The State of Space Law

[Joey]

 

 

 

The general opinion seems to be that Security has become too liberal with the use of lethals lately, however as we all know, many of the circumstances are "technically"(The holy word) permitted under Space Law. I think some small, but maybe impactful changes to the content of the wiki can lead to more defined game experience with a clearer line on what lines to abide by. I write this post to make a few comments on certain sections, provide some better phrasing or changes, followed by my intended impact and open discussion that may actually change something. 

 

https://www.paradisestation.org/wiki/index.php/Space_Law# (Space Law link for those unaware.)

 

If you have that link open, scroll down to the use of deadly force section, where I’ll be spending most of my time for the remainder of the post. I’ll begin with analysis of the lethal-warrant categories and end touching on the first paragraph of the section.

 

LETHALS AUTHORIZED

 

Often times, this sentence can be seen as KOS because of the vague nature of some of the categories below, additionally because of the golden word “technicality.”. Two are most in question. Since interpretation is key here, I think it’s best to narrow the scope. 

 

• Armed and Dangerous(Stun weapons, Lethals, etc.)
  • Firstly I would like to point out “stun weapons”. If you are say, a traitor and have stolen a disabler, that alone, per space law provision, warrants a disproportionate response of opening the armory for a baton or disabler being stolen. I have seen this as justification to use lethals because it is “technically” allowed. From a gameplay standpoint, say you’re traitor, you’ve stolen a baton or disabler, do you think it’s reasonable to be considered armed and “dangerous?” Which leads me to my second comment. 
    • Proposed Solution: Remove stun weapons from lethals authorized, and place “lethals” under the recommended, heavily armed tab. I’d remind you, that on the Paradise Sec Wiki, Security serves as a DEFENSE force. We should be reactive, meeting where the antags are rather than beating them to the next level of escalation. If stun weapons are combined with my definition of dangerous(defined in my second critique), then sure, authorization. However, in gameplay, in RP, either one, meeting stun weapons with a laser gun, when stun weapons alone can largely be stam damage is an out-of-touch portion. 
      • Impact: You’re not met with a laser gun because you stole a disabler from an officer. These are two disproportionate responses, and many antags try to AVOID round removal or killing, however it tends to be encouraged given the famed “armed and dangerous” section.
  • “Dangerous.” Now what does dangerous mean in this context? You’ve robbed an officer? Killed an Officer? I have no more comments under than being up to interpretation, which has lead to very rigid gameplay, which then leads me to my proposed solution.
    • Proposed Solution: Define dangerous as one confirmed crew kill or more. If those stun weapons were used by an individual that killed a crew or Security Officer, then it should warrant an “eye for an eye” clause. The antag made the move to kill someone? Then they brought it to that level and the force should be reciprocated as such. 
      • Impact: This rewards non-murderbone antag gameplay and the players that suffer when lethals are authorized and they have actively killed nobody, while preserving the loud antag style. This also encourages Security to be more engaged with who they’re targeting, as if they make a mistake, it could be considered manslaughter. Antag punishments tend to be admin only, however Security consequences remain up to the HOS or Magistrate, almost entirely IC, and this by in part raises the standard. 
• Enhanced Individuals(Stims, Implants, Bio-Chips)
  • I was once of the position that meth and implants warranted lethals, but after some thought I can’t find a justification as to why that is so. They’re not inherently dangerous on their own, only typically in combination with a weapon that would land you as heavily armed. They’re limited resources that doesn’t pose a threat, and shouldn’t warrant an open armory because they alone can’t kill crew, save for maybe an EMP implant. I’ve seen officers kill individuals in crit because of adrenals, or freedoms ,or maim them for those reasons. 
    • Proposed Solution: Remove this from the lethals tab all together as they’re not a weapon or life threatening, besides possibly EMP implant. They can be caught without lethals, and back to my central point that Security should likely be meeting antags where they escalate, not beating them to the punch. If they’re heavily armed, or considered dangerous on my definition, then armory will be open under those reasons, not simply because of adrenals.
      • Impact: Players aren’t beat to death when already down(something I admittedly have done), having their legs broken because they used freedoms,  or simply over the top responses. 

 

Concluding Thoughts

 

I’ll leave you with a few questions. “As a member of the station's Security force, you are one of the best armed and protected people on the station and equipped with the latest in non-lethal weaponry.

Situations that warrant the use of Deadly Force are few and far between. In the vast majority of cases, you will be expected to use your non-lethal tools which are many times more effective than lethal options to defuse a situation. In general, if it is possible to capture personnel non-lethally you should. If you do not, expect to have to justify yourself to Internal Affairs to not get fired and to Administrators to not be Jobbanned.” How reliable of a paragraph do you believe this to be given the WIDE variety of circumstances lethals “technically” can be utilized? Leaving it up to interpretation has left for the backdoor argument, of authorized, therefore just, and relying on the player to make that choice leads to a very slippery slope. Given what is allowed, imagine for a moment if a majority of security chose to maximize the opportunities in the status quo because they “technically” can. Personally, I see Sec gameplay headed in that direction, and it’s simply optimal to narrow the scope and create better parameters that reward a softer approach for all players involved. Are you happy with the status quo?

 

Also multiple assailants would move up to recommended given these changes(I'm not adding another section that's self explanatory given arguments provided.)

 

 

[Gatchapod]

My issue with this section is actually the fact lethals are recommended for "Uncontainable Individuals".
This probably needs to be worded better, because people like to brand perfectly containable individuals as uncontainable because it's slightly inconvenient to capture them.

This was extremely noticeable back in the days of shadowstepping, where I've seen people consistently refer to any vampire with barely any blood as "uncontainable". The vampire would do absolutely nothing but try to run away and get shot dead simply because it was more convenient for security.

[Mitchs98]

I definitely agree that officers shouldn't be lethaling people just for having a disabler or a stunprod in almost every situation, so your take on changing that to an 'eye for an eye' clause in that regard is pretty reasonable.

However disallowing security from lethaling those on adrenals, meth, and especially stims...I disagree with entirely. Meth and adrenals you can take down non-lethally, reasonably, if you're not alone SOMETIMES. With stims that's a whole different story and in most cases you NEED lethals to deal with a stims user, that is unless of course you want to either A. Get maimed horribly/killed yourself or B. Sit back and let them conduct their rampage until they're out of stims. Neither situation is ideal nor should it be encouraged.

Now, I do agree with encouraging officers to use lethals less in situations with meth and adrenals, at-least to KILL but using them to wound them? Perfectly acceptable. Space Law just needs to be made more clear on the difference between situations you're allowed to KILL and situations you're allowed to MAIM/INJURE. Not full-stop disallow security from using them, essentially forcing security to let whoever is abusing or using such things(in the case of meth, as far as abuse goes) get away and/or continue their rampage relatively unimpeded or even kill/maim the officer(s) in question. 

Implants are a different story. I fully agree that freedom implants shouldn't be valid grounds for lethals(especially KoS) in the majority of situations that officers kill or maim people for them for, there are obvious exceptions to every case however.

That said...Space Law isn't really meant to cover every single detail or scenario in great depth, unfortunately. Even such as it is now I feel that Space Law is fine aside from needing some clarifications(such as the ones I mentioned in this post) added to it to discourage officers from going too gung-ho with lethal weapons.

[Komrad822]

I pretty much agree with what Mitch has stated. Agree with armed and dangerous clause change. Adrenals and Freedoms shouldnt be immediate lethals usage unless you're in a live or die situation if they are using adrenals. Stims should be the exception to this rule, the only way to deal with stim users is bola, dog pile them, and/or sedate them, the last part requiring armory being opened anyway for sec to get dart slugs.

Space Law is as much a guideline as it is a safety blanket for sec as it protects them from both IC and OOC trouble aslong as they follow it and the situation is appropriate. But currently some people are bending it a bit much so they win. "The antag may be down but they are still armed, thus i shall beat their legs so they are damage slowed and cant run away if they get a glare/freedoms/acid-cuffs" is currently what people have been doing.

Antags at the micro scale (1v1, 1v2) usually have the advantage but at a macro scale they are at a disadvantage. Sec has numbers on them and their sole goal is to apply the law, generally the AI is assisting sec, and crew themselves are a wildcard but they usually call out crime as its happening. And then theres CC who can send a kill squad for the antag(s) if the situation calls for it. This ties into what Joey said, sec should meet with the antag with escalation, why? They always have the base escalation advantage. Antags have limited resources and their situations can turn on a dime. Sec will almost always have medbay to assist, rnd to give them better tools, and the station on their side, so why RUSH to beat every antag before 45 minutes? Just play it out, but sadly most people don't think like this, and thus clauses need to be tightened and less forgiving so everyone can enjoy the game at various levels of play. 

Rule 0 is still a thing and while the exact wording states "server rules" it should also be applied to Space Law and SOP. At the end of the day, its a game and there are people playing it who may not be as good or gamer as you. If you caught them once, you will likely catch them again later.

 

EDIT: Lethals ALSO include harm-batoning people into damage slow and beyond.

Edited November 16, 2022 by Komrad822

[Norwest]

5 hours ago, Mitchs98 said:

That said...Space Law isn't really meant to cover every single detail or scenario in great depth, unfortunately. Even such as it is now I feel that Space Law is fine aside from needing some clarifications(such as the ones I mentioned in this post) added to it to discourage officers from going too gung-ho with lethal weapons.

While I think you're right that Space Law is generally fine, I think @Joey has a point that people have been gettin' waaaay too liberal with the "armed and dangerous" clause lately. From an admin perspective, I've definitely seen a recent uptick in Sec players using the "armed and dangerous" clause and similar rules-lawyering to justify some pretty unnecessary killing. With the player meta changing, it makes sense to adjust the precise wording of Space Law a bit to cut down on "freebie" options that justify killing antags unnecessarily.

When antags go HAM, we can cut 'em back with IC or OOC responses, from a bwoink to an NT kill-team. Security isn't constrained in the same ways, which means it's vital to keep things like Space Law current with the player meta to cut down on the rules-lawyers using it as license to kill without consequences.

[Coolrune206]

What I'm going to say here is that the general shift in Security's lethality to antags has come about as a response of the combat changes as of late. As things like Meth, CNS, and Stimulative Agent works on stamina now, and the officer's primary non-lethal arresting tools being based on stamina damage, they're not given that many options with how they interact with people on any form of anti-stun. Back in the days of instant stuns, if someone had CNS which made the Golden Bolt unable to stop them, you could swap to the disabler and still manage to arrest them (with some difficulty, granted). Nowadays, your only hope is either waiting out the antistun (not always an option), or hope that it's both a chemical that tranq darts works effectively on AND have Tranq darts on-site AND hit them with the darts. So I definitely believe you should continue to use lethals on individuals who use antistuns in combat. 

As for individuals with stun weaponry, the situation really depends. Sometimes it's easier to take them down nonlethally but you have to remember that frequently, security getting proper stunned is how they die, and stun weaponry is the opener to that. Not every situation with a hostile having a stun weapon calls for them to be shot but it's also something which should be open to security as an option for handling it. Remember - a disabler is more dangerous than most actual weapons, because if an antag gets you down with four shots of it they can kill you easily afterwards (and honestly usually do). 

I think a far better way to address this all would be stricter handling of armory weapons. Once the threat that caused them to be distributed is addressed, they should be recalled much sooner than they often are - as of present, if the armory is opened it's rare for all the guns to be back in it by the end of the round, let alone the end of the threat. 

[Miraviel]

9 minutes ago, Coolrune206 said:

I think a far better way to address this all would be stricter handling of armory weapons. Once the threat that caused them to be distributed is addressed, they should be recalled much sooner than they often are - as of present, if the armory is opened it's rare for all the guns to be back in it by the end of the round, let alone the end of the threat. 

To my knowledge, there is nothing in SOP or law that says that the HoS/Warden should ensure all weapons are returned to the Armory once the situation has been resolved, it is more of a player culture thing. I might be wrong but if I miss it, then it is probably not clear enough that they should be doing it. (It is probably covered by the secoff SOP's "they should carry x (but not lethals)" on these levels, but that doesn't really make it clear for the warden that everything should be back in the Armory, is it...)

[Joey]

I'm noticing a common trend along some of the replies and I want to point out, that if you use stun weapons to kill, that would count you as dangerous, and as such authorized per what I defined. However, if they're used to rob and what not, non-lethally,  then that's a different story.

 

I'm not advocating that the usage of stun weapons is a free pass in every instance. Simply narrowing the parameters. All it takes for one confirmed crew murder and we're back to the status quo. The antag gets to choose that escalation, however according to their style and approach. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Joey

[Charliminator]

7 hours ago, Joey said:

I was once of the position that meth and implants warranted lethals, but after some thought I can’t find a justification

When i reworked meth and adrenals, it was my intention for security to lethal anyone using these chemicals. I cant agree with you on this clause removal.

 

The other stuff? Sure. The stun weapons part is basically a relic of old stun combat where, if someone had a taser you were basically fucked.

[Rurik]

First of all, I respect the effort post. Nice to see that kind of energy around.

I fully agree with your proposed defining of the dangerous clause, as well as removing stunbaton/disabler from armed and dangerous clause. There's really no argument against this. There is never a situation where you need to lethal someone who stole a disabler. Not even lethals to slow them. As for defining dangerous as someone who killed a crewmember, this is also reasonable for reasons stated and would be a positive impact. Its what I've been following personally—the more crew killed and/or permakilled, the higher the equating response.

Now for the Stims/Implants/Bio-Chips

Quote

They’re not inherently dangerous on their own, only typically in combination with a weapon that would land you as heavily armed.

This is absolutely false. I've killed entire sec teams with 3 roundstart meth pills, because meth is that fucking effective. Now, there is a skill issue of course cause a few good harmbatons will bring me down. However, it is absolutely worth lethalling, and while yes security doesn't *have* to lethal, as charlie said, they were designed for such. When sec doesn't lethal an adrenal/meth user it should be considered a kindness, not a given. Just because its possible doesn't mean it should be expected in this circumstance. I object heavily to meth/adrenals being put off the lethal clause.

As a note, I am considering the fact that under your revised definitions, a meth user who kills an officer is now dangerous and able to be lethalled. I, however, support them being able to be lethalled before any such action takes place.

In conclusion, I feel there's a compromise that can be had of keeping adrenals/meth/stims clause the same, but changing the prior two points to your redesign.

[MattTheFicus]

14 hours ago, Joey said:

Proposed Solution: Remove stun weapons from lethals authorized, and place “lethals” under the recommended, heavily armed tab. I’d remind you, that on the Paradise Sec Wiki, Security serves as a DEFENSE force. We should be reactive, meeting where the antags are rather than beating them to the next level of escalation.

One thing I see a lot around the discussion of lethal-use as Security is a bit of a "rules for we but not for thee" argument. Do note this was not originally my take, but something that @necaladun has pretty much stated every time I've asked questions about lethality in regards to rulings in game: why should Security be expected to roll over and die to any antagonist on Station? The end-outcome of any antagonist stunning you is most likely death. The only reason some people leave Officers alive and dont just toolbox in their face is a sense of community-decided "rules of honor", otherwise Server Rules wise theyre free to do so. Limiting Security's ability to deal with life-threatening weapons (and this includes all stun based ones) turns it into a game of fear over "am I going to get bwoinked for ICly trying not to die?".

14 hours ago, Joey said:

Proposed Solution: Define dangerous as one confirmed crew kill or more. If those stun weapons were used by an individual that killed a crew or Security Officer, then it should warrant an “eye for an eye” clause. The antag made the move to kill someone? Then they brought it to that level and the force should be reciprocated as such. 

I actually do like this idea, but again, slamming someone down to -140HP and them surviving due to medical treatment should be considered the same. I can in theory survive getting 357'd, but if a weapon is in play you fall into the same "rules for we but not for thee" issue as I stated above. Security should not be afraid of dealing with antagonists, antagonists should be afraid and having to plan around dealing with Security. You are on THEIR Station, not the other way around.

14 hours ago, Joey said:

Proposed Solution: Remove this from the lethals tab all together as they’re not a weapon or life threatening, besides possibly EMP implant. They can be caught without lethals, and back to my central point that Security should likely be meeting antags where they escalate, not beating them to the punch. If they’re heavily armed, or considered dangerous on my definition, then armory will be open under those reasons, not simply because of adrenals.

Stims/CNS/Adrenals/Meth/etc are all designed around being lethal'd. If you have anti-stun, youre going to get shot/beat to near-crit. This has been the case for years and I doubt will change ever.

14 hours ago, Joey said:

Situations that warrant the use of Deadly Force are few and far between. In the vast majority of cases, you will be expected to use your non-lethal tools which are many times more effective than lethal options to defuse a situation. In general, if it is possible to capture personnel non-lethally you should. If you do not, expect to have to justify yourself to Internal Affairs to not get fired and to Administrators to not be Jobbanned.

Do note that in theory situations that antags should be mass-murdering Officers and running about openly with uplink gear/full power vamps/changelings in unga mode should ALSO be rare. People SHOULD be doing things stealthily and trying to fly under Security's radar as to not have them escalate on you. But, many people find that playstyle boring. As such, if more people are doing unga-mode lethalable actions, the amount and frequency of lethals will follow suit.

 

Would I like there to be less "unga lethal kill both sides 24/7" when playing Sec and antagonists? Yes. But its a circular issue that works from both ends that wont be solved by just changing Space Law. If only Security is looked at, then nobody will want to deal with playing with their hands tied behind their back while antagonists get to slam 357s into forheads.

[Carthusia]

Im still generally on the side of let things lie as is.

 

It might sound excessive when security authorizes lethal weapons for a guy with a disabler or stun baton, but as pointed out above:

Thats how officers stunned and dragged into the tunnels to be killed, just because an antag is using a disabler to stun you, does not mean their not going to KILL you after they do, majority of times one can say they will kill you.

 

The more of their current paths to lethal force you take away from the officers the more you tie their hands and get them killed.

 

The issue to me i feel is not the usage of lethal force, but the AMOUNT of force used. There is a MASSIVE difference from using lethal force with the intent to shoot to stop the threat, and shooting to KILL the threat.

One you shoot until the threat is no longer a threat, be it surrender, disarmament, or excessive wounds allowing their arrest and treatment

The other you shoot them until they fall over, and then you keep shooting them until youve burned them into a fine powder, or if its ballistics, turned them into a fine red mist, regardless of 

[Joey]

 

3 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

One thing I see a lot around the discussion of lethal-use as Security is a bit of a "rules for we but not for thee" argument. Do note this was not originally my take, but something that @necaladun has pretty much stated every time I've asked questions about lethality in regards to rulings in game: why should Security be expected to roll over and die to any antagonist on Station? The end-outcome of any antagonist stunning you is most likely death. The only reason some people leave Officers alive and dont just toolbox in their face is a sense of community-decided "rules of honor", otherwise Server Rules wise theyre free to do so. Limiting Security's ability to deal with life-threatening weapons (and this includes all stun based ones) turns it into a game of fear over "am I going to get bwoinked for ICly trying not to die?".

So my response to this is twofold. Simply, in regard to stun weapons, you have the SAME tools as the antag regarding prods, disablers, and batons. Secondly, if you're in a position where you're alone, that's on you. This would emphasize number based Security gameplay rather than egoing it down maints. I have a third response but I'll group it with the next quote.

3 hours ago, MattTheFicus said:

 

I actually do like this idea, but again, slamming someone down to -140HP and them surviving due to medical treatment should be considered the same. I can in theory survive getting 357'd, but if a weapon is in play you fall into the same "rules for we but not for thee" issue as I stated above. Security should not be afraid of dealing with antagonists, antagonists should be afraid and having to plan around dealing with Security. You are on THEIR Station, not the other way around.

 

I'd like to point out that if you have to stun an antag and kill them while doing so, or at the very least put them in crit, self defense clause still exists right there and protects Security Officers in this situation if their life was threatened. I think Security should 100% have to consider their options before approaching an antag better than what we see right now. I think I stated this before, but the bar has to be raised higher for Security, and as Norwest mentioned, keep consequences better managed and stop falling on this "technically." 

I don't think I have a fix-all solution, but I know it starts when you stop giving players excuses and raising the standard a tad. Also apparently it's just outdated, at least armed and dangerous as we're not in the, one hit stun meta.

Also crit probably should be included pretty much, but I'd have to think about that. 

 

As a blanket response to implants, at this point I'd just take freedoms off lethals authorized and leave the rest. Armed and dangerous needs help. 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Joey

[Joey]

2 hours ago, Carthusia said:

 

The more of their current paths to lethal force you take away from the officers the more you tie their hands and get them killed.

 

I think there's a negative bias against raising the standard for Security, and I don't think that ought to be the case. Security has to fall slightly in line with a more team based style and use discretion before encounters. 

 

2 hours ago, Carthusia said:

 

 

The issue to me i feel is not the usage of lethal force, but the AMOUNT of force used. There is a MASSIVE difference from using lethal force with the intent to shoot to stop the threat, and shooting to KILL the threat.

One you shoot until the threat is no longer a threat, be it surrender, disarmament, or excessive wounds allowing their arrest and treatment

The other you shoot them until they fall over, and then you keep shooting them until youve burned them into a fine powder, or if its ballistics, turned them into a fine red mist, regardless of 

This is an incredibly dangerous, unwritten line that relies solely on player judgement and nothing in writing. I couldn't agree with leaving things so open ended and up to interpretation that leaves to "technicality" arguments that permit either option without question. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Joey

[Mitchs98]

While I see Norwest's point, I honestly agree with Carthusia and Matt more. That said, I do think there's some way to change things without straying too far drastically from how things are now. 

You shouldn't have to worry as an officer if the antag that has stolen a disabler/baton will only stun you and walk away. If the situation warrants it, you should be able to lethal them; that said these situations are a LOT rarer than a lot of officers try to say they are. That also said, you shouldn't have to wait until you're 100% certain that particular antag has killed someone to be able to retaliate lethally; self defense clause or no.

What I would suggest is to re-word lethal force. Specify a difference between maiming and killing for certain scenarios. Most people consider 'Lethal Force' = kill. I'm not really sure how to word it but I think that's the best way to go about it that's something of a compromise for both sides and would help fix things. 

I do still agree with removing Freedoms from the list of things you can lethal people for unless they're paired with anti-stun chemicals or any other applicable clause.

[Joey]

I'm honestly wondering if the better solution is that the lethals authorized tab, everything under it means lethals authorized but you're not to kill them, then, and scrap the revival part. 

 

If you kill them, maybe in crit, it's a charge against the officer. 

 

This also doesn't account for harm battonning to hell, but maybe it's a step towards a middle ground. 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Joey

[Coolrune206]

5 hours ago, Joey said:

Simply, in regard to stun weapons, you have the SAME tools as the antag regarding prods, disablers, and batons.

And I am going to be taking them in alive if I disabler them down excepting if they're a changeling or have anti-stuns, because sec is supposed to bring people in alive if possible. The other lad almost certainly won't be giving me the same treatment once he has me down.

[MattTheFicus]

I would like to note that, as the person who made the Lethal Force chart, that the intention of the “yellow zone” IS that you can lethal them, but really shouldn’t be shooting them till they husk. If I have to tap the “Lethals != Field Execution” sign more often I’m going to get it tattooed to my forehead and just start slamming my head into a desk.

If people are shooting to husk more often than they are shooting to maim, that’s an issue that can be solved both ICly as well as OOCly. But, and I say this with a large majority of my time in Security recently, that is not something I see happening enough to warrant extreme anger at Security as a whole.
 

There is nothing MAKING a player shoot officers with a 357 or grabbing a desword or using adrenals. You can do every single goal minus the NAD and perhaps Warden’s Gloves completely stealthily with enough prep and disguise work. If you threaten an Officer’s life you should expect just the same threat in return. Winning should be decided off a merit of skill and preparation, not off some odd honor code that most new Officers don’t know of and most antagonists laugh about as they kill the fourth Seccie that shift.

[Mitchs98]

5 hours ago, Joey said:

If you kill them, maybe in crit, it's a charge against the officer. 

I wouldn't go so far as to include this.

There's a lot of extenuating circumstances when playing security and in most arrest situations that being black and white with a 'If the prisoner dies, you go to jail' isn't ideal or logical.

Edited November 17, 2022 by Mitchs98

[necaladun]

Security are the 'defense' force for a corporation that employs deathsquads, on a station that has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The general idea of the use of force is to go one level above what the suspect is using. Hence if they're using stuns, you use lethals. Security shouldn't be honour bound to use the same level of force against people to be nice and give them a fair chance. They're jackbooted thugs of an evil megacorp.

I don't see why we should try to decrease the lethality of sec encounters for people who attack them. If you don't want to get gunned down by sec, don't use weapons against them and run away instead. 

[Joey]

6 hours ago, necaladun said:

Security are the 'defense' force for a corporation that employs deathsquads, on a station that has nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

The general idea of the use of force is to go one level above what the suspect is using. Hence if they're using stuns, you use lethals. Security shouldn't be honour bound to use the same level of force against people to be nice and give them a fair chance. They're jackbooted thugs of an evil megacorp.

I don't see why we should try to decrease the lethality of sec encounters for people who attack them. If you don't want to get gunned down by sec, don't use weapons against them and run away instead. 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this reply strikes me as not even addressing the topic suggested.

 

Especially your last sentence, you're essentially suggesting an antag run away from a laser gun for what, having shot a disabler. Typically, a disabler and running away have to go hand in hand, if you want some nonlethal solution. 

 

This isn't about making the game "fair", I think a large part of the reaction suggests some massive change, this is raising the bar just a tad, where many circumstances would STILL warrant lethals. 

Point is, this is ALSO decreasing lethality for people not going for a lethal option. So many replies are fixated on, if I don't use a laser gun, then I'll die because of a disabler. You are on equal gear footing, and at ADVANTAGE if you use numbers. 

 

[McRamon]

Antag with a stolen disabler/stunprod isnt just a "criminal with a funny stick". Most of the time besides stolen disabler they also have adrenals or backup weapon, martial arts, holopara, stims, meth etc etc etc. 

If you pull a knife on a "cop", you get blasted. If you got detained non-lethally in such case, thats your lucky day. Don't want to get lethaled - don't attack security, use stealth items/abilities instead. Security should be able to escalate, and escalation from stun weapons is energy gun. Normally when you pull out a stunprod you simply get disabled, because sec doesn't have lethals available roundstart. And pulling out a stun weapon on a sec officer during high alert with other lethal threats that made security arm up with lethals should and will get you quickly gunned down.

Other rules and laws are still in place. Officers that abuse lethals, kill people without reviving or field execute already cuffed criminals get OOC consequences.

[necaladun]

IRL, if you took a tazer off a cop and shot them with it - you could expect to get shot with real bullets. Do this in a airport, even more so. Do it in a research base with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons on it that's a known target of terrorists, and well...you see where I'm going.

This is also simply solved by not attacking the person armed with a lethal weapon. If you attack a dude wielding a shotgun, you should expect to get shotgunned. Or lasered. Or whatever.

This is also all acting under the assumption that people getting killed is a bad thing that we should try to avoid. The risk of death when you mess with sec heightens tensions and adds to the adrenaline of the game. People getting murdered in violent conflicts with sec is a good thing.