Change background image
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A request for a rule amendment - Antagonist Rule 2.4 + 2.5

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by QuestioningMark, Jul 9, 2019.

  1. QuestioningMark

    QuestioningMark Bartender

    A request for a rule amendment - Antag Rule 2.4

    So it’s come to my attention over my months being here that there has been a consistent theme of inconsistent application in relation to the powers of the 2.3 and 2.2 antagonist ruleset, which for clarification is:
    ↪ 2.2. This does not mean antagonists have a license to grief, or to go on a killing spree.
    ↪ 2.3. It is encouraged to roleplay and interact with victims when possible, but you're allowed to kill other characters silently when necessary.​
    I have witnessed on a few occasions individuals talking to me about how they’ve had interactions with the staff team in relation to being in a gun fight and hitting people who were not actively partaking but for some reason or another showing up just to see it happen.

    Now, generally speaking there is a well grounded precedent in most cases that we all agree - namely that people showing up to gawk at fire fights put themselves at undue risk and should appropriately act out fear for their lives. However, there are instances where this clearly hasn’t been applied equally across the board. That inconsistency usually will stem from the initial framing of Ahelp requests, and with the limited tools available an administrator may not in their first assessment see the big picture.​
    With this in mind I raise the following rule clarification in the slot 2.4 of the antagonist rules.

    ↪ 2.4. If characters are approaching an antagonist while they are in obvious combat, the antagonist can engage them.
    My intention with proposing this change is to ensure that there is a level of protection for antagonists who may be unfairly lumped into performing a 2.2 violation when in reality they were defending their interests.

    An example I could give is a mercenary antagonist being in combat with security forces, and a medic running to help a wounded individual. In that instance, the aiding and abetting of hostile forces makes them a valid target.

    Likewise, in a situation where a person is for some reason in combat with someone with a gun, a random crewman showing up to watch could be in the speed of combat seen as a target due to their chance that crewman might attempt to threaten them by helping their opposition in the ongoing combat.
    Now, I understand this post came as a factor of me, QuestioningMark receiving a note in relation to an incident related to this. I have no intention of appealing that decision here in this post and if I was, it would be with SergeantAdam through the appropriate channels.​

    I request participants discuss my amendment to the rules as seen here instead of previous conflicts for the sake of arguing their previous justifications.

    Do you support this change or dislike it? Feel free to post so.
    Publius, Arkter and SgtManGuy like this.
  2. xales

    xales Host Game Administrator Developer Community Moderator

    When the rules were most recently re-done to be in the format they are now, one of the things we prioritized most heavily is not having too many, for reasons obvious. @Spookerton drafted most of the rules from what I recall, and it was done carefully to make sure that they were as succinct as possible yet covered what needed to be covered.

    From my perspective, this proposed additional rule covers a very specific situation, and is unlike all of the other rules in that way. My understanding of the 2.2 rule is that it covers this case as-is, and if you felt that it didn't, the wording should be slightly changed. Adding special-case rules like this further opens the door for excessive rule-lawyering ("They were approaching me because they didn't run away!") and other nonsense.

    As to the sufficiency of 2.2, my understanding of how we try to enforce it (and if you feel that a rule is being inconsistently enforced, that is the issue, not the wording of it) is the following. Rolling traitor, hopping in the uplink and buying 3 guns, then going around emptying them into the first 3 people you see because "I'm a traitor I kill people" is bad. (This action is pointless and you are killing people because "lol killing") Being a mercenary and trying to talk your way in, then shooting the guys searching you for weapons in the head before they can report you having weapons, is not. (This action serves the point of gaining you access in a way that may take some time to be noticed, rather than immediately.) Similarly, someone being where they shouldn't be and getting shot as a result really isn't your problem - whether they are an overconfident medic or clueless crewman.

    Wanted to nit-pick this - in the real world a medic wouldn't be dumb enough to run into a situation exposing them to live fire. In our game, as in the real world, if they do that, they are responsible for the consequences. However, as in the real world, you don't just attack medics, even if they're in a bad place. There is a special covenant, signified among other things by the white background of the red cross icon used, of how medics will behave and be treated. In exchange for taking no part in combat and acting solely in a lifesaving role, removing combatants no longer capable of participating from the field, they will not be fired upon. A medic doing something inappropriate, such as discharging a weapon or concealing or shielding combatants, violates this covenant, making the medics become combatants and valid targets. Similarly, firing at a medic while the covenant stands is a war crime, and ends the covenant for your own forces - no quarter will be given, you are a valid target for (even excessively) lethal force, and your own medics are no longer able to help you. For these reasons, neither of these things happen, it's inconceivable. If a medic isn't being an idiot and running into live fire, don't shoot the medic (and be prepared to be shot by the crew, in the face, with ballistics, if you do. It's really not a rule violation, though.)

    If there's an issue with inconsistent enforcement - and this goes for anyone and any rule - please talk to the staff member who you think is handling it wrong first. Most staff members are open to discussing the issue after the round is over on Discord. If that doesn't get traction, you're welcome to bring up the specific incident to a senior admin, and mention you already talked to someone else about it.

    TL;DR: The existing rule covers this. Slapping on a bandaid rule will IMO not fix it, and just open door to more inconsistency/rule lawyering; the rules were designed to avoid one-off special case things for exactly that reason. If there's inconsistency in enforcement, that needs to be handled case-by-case. Don't shoot medics who aren't being negligent unless you don't like having a face.
    QuestioningMark likes this.
  3. Spookerton

    Spookerton Public Kohai № 1 Staff Manager Manager Senior Administrator Community Moderator IPC Species Maintainer Donator

    I certainly didn't draft most of the current rules, and I find them to be unspecific, repetetive, and in some cases self-contradictory.

    That in mind, I don't see how this addresses any particular issue. To me it's a needless statement of the self evident, which we already have too much of. If you've encountered situations where it would actually be valuable, I'm interested in hearing about them instead of a brief sentence handwaving a single scenario that - in the note - has nothing to do with this particular thing and would not have been affected by it.
  4. Virgil

    Virgil Head Administrator Game Administrator Community Moderator

    Entirely unnecessary as Spooks said, and unless there's a much better reason and argument that's not actually been included for whatever reason, isn't going to happen.
  5. Roland410

    Roland410 Petty Officer First Class

    I'd have to agree with Virgil here, as the example you came up with is especially a bad one anyways.
    In game, I have probably never seen it happen either so far, as usually medics don't shadow security all day, and if someone tries to interfere in a combat situation, they're probably a renegade or another form of antagonist.
  6. CubecsMelody

    CubecsMelody Bartender

    sHoOtInG tHEm wOuLd aLsO bE a wAr cRiMe.

    There was only one instant ever, that i witnessed, where this rule could've been apply'd. it wouldnt have helped because that instance was looked at by an admin and already deemed okay by our current rules.
    The situation itself was pretty much "clueless crewmember walking into a active shooter situation" scenario where the crewmember got killed.
  7. lozzatron

    lozzatron Bartender

    Yeah I’m afraid I’d have to slap a dislike on that as it’s very likely to be abused, and current crossfire situations tend to be dealt with well enough