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.