Goonhub
12-05-2025, 05:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-05-2025, 05:40 PM by chrisboidudeman.)
For full disclosure, my questions around this topic are at least partially related to an ongoing ban appeal. That being said, this would be useful information for the future as well to avoid any conflict with admins and rules. There are also some examples in here that I have had questions about for some time and now is a good time to ask.
Confusion:
Security is in an interesting spot RP wise, because while in lore they are there to enforce corporate interests, in practice they are the role that keeps antagonists in check. This is reinforced by the rules which give them a certain authority beyond just the RP and their ability to baton you. There are things you can do well within the rules and RP to everyone else that would simply get you banned if you did them to a security officer. As someone who recently got banned, primarily for not listening to orders from security, I'd like to get clarification on the line. I think the best way to do that would be to first address the rule in question and then go over some examples. Some obviously fine, some obviously too far, and some where it's not so clear.
The rule off the bat has a seeming contradiction. Minor crime is expressly permitted for non-antagonists, but not listening to security or command breaks the rules. This could mean you are permitted to do minor crime but if you continue after being caught then you are in breach of the rules. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rule though. It's possible minor crime is meant to cover only things like hacking a door or illegally rigged gambling. There's a few interpretations, so let's go over some examples of things I've seen.
Example 1: A clown hides behind a bush and trips everyone they see with a banana peel. Security tickets and/or swirlies the clown, tells them no more tripping. The clown continues to trip people.
To me, this doesn't seem like rule breaking behavior. I'd also confidently state that most people probably wouldn't think this warrants admin intervention. Clowns are meant to do antics and tripping someone with a banana peel doesn't actually harm them. However, according to the wording of the rule, this clown is subject to a bwoink. Not only did security tell them to knock it off, but intentionally tripping people after a written warning not to do so is NOT the behavior of someone who wishes to keep their job.
Example 2: A member of the crew strips naked, breaks windows, makes weapons, and begins to "hunt" the beloved pets on station. The captain tells them to go get a job, a command which they ignore.
Of course here I am referring to the beloved Ug, a staple character of goon 4 that brings joy to many. Ug is not behaving in a way that indicates he wishes to remain employed with NanoTrasen and he directly defies an order from command in this example. Is this in breach of the rule? My gut instinct says "not really" but that is completely contradictory to the wording of the rule. Ug's gimmick makes for great roleplay and interaction, even when his desires clash with security's.
Example 3: An officer is behaving strangely and attempts to arrest someone without evidence or a stated crime. There is a known changeling on station. The arrestee flees arrest while being chased with baton and taser. When cornered, believing their life is at stake, they fight back.
Here's an interesting edge case scenario that I've witnessed multiple times. It is not impossible for security officers to be antagonists, and is certainly never clear when they are. Is the suspicion of an officer or member of command enough of a reason to ignore security or command? This example is especially important to clarify the rules on, as I've seen fear of admin retaliation used against the crew many times on classic by antagonists disguised as security officers. Nobody wants to get bwoinked just because they were wrong about who an antagonist was in their social deduction game. At the same time nobody wants to get their round ended because they were afraid to fight back.
Example 4: A clown is throwing pies in the faces of security officers during arrests and is ordered to stop. The clown continues to throw pies.
This seems like a clear example of breaking the rule. Not only is the clown simply disobeying security, but they are actively interfering with their ability to do their job. Is it the grief aspect that pushes it over the edge then? According to the wording of the rule, this is the same as the banana peel example.
Example 5: Staff assistants unionize and demand higher pay, forming a protest outside of the bridge. They do not disperse when threatened by security.
This is an example I have seen in some form multiple times, because what captain in their right mind would give in to the wage demands of staff assistants? In this example the staff assistants involved are directly opposing the commands of both security and command. They are also potentially distracting security from their duties by pulling them into politics RP. Most of the time this leads to arrests and such. One time the admins used admin tools to assist the protestors and further the roleplay. In another incident (related to the ban appeal) I was informed by an admin that defying security's demands to disband the union was rule breaking behavior. This seems like conflicting decisions by the admin team.
Example 6: The captain declares spacemas illegal, threatening to fire anyone who celebrates. The bartender hosts a spacemas party in the bar which does not disperse when threatened by security.
Here's a very similar example with one aspect changed. The captain drove the initial conflict instead of the crew. I've seen this play out a few times with both security being in on the anti-spacemas tyranny and times with security in support of spacemas. I don't believe any of the events required admin intervention, and yet according to the rules this too is rule-breaking behavior. Does the comical nature of the captain's request make the rule null and void? Is any situation that requires security to use teargas on the crew a situation that should be ahelped?
Example 7: A mime named "Crime Mime" goes around committing misdemeanors. Mugs people by pointing finger guns at them, vandalizes with his white crayon, and gets into multiple shove-fart fights with the clown. They continue their silent crime spree even after being brigged a couple times and talked to in character by security.
Clearly this character has a gimmick and is following it in an entertaining way. They are firmly protected by the "minor crimes allowed" part of the rule but are clearly continuing their actions even after being directly told to stop by security. They are also actively distracting security from more major crimes by being a reoccuring visitor of the brig. Is this person in breach of the rules? According to the wording, almost certainly. However, it's also an endearing gimmick that can be enjoyable all around.
Example 8: A non-antagonist spends the whole round doing very public and questionably legal get-rich-quick schemes, culminating in them holding a beloved pet "hostage" with a fake bomb in an attempt to gather ransom.
Bombs are always a big no-no, but honestly I'm curious about this one. Does this cross the line?
Example 9: A bartender is told they are serving too much alcohol and it is hurting the crew. They open a "secret menu" for people to order overly alcoholic beverages, while only publicly selling normal drinks.
I wanted to add this example because the bartender here is directly harming the crew by overserving them. They've also been warned by security and command to stop harming the crew. The harm, however, is consensual and within roleplay.
Summary:
This rule in particular seems VERY open to interpretation. Many of these examples I personally believe don't "cross the line" whilst very clearly being against the rule. All of these examples are from things I have seen personally in rounds, and when asking others, I have gotten conflicting answers on where "the line" is.
I'd love to hear the input of the admin team about when, if ever, it is acceptable to disobey a command from security or command in roleplay. Feel free to comment on any specific examples, or about none of them.
Oh god, I quoted the rule in black text. Here:
Make an effort to roleplay. Play a coherent, believable character. Playing a violent or racist character is not allowed. Play your character as though they wish to keep their job at Nanotrasen. This includes listening to security and the chain of command and, if you are a member of command, taking your job as a leader seriously in-character. Only minor crime is permitted for non-antagonists. Avoid memes (e.g. sus, pog, amogus), txt spk (e.g. lol, wtf), and out of game terminology when you are playing your character. LOOC is available if you need to communicate out of character. In addition, if you notice a character who is Afk/disconnected, please do not attack or mess with them beyond taking them to cryo.
Confusion:
Security is in an interesting spot RP wise, because while in lore they are there to enforce corporate interests, in practice they are the role that keeps antagonists in check. This is reinforced by the rules which give them a certain authority beyond just the RP and their ability to baton you. There are things you can do well within the rules and RP to everyone else that would simply get you banned if you did them to a security officer. As someone who recently got banned, primarily for not listening to orders from security, I'd like to get clarification on the line. I think the best way to do that would be to first address the rule in question and then go over some examples. Some obviously fine, some obviously too far, and some where it's not so clear.
- Make an effort to roleplay. Play a coherent, believable character. Playing a violent or racist character is not allowed. Play your character as though they wish to keep their job at Nanotrasen. This includes listening to security and the chain of command and, if you are a member of command, taking your job as a leader seriously in-character. Only minor crime is permitted for non-antagonists. Avoid memes (e.g. sus, pog, amogus), txt spk (e.g. lol, wtf), and out of game terminology when you are playing your character. LOOC is available if you need to communicate out of character. In addition, if you notice a character who is Afk/disconnected, please do not attack or mess with them beyond taking them to cryo.
The rule off the bat has a seeming contradiction. Minor crime is expressly permitted for non-antagonists, but not listening to security or command breaks the rules. This could mean you are permitted to do minor crime but if you continue after being caught then you are in breach of the rules. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the rule though. It's possible minor crime is meant to cover only things like hacking a door or illegally rigged gambling. There's a few interpretations, so let's go over some examples of things I've seen.
Example 1: A clown hides behind a bush and trips everyone they see with a banana peel. Security tickets and/or swirlies the clown, tells them no more tripping. The clown continues to trip people.
To me, this doesn't seem like rule breaking behavior. I'd also confidently state that most people probably wouldn't think this warrants admin intervention. Clowns are meant to do antics and tripping someone with a banana peel doesn't actually harm them. However, according to the wording of the rule, this clown is subject to a bwoink. Not only did security tell them to knock it off, but intentionally tripping people after a written warning not to do so is NOT the behavior of someone who wishes to keep their job.
Example 2: A member of the crew strips naked, breaks windows, makes weapons, and begins to "hunt" the beloved pets on station. The captain tells them to go get a job, a command which they ignore.
Of course here I am referring to the beloved Ug, a staple character of goon 4 that brings joy to many. Ug is not behaving in a way that indicates he wishes to remain employed with NanoTrasen and he directly defies an order from command in this example. Is this in breach of the rule? My gut instinct says "not really" but that is completely contradictory to the wording of the rule. Ug's gimmick makes for great roleplay and interaction, even when his desires clash with security's.
Example 3: An officer is behaving strangely and attempts to arrest someone without evidence or a stated crime. There is a known changeling on station. The arrestee flees arrest while being chased with baton and taser. When cornered, believing their life is at stake, they fight back.
Here's an interesting edge case scenario that I've witnessed multiple times. It is not impossible for security officers to be antagonists, and is certainly never clear when they are. Is the suspicion of an officer or member of command enough of a reason to ignore security or command? This example is especially important to clarify the rules on, as I've seen fear of admin retaliation used against the crew many times on classic by antagonists disguised as security officers. Nobody wants to get bwoinked just because they were wrong about who an antagonist was in their social deduction game. At the same time nobody wants to get their round ended because they were afraid to fight back.
Example 4: A clown is throwing pies in the faces of security officers during arrests and is ordered to stop. The clown continues to throw pies.
This seems like a clear example of breaking the rule. Not only is the clown simply disobeying security, but they are actively interfering with their ability to do their job. Is it the grief aspect that pushes it over the edge then? According to the wording of the rule, this is the same as the banana peel example.
Example 5: Staff assistants unionize and demand higher pay, forming a protest outside of the bridge. They do not disperse when threatened by security.
This is an example I have seen in some form multiple times, because what captain in their right mind would give in to the wage demands of staff assistants? In this example the staff assistants involved are directly opposing the commands of both security and command. They are also potentially distracting security from their duties by pulling them into politics RP. Most of the time this leads to arrests and such. One time the admins used admin tools to assist the protestors and further the roleplay. In another incident (related to the ban appeal) I was informed by an admin that defying security's demands to disband the union was rule breaking behavior. This seems like conflicting decisions by the admin team.
Example 6: The captain declares spacemas illegal, threatening to fire anyone who celebrates. The bartender hosts a spacemas party in the bar which does not disperse when threatened by security.
Here's a very similar example with one aspect changed. The captain drove the initial conflict instead of the crew. I've seen this play out a few times with both security being in on the anti-spacemas tyranny and times with security in support of spacemas. I don't believe any of the events required admin intervention, and yet according to the rules this too is rule-breaking behavior. Does the comical nature of the captain's request make the rule null and void? Is any situation that requires security to use teargas on the crew a situation that should be ahelped?
Example 7: A mime named "Crime Mime" goes around committing misdemeanors. Mugs people by pointing finger guns at them, vandalizes with his white crayon, and gets into multiple shove-fart fights with the clown. They continue their silent crime spree even after being brigged a couple times and talked to in character by security.
Clearly this character has a gimmick and is following it in an entertaining way. They are firmly protected by the "minor crimes allowed" part of the rule but are clearly continuing their actions even after being directly told to stop by security. They are also actively distracting security from more major crimes by being a reoccuring visitor of the brig. Is this person in breach of the rules? According to the wording, almost certainly. However, it's also an endearing gimmick that can be enjoyable all around.
Example 8: A non-antagonist spends the whole round doing very public and questionably legal get-rich-quick schemes, culminating in them holding a beloved pet "hostage" with a fake bomb in an attempt to gather ransom.
Bombs are always a big no-no, but honestly I'm curious about this one. Does this cross the line?
Example 9: A bartender is told they are serving too much alcohol and it is hurting the crew. They open a "secret menu" for people to order overly alcoholic beverages, while only publicly selling normal drinks.
I wanted to add this example because the bartender here is directly harming the crew by overserving them. They've also been warned by security and command to stop harming the crew. The harm, however, is consensual and within roleplay.
Summary:
This rule in particular seems VERY open to interpretation. Many of these examples I personally believe don't "cross the line" whilst very clearly being against the rule. All of these examples are from things I have seen personally in rounds, and when asking others, I have gotten conflicting answers on where "the line" is.
I'd love to hear the input of the admin team about when, if ever, it is acceptable to disobey a command from security or command in roleplay. Feel free to comment on any specific examples, or about none of them.
Oh god, I quoted the rule in black text. Here:
Make an effort to roleplay. Play a coherent, believable character. Playing a violent or racist character is not allowed. Play your character as though they wish to keep their job at Nanotrasen. This includes listening to security and the chain of command and, if you are a member of command, taking your job as a leader seriously in-character. Only minor crime is permitted for non-antagonists. Avoid memes (e.g. sus, pog, amogus), txt spk (e.g. lol, wtf), and out of game terminology when you are playing your character. LOOC is available if you need to communicate out of character. In addition, if you notice a character who is Afk/disconnected, please do not attack or mess with them beyond taking them to cryo.
