Sec Redux

src/development/design-doc-security-redux.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Security Redux
+===============
+
+This reworks Security to remove all stuns from their arsenal.
+
+## Scope of Changes
+
+
+Stun weapons such as the stun baton, disabler, and disabler SMG will be removed from the game entirely.
+
+Warden and HoS special weapons will receive reworks that do not revolve around stuns.
+
+Jobs which start with disablers will either have them removed or replaced with something else.
+
+Security will have a new baton with less stun, as well as a signifigant amount of blunt damage.
+
+Pacificst characters will have their pacifism trait removed upon rolling security
+
+## Rationale
+
+Specifically pertaining to stuns, there are several issues with how security is designed. Removing non-lethal options from security's arsenal will fix many of these problems.
+- The Stunmeta
+  - The most common complaint with stuns is they are the best response to almost any situation. No matter how well equiped someone is, stuns can easily incapacitate someone in a 1v1 better than any firearm can. Nerfing stuns to remidate this will just make the life of a security player harder, and adding any form of stun resist will open up another vector of balance and complexity.
+
+- Lack of consequence
+  - Using stuns on someone has no weight or consequence. There is no reason for sec to hear someone out, roleplay, or assess a situation before stunning them. With stuns, if the suspect is innocent then they can be released at no loss to them, and if they're guilty then their actions can be justified. 
+  - If security has only harmful they will have to think about their actions and their consequences more before attacking someone, otherwise they will end up creating more work for themselves. Things such as whether theyre actually guilty, having to take them to medical, whether their use of force is justified are all now real factors in descision making.
+
+- Ranging expectations
+  - There is a wide range of ideas and expectations about how security is supposed to operate. When these ideas come into conflict amongst different players, its becomes a source of OOC conflict. While the security playstyle shouldn't be a monolith this narrows the expectation to be something like a Pinkerton-style police force, where people think "Security will beat the crap out of you if youre breaking the law, or maybe worse if youre bad enough."
+
+- Powergaming landmines
+  - The question has been raised a few times about "when can security carry X equipment" with the answer being "when it makes IC sense" which is a bit of a subjective and unsatisfactory answer.
+  - If their arsenal is non-lethal, then alot more of the armory can be considered upgrades to their base equipment. This doesn't mean that they can or should open-carry rifles on green, but it's a step towards having a more clear-cut line.
+
+## Considerations
+
+- Borgs
+  - Security's relationship with borgs will be greatly altered, as they will no longer be able to aid sec in making arrests under most circumstances.
+  - Consider altering law one to remove "or through inaction" so that borgs are not explicitly set against security.
+
+- Crew Relations
+  - This is not a pass for security to shoot wanted people unprovoked. Although they can be used on people who are resisting, running, or known to be an active threat.
+  - This version of security is far more forceful, consider allowing normal crew to retaliate the same way they would any other crewmember (This should not turn full fledged revolts, however). 
+  - Although mald should decrease in the long-term, the culture shock may cause mald in the short term, admins should watch out to make sure people arent malding at security.
+  - Admins should give security leeway in how they handle arrests. However, they should watch out to make sure nobody is pushing their authority too far.
+
+  ## Credit
+  Inspired by [Funky Station's doc](https://github.com/funky-station/docs/pull/60) of the same name.