so I wouldn't always opt to engage this hypothetical person even though the option is there.
    2) Atmos tech finds an unknown person with no ID and a face covering in atmospherics
    This is certainly alarming, but the evidence is circumstantial. This person could have a possible valid reason for being in atmospherics despite appearances. This is a situation that is strongly recommended to meet verbally, at minimum, before jumping straight to the infamous axe. Obviously if this person is messing with pipes or doing other dangerous activities, is armed, or otherwise does not comply with your demands, it would be highly recommended to contact security and/or other members of your department and escalate accordingly (including force if the situation seems to warrant it), especially if they refuse to leave.
    3) Security is attempting to unjustifiably arrest a bartender
    Generally speaking, unless security is clearly using excessive force, it would not be recommended to interfere with an arrest. Attacking security for doing their job (even if you believe it is some sort of non-crime) will generally get you in trouble IC (and OOC if it is habitual or particularly egregious). Players who interfere with security often (but not always) operate off of incomplete information. Interfering with an arrest, regardless of if you think it is lawful or not, tends to open you up to IC consequences. If you think someone is being arrested for no reason we would rather the situation is admin-helped so we can properly address the reasoning behind it instead of dealing in vigilante justice which generally lets the officer go unpunished from the admin side for instigating unwarranted arrests.
    4) A clown hops the table into botany and begins intentionally hindering your progress
    This would be something we'd probably like to know about via admin-help, but also mostly an IC issue unless the clown is going out of their way to be a complete arse. Understandably anyone would be frustrated if their work is intentionally hindered. I would say after a brief verbal engagement (ex: "what do you think you're doing") you can escalate to force as this player would appear to be intentionally trying to be disruptive.
     
    To reiterate, these are guidelines and the totality of the situation should be taken into account by both players and administrators when deciding what to do.
×
×
  • Create New...