Rule Suggestion REMOVAL OF ISD IMMUNITY // RDM RULING

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Removal of the immunity for ISD, for Arrests which is listed as the following
The staff team have found it best to ensure that members of ISD are aware of the rules as a whole because we believe that due to lack of reports reaching the staff team and therefore being unable to be dealt with has recently worsened ISDs enjoyment - the staff team exists to assist when people break server rules and worsen the quality of the server.

Please ensure you are aware in some capacity of the limitations of how far AO (FISA/LE) are allowed to bend the rules, **which is none at all.**

A Foundation member may not kill an ISD arresting them or their ally without very very good reason, which just being a member of AO (FISA/LE) does not cover.

> 1.03, Random Death Match, You must have a real and justifiable reason to kill or attempt to kill another player.

If players are breaking rules and killing ISD during arrests, regardless of departments, please ensure it is properly reported to staff.​
I find this ruling entirely antithetical to meaningful roleplay, Rather than supporting organic in-character interaction, it encourages ruleplay and removes the need for players to think critically about how to detain someone or resolve situations naturally. In effect, it rewards the abandonment of roleplay in favor of staff reliant intervention.
Matter of fact ISD already has more than enough tools to conduct arrests:


1. The ability to coordinate with any Department or MTF


2. The use of disguises to catch individuals/Groups off guard


3. The authority to carry out arrests


4. Arrest Tools, Like tranq pistols, handcuffs any number of ones would fit here


Resistance should be expected in any arrest attempt, regardless of scale. That is not a flaw in roleplay; it is part of it. The proper response is to address the matter through in-character consequences, such as court proceedings or escalation through the correct channels such as CO Team's, ECM, O5, SA, Respective Dept Leads, and not through immediate ruleplay that drags staff in, wastes everyone’s time, and leaves a sour taste for all involved.


Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?
None before this one.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2)
-It allows scenarios to be organic, and possibly storylines or such can be established via it, and I think it'd be more better for both sides instead of it taking the OOC path right away at the slightest inconvenience.



-Since this is also, a OOC Ruling, removing it It would prevent CI/GOC or any other party from class F'ing, or using ISD Disguises to make kidnap attempts, attempting to use this to their advantage, what's preventing from CI Class F'ing a random ISD Operator and arresting an O5 for any number of reasons that are not treason related, If A1 decide to intervene it would violate the very listed above rulings.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-ISD Would have a harder time to arresting people, they'd have to coordinate to see how to arrest groups or people and work more closely with other departments or staff to ensure smooth arrests.


-ISD Would have to be careful on how they approach situations, to avoid immediate-retaliation.


Based on the Positives and Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I think this should be accepted, as this ruling stands relatively against any sort of common sense of roleplay, It makes players miss alot of player-created roleplay and makes staff intervention common which shouldn't ideally really be that common,
 
Last edited:
Hi @Yeke I'm shit at quote replying so I'm just gonna @ you to reply to your above post and explain why the problem is so fundamental in the first place. At least from my POV.

The reason that the killing immunity is such a problem is the imbalanced power dynamic it creates from the beginning of the interaction. Not every interaction has to result in a kill, but think of it like this. Your option as a player who is being approached by ISD for arrest is to either kill them and risk the RDM sit where you have ruleplay to the max and explain your interactions to STAFF and not another player or to take it on the chin and just go to ISD wing for the arrest and try and defend yourself.

My problem with this is that it means the actual generation of roleplay is ALWAYS biased in the favour of ISD. If your options are to either take the detainment on the chin or have a fight with staff to try prove you were justified, people are just gonna give up and take it on the chin because they don't want to risk a warning, and that shuts down avenues of roleplay. It's also infuriating because it puts the burden on the arrested party to be fact checking the rules even as they're already being punished IC, instead of reducing the protection down to standard RDM and making it so ISD have to call sits if they believe they've been RDM'd and there was no roleplay behind escaping arrest.

I actually think I have a pretty good comparison for this - CI and metagame sits. Let's say that a CI Deep Cover has had, from their POV, a flawless deep cover and they have a good disguise, but out of nowhere they get gunned down by a DEA. They call a sit because they suspect some form of metagame, only to be shown by the DEA or Staff that the CI had accidentally undisguised and got very unluckily caught out on cameras. The player who followed the logical outcome of their RP/investigation i.e DEA was allowed to take that action, but then had to explain it when it was questioned after the fact. This power dynamic is INVERTED with staff and ISD, where the player who is on the receiving end of their work *has* to take the result of "RP" no matter what or they risk having to fight a staff sit just to not get warned. What's fun about that???

I've heard your examples about your time as ISD Director and I appreciate it entirely, but the server culture is not the same as when you were around and we're having entire groups of players be detained and denied the chance to do an RP standoff over something off of SUSPICION of FLC breaks, not even a shred of fully tangible evidence to the topic.

Considering I've seen the clip of GSD v ISD yesterday I can at least vouch for why I think it's become such a fuss - GSD didn't have the intention of firing first, they tried to RP it out with the commissioner and were promptly shot down with "you give me the document *now* or get arrested". Just because ISD doesn't like that option even though perfectly legal within-IC alternatives were offered doesn't mean they should get to strongarm the threat of arrest onto players, that's complete slop and defeats the point of them doing investigations if anyone can get arrested for such petty reasoning. GSD only fired first because despite the fact the standoff occurred, someone STILL tried to step in and forcibly detain one of them despite the ongoing RP, which of course led to the fight.

This leads me to my overall point - It's not the fact that people WANT to kill ISD, but because the option when dealing with them is "deal with staff or take the arrest", it creates a level of confidence and force in their interactions that leaves absolutely no fun or alternative outcomes. Roleplay should be organic, not funnelled into the thinnest pipeline possible between two singular options every single time, and when an easy fix exists in my opinion, it's not a bad shout to explore it.

Also, apologies that I never got back to you about a month ago about that feedback we discussed. I moved house and it decided to promptly flood twice while I was sick lol, hence why I've been away for a while. We can still talk at a time that suits you if you're up for it.

Cheers, Cade.
Dude people WANT TO KILL ISD CONSTANTLY BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO SIT IN JAIL.

Outright.

As for IC routes to solve issues, does no one remember we have a TRIBUNAL SYSTEM for this exact senario?

If you have a problem with your arrest fight it in court, reasons why most court cases get denied? We have to body camera EVERY INTERATCTION because people abuse that system too? Want to know what is really unfair us having to use our disk space to clip things to make sure people don't get away with charges.

Yk what let me go make a suggestion real quick to up all ISD armor to 100 give us QBZs as default loadout and go full combative to every FLC violation choosing to murder people instead of arresting them. Sounds like perfect RP to me instead of "ruleplay"
 
As for IC routes to solve issues, does no one remember we have a TRIBUNAL SYSTEM for this exact senario?
That would help if ISD didnt have the power to deny a tribunal request, "If they feel the evidence is overwhelming"
1782602982630.png
I think we definitely need to have WAY more tribunals but EC cant spare enough to do them or simply cant be bothered sometimes with the reason "it takes too much planning"

I would LOVE to judge & organise a tribunal once more, I think Ethics should allow dpt heads or those with tribunal experience the ability to judge or organise a tribunal, like a new subdivision made by ethics which would allow dpt leaders, ISD CL4 or anyone wanting to learn the tribunal system to be able to judge, prosecute or even act as a defence attorney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyle Ward
I would LOVE to judge & organise a tribunal once more, I think Ethics should allow dpt heads or those with tribunal experience the ability to judge or organise a tribunal, like a new subdivision made by ethics which would allow dpt leaders, ISD CL4 or anyone wanting to learn the tribunal system to be able to judge, prosecute or even act as a defence attorney.
I'd love for ISD CL4 to be able to do tribunals again. Same thing goes with other CL4's.
A while ago on US that was the case and we got daily tribunals basically. And despite them being hosted by Jr CL4 ISD, the outcomes were fair and reasonable as it was a uninvolved CL4 ISD. That was the golden age of tribunals IMO.
I found it to be a fairer system for everyone involved. Not perfect as whatever department is judging would have some bias, but Ethics has Bias too it worked well and I'm not exactly sure why it got removed.
 
-Support

Might as well ask people to take the easy way out every time they get any sort of RP related to ISD.
This would make it a huge pain to do any sort of RP related to arresting people. This wont bring any benefit whatsoever.
There is a reason why these rulings are in place. It's because people were doing this so often it made people quit ISD.

Let us just throw away the LARP... :rolleyes: Even with this rule in place we still have people doing anything they can to get out of the RP.
 
Last edited:
That would help if ISD didnt have the power to deny a tribunal request, "If they feel the evidence is overwhelming"
View attachment 28896
I think we definitely need to have WAY more tribunals but EC cant spare enough to do them or simply cant be bothered sometimes with the reason "it takes too much planning"

I would LOVE to judge & organise a tribunal once more, I think Ethics should allow dpt heads or those with tribunal experience the ability to judge or organise a tribunal, like a new subdivision made by ethics which would allow dpt leaders, ISD CL4 or anyone wanting to learn the tribunal system to be able to judge, prosecute or even act as a defence attorney.
You are looking at old info. Have you checked out the new system in place?

1782607063076.png
 
That would help if ISD didnt have the power to deny a tribunal request, "If they feel the evidence is overwhelming"
View attachment 28896

This is a UK issue only afaik. ISD/Ethics should consider rewriting it though, make it so that perhaps an ISD CL4 can determine if it's unnecessary or if one isnt available, then an assistant, and if they aren't available then it's up to the agent. Just spitballing.

Ah and my long awaited and important opinion on the suggestion is that it seems to be in response to a situation not going OP's way, at least from what Yeke and others explained of said situation. As 50% of replies have already stated, the rule is in place so that people can't just kill their way out of a 10m timeout for being repeatedly/monumentally stupid.

However...

I would be interested in someone reopening discussion on the FearRP rule overall. I can't summon the effort these days but I have a vague feeling in me that the FearRP rule has always been too strict. Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion that the ruling of not being allowed to shoot your way out of an arrest is a valid and necessary rule due to average minge habits to do exactly that.
 
That would help if ISD didnt have the power to deny a tribunal request, "If they feel the evidence is overwhelming"
View attachment 28896
I think we definitely need to have WAY more tribunals but EC cant spare enough to do them or simply cant be bothered sometimes with the reason "it takes too much planning"

I would LOVE to judge & organise a tribunal once more, I think Ethics should allow dpt heads or those with tribunal experience the ability to judge or organise a tribunal, like a new subdivision made by ethics which would allow dpt leaders, ISD CL4 or anyone wanting to learn the tribunal system to be able to judge, prosecute or even act as a defence attorney.
UK thing - US ISD do not have the authority to deny a tribunal request (CL4 ISD reviews BEFORE a Judge is informed, and if you disagree with their decision they have to call one over - this being Assistants usually)

Anyways -support for the following reasons:
- This does NOT prevent you from killing ISD outright, it just prevents you from killing them for every minor thing.

An arrest for Insubordination should not result in ISD being shot for example.
 
Hi @Yeke I'm shit at quote replying so I'm just gonna @ you to reply to your above post and explain why the problem is so fundamental in the first place. At least from my POV.

The reason that the killing immunity is such a problem is the imbalanced power dynamic it creates from the beginning of the interaction. Not every interaction has to result in a kill, but think of it like this. Your option as a player who is being approached by ISD for arrest is to either kill them and risk the RDM sit where you have ruleplay to the max and explain your interactions to STAFF and not another player or to take it on the chin and just go to ISD wing for the arrest and try and defend yourself.

My problem with this is that it means the actual generation of roleplay is ALWAYS biased in the favour of ISD. If your options are to either take the detainment on the chin or have a fight with staff to try prove you were justified, people are just gonna give up and take it on the chin because they don't want to risk a warning, and that shuts down avenues of roleplay. It's also infuriating because it puts the burden on the arrested party to be fact checking the rules even as they're already being punished IC, instead of reducing the protection down to standard RDM and making it so ISD have to call sits if they believe they've been RDM'd and there was no roleplay behind escaping arrest.

I actually think I have a pretty good comparison for this - CI and metagame sits. Let's say that a CI Deep Cover has had, from their POV, a flawless deep cover and they have a good disguise, but out of nowhere they get gunned down by a DEA. They call a sit because they suspect some form of metagame, only to be shown by the DEA or Staff that the CI had accidentally undisguised and got very unluckily caught out on cameras. The player who followed the logical outcome of their RP/investigation i.e DEA was allowed to take that action, but then had to explain it when it was questioned after the fact. This power dynamic is INVERTED with staff and ISD, where the player who is on the receiving end of their work *has* to take the result of "RP" no matter what or they risk having to fight a staff sit just to not get warned. What's fun about that???

I've heard your examples about your time as ISD Director and I appreciate it entirely, but the server culture is not the same as when you were around and we're having entire groups of players be detained and denied the chance to do an RP standoff over something off of SUSPICION of FLC breaks, not even a shred of fully tangible evidence to the topic.

Considering I've seen the clip of GSD v ISD yesterday I can at least vouch for why I think it's become such a fuss - GSD didn't have the intention of firing first, they tried to RP it out with the commissioner and were promptly shot down with "you give me the document *now* or get arrested". Just because ISD doesn't like that option even though perfectly legal within-IC alternatives were offered doesn't mean they should get to strongarm the threat of arrest onto players, that's complete slop and defeats the point of them doing investigations if anyone can get arrested for such petty reasoning. GSD only fired first because despite the fact the standoff occurred, someone STILL tried to step in and forcibly detain one of them despite the ongoing RP, which of course led to the fight.

This leads me to my overall point - It's not the fact that people WANT to kill ISD, but because the option when dealing with them is "deal with staff or take the arrest", it creates a level of confidence and force in their interactions that leaves absolutely no fun or alternative outcomes. Roleplay should be organic, not funnelled into the thinnest pipeline possible between two singular options every single time, and when an easy fix exists in my opinion, it's not a bad shout to explore it.

Also, apologies that I never got back to you about a month ago about that feedback we discussed. I moved house and it decided to promptly flood twice while I was sick lol, hence why I've been away for a while. We can still talk at a time that suits you if you're up for it.

Cheers, Cade.
There are a range of other options between "give in" and "kill your coworker". You could simply refuse. You could hide. You could run away. You could point a gun at them and cuff them to gain yourself some time. You could call for backup. There's a hundred different things you could do that aren't just gunning down ISD because they want to arrest you over something minor.
 
Half support?
While shooting your way shouldn't be the only way to resolve a situation it also shouldn't be totally blocked off , I'm not saying that you should be able to just shoot your way out of every arrest but if the right RP is done and it's more of a heavy charge like treason you shouldnt be totally stopped from doing it and have the sense of what can you do to not just shoot your way out every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Niox
Before this was a properly enforced, ISD (IA at the time) arresting anyone combative was literally impossible.
This is bluntly untrue.
ISD have access to Tranqs and disguise cards and can work together to arrest people.

If you believe you can just walk up and demand to arrest that you think might be hostile, I question how you play ISD.