Sec Redux

[DuckManZach]

I'll update description soon Im doing this so I can edit on my phone

[DuckManZach]

Alright not a draft no more

[Nyxilath]

Initial spellcheck review before we start to pick apart various elements.

[Centronias]

I'm strongly against modifying Asimov

• this'd mean silicons can just do nothing until somebody asks them to do something
• The conflict between law 1 and law-enforcement is why other lawsets exist (and why I advocate for allowing Corporate or NT Default as round-start options)
• You already get this conflict when nukies show up with crew IDs and it's not a HUGE issue

Removal of stun batons is sad because stun batons are iconic Space Station gear (see: Beepsky). I notice on Funky's doc that they opted to add truncheons that are blunt+stamina damage, and I wonder if that sort of thing fits into this design. Sec could even opt for less-than-lethal rubber bullets or something. The intention on both would be that you do blunt damage to soften up your target without causing them to bleed out.
(And maybe once limb/internal damage is a thing, it means you're not bursting arteries or something)

I am not against the idea as a whole, though I think it will need some serious testing and rules/culture development.

[Nyxilath]

On Centronias' point - I /do/ think there is validity to maintain the stun baton itself, as the complaint with stun meta hasn't really ever been about melee engagements, but rather the oppressive nature of the disabler shutting down both shootouts and chases.

[OrbitSystem07]

"Stun weapons such as the stun baton, disabler, and disabler SMG will be removed from the game entirely."

What does this mean for the AI's turrets?

[Nyxilath]

Latest catch of discussion points. Also Orbit's question still remains, regarding AI turrets. Personally, I don't the AI stun turrets would be applied to this, as the main issue here are disablers being used to chase down targets and the AI is not doing that - but of course everything is subject to change.

[Nyxilath]

Suggested change

Pacifist characters will have their pacifism trait removed upon rolling security

Still not 100% on this; it /does/ make playing the role substantially more difficult, but surely, there are ways folks can make it work.

[Centronias]

Pointed questions:

• Why should pacifism be removed from sec players?
• Why is it not today?

[DuckManZach]

I'm willing to budge on this, but the reason is that it will actively prevent them from doing their job.

[Nyxilath]

I personally view it from two angles - the first being that much like disabilities, this is a player's choice, and it's up to the player to come up with their own solutions for these problems. Secondarily, with exceptions for strictly no-pop sec, you will typically have some team to collaborate with - and there are other security functions that can be operated with respect to pacifism. In a round about way, forcing secOffs to remove pacifism goes against our pillars, as this inclusion encourages collaborative play, rather than operating as a solo do-it-all officer.

[meganerobot]

* Why is it not today?

it's not today because you can do your job entirely without dealing any damage. disablers, stun batons and cuffs are all usable by pacifists. once you remove those former 2, they can no longer do their job.

Secondarily, with exceptions for strictly no-pop sec

unbelievably common occurrence. if a lone security officer cannot do the full extent of their job, there is no security on the station.

[KentoDaNeko]

I rather much prefer sec keeping their disability traits (especially pacifism) instead of removing it when rolling security roles..

[meganerobot]

I rather much prefer sec keeping their disability traits (especially pacifism) instead of removing it when rolling security roles..

i don't mean to be mean or single you out here, but if shimmy is a pacifist they literally cannot in any sense of the word do their job in sec redux. they can't hurt people, they can't talk people down or ask them to comply. a mute pacifist security officer is literally impossible to play in sec redux. you may as well be a meat shield.

[KentoDaNeko]

I rather much prefer sec keeping their disability traits (especially pacifism) instead of removing it when rolling security roles..

i don't mean to be mean or single you out here, but if shimmy is a pacifist they literally cannot in any sense of the word do their job in sec redux. they can't hurt people, they can't talk people down or ask them to comply. a mute pacifist security officer is literally impossible to play in sec redux. you may as well be a meat shield.

shimmy is "mute", not a pacifist
but regardless though, I still feel conflicted about pacifist sec characters getting their pacifism ripped off..

[CasaleBalthazar]

According to crewsimov their relationship with borgs and AI will quickly become outright adversarial and this is what worries me a bit in this proposed change.
When security dispose of non-lethal ways to arrest someone then silicons can justify their lack of intervention by the assumption security will use non-lethal to perform the arrest.
Without them, it would be expected from the AI/borgs under crewsimov to bolt any door between security and their target if said target is a crewmember.
This could quickly become annoying for security

[Davyei]

• Consider allowing alternative lawsets at round start to ease this tension, or another similar solution.

Its my understanding that alternative lawsets roundstart would quell this issue, I know Funky/Forky starts borgs on a modified NT Default lawset as an example

[meganerobot]

non-maint opinion hello but please for the love of god not NT-Default. between imp's solution to resolve cyborg validhunting (removal of the "inaction" clause from crewsimov) and nt-default, neither are ideal but imp's way preserves the neutrality of borgs in a way nt-default never could. it's a lawset that not only justifies, but encourages and requires validhunting, or at least snitching at every possible instance.

[CasaleBalthazar]

Could be a solution to the earlier point, and one i would be interested to test in-game, however the issue would remain for AI choosing crewsimov as their starting lawset

[Davyei]

My opinion would be that Crewsimov wouldn't be roundstart due to the nature of it being very likely to favour the antag from the silicon's perspective

also on a seperate similar point of "why would NT want their borgs preventing NT security working"

[Centronias]

My one contribution is that I would very much like for whatever baton replacement we end up with still looks like a baton because it is just so iconic.

[DuckManZach]

My one contribution is that I would very much like for whatever baton replacement we end up with still looks like a baton because it is just so iconic.

I'm sort of iffy on this, because you're right that it's iconic, but I feel like it'd end up in people conflating the old and new systems more.