Responsibility in escalation
- captain sawrge
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Sawrge
Responsibility in escalation
This is an extension of the Russelltalbott note. The gist of it is
-player does something shitty
-victim kills this player in escalation
-victim is held responsible by admin for not going out of their way to clone the aggravater.
Should players that kill/crit in reasonable escalation be expected to to revive the one that provoked it?
Personally I think in most cases a second chance is just another opportunity for them to come back and kill you and this isn't worth the effort. It favors people provoking fights and then killbaiting and taking the fight into an OOC issue.
-player does something shitty
-victim kills this player in escalation
-victim is held responsible by admin for not going out of their way to clone the aggravater.
Should players that kill/crit in reasonable escalation be expected to to revive the one that provoked it?
Personally I think in most cases a second chance is just another opportunity for them to come back and kill you and this isn't worth the effort. It favors people provoking fights and then killbaiting and taking the fight into an OOC issue.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between repeated action/last resort/unprovoked attack, and I think making a hard and fast ruling on this is difficult and may be a bad idea.
I do think that there's definitely a point where it doesn't make sense and is in fact potentially dangerous and disruptive to revive someone. But I also know that there are a lot of situations where someone will use a "valid" scenario to permanently remove someone from the round when that may not be justified.
Maybe something like team antag, where you're not expected to necessarily help them, but also can't needlessly restrict them from re-entering the round. Note that I said needlessly. If there's a solid, obvious, defensible reason to remove their chances of coming back, then that falls under regular escalation policy.
I do think that there's definitely a point where it doesn't make sense and is in fact potentially dangerous and disruptive to revive someone. But I also know that there are a lot of situations where someone will use a "valid" scenario to permanently remove someone from the round when that may not be justified.
Maybe something like team antag, where you're not expected to necessarily help them, but also can't needlessly restrict them from re-entering the round. Note that I said needlessly. If there's a solid, obvious, defensible reason to remove their chances of coming back, then that falls under regular escalation policy.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Responsibility in escalation
tl;dr split second overreaction shouldn't be followed up with a gibbing, but an unprovoked lethal attack (MORE than just the threat of one) certainly could be
- imblyings
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
- Byond Username: Ausops
- Location: >using suit sensors
Re: Responsibility in escalation
There is no hard answer.
Unprovoked griff by an assistant can be met with critting the cunt and tossing him out the department doors into a hallway. A small disarm slapfight over a clown's PDA might turn into someone being bashed to death with a fire extinguisher and in those cases, a player might be required to bring the other person to medbay.
Unprovoked griff by an assistant can be met with critting the cunt and tossing him out the department doors into a hallway. A small disarm slapfight over a clown's PDA might turn into someone being bashed to death with a fire extinguisher and in those cases, a player might be required to bring the other person to medbay.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I think the mentality that should be avoided is over escalating because someone else MIGHT do something.
Like killing and dumping someone's body into space because "if he got cloned he would just kill me"
Well no you shit that is not what happened, what happened is that he punched you once.
Sec also seems to suffer from this sometimes.
Like killing and dumping someone's body into space because "if he got cloned he would just kill me"
Well no you shit that is not what happened, what happened is that he punched you once.
Sec also seems to suffer from this sometimes.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- Lazengann
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
- Byond Username: Lazengann
Re: Responsibility in escalation
If they've done something worth killing them over, you should have no obligation to help them after.
Examples:
-Russell's situation, he shouldn't get flak for not helping the Clown.
-A chaplain who won't leave a department and hits back with his dark blessing after getting disarmed. Whoever stabs his eyes out should not have to heal him.
If they're killed or crit from something like an HoP line punch up, then they should be healed as killing someone over a scuffle is not kosher.
Examples:
-Russell's situation, he shouldn't get flak for not helping the Clown.
-A chaplain who won't leave a department and hits back with his dark blessing after getting disarmed. Whoever stabs his eyes out should not have to heal him.
If they're killed or crit from something like an HoP line punch up, then they should be healed as killing someone over a scuffle is not kosher.
- Limski
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:07 pm
- Byond Username: Limski
- Location: Israel
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Let's not forget that this is a role-playing game.
Did the other spessman anger your spessman enough to justify you murdering him?
If not, let it end like all fights do and make sure they end up in Medbay, otherwise let them rot.
There should be no OOC repercussions for the latter.
Did the other spessman anger your spessman enough to justify you murdering him?
If not, let it end like all fights do and make sure they end up in Medbay, otherwise let them rot.
There should be no OOC repercussions for the latter.
- D&B
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:23 am
- Byond Username: Repukan
- Location: *teleports behind you*
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Wasn't there a thread that mentioned how if you have sufficient reason (escalation/etc) to kill someone, you were clear to space them too?
It seems dumb that if someone escalated to the point where you're in the clear to kill them you're supposed to keep them in the round
It seems dumb that if someone escalated to the point where you're in the clear to kill them you're supposed to keep them in the round
Spoiler:
- Nilons
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:38 pm
- Byond Username: NIlons
- Location: Canada
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I think you should only be required to get someone medical attention if you shouldn't have critted them in the first place. Otherwise there has to be a half step in when its ok to crit someone/when its ok to crit and heal someone/ when you shouldnt crit them at all
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Responsibility in escalation
My general policy is bring them to medbay if it's just an overescalated slapfight and leave 'em in the hallway if they probably deserved to die but not get spaced. If they come back for round two after either of those then I cremate/gib them. If at any point they 100% certainly deserved to permanently die then cremate/space/hide body. I don't think I've ever gotten in trouble for doing this sort of thing if the person deserved to die in the first place.
- PKPenguin321
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:02 pm
- Byond Username: PKPenguin321
- Github Username: PKPenguin321
- Location: U S A, U S A, U S A
Re: Responsibility in escalation
This goes by context, so no real hard policy can be made on it.
In my opinion, generally if you're escalating as a non-antagonist and you crit somebody there's not even a need to kill them in the first place as they're already totally helpless in the majority of cases. I usually just throw their critted body to medbay, which counts as helping them without forcing the player to actively take time out of their round to heal the person they just critted. If they succumb that's on them.
Just as a rule of thumb, don't jump straight to murder as the first step of your escalation (unless they do something that makes you absolutely certain it would be okay (you catch them in the act of murdering a bunch of people, they're an antag)), and if regular conflict does end in murder then at the very least toss the body to medbay. As an extension of this rule, if they come back for more later then usually murder would be acceptable, but again this is up to context.
In my opinion, generally if you're escalating as a non-antagonist and you crit somebody there's not even a need to kill them in the first place as they're already totally helpless in the majority of cases. I usually just throw their critted body to medbay, which counts as helping them without forcing the player to actively take time out of their round to heal the person they just critted. If they succumb that's on them.
Just as a rule of thumb, don't jump straight to murder as the first step of your escalation (unless they do something that makes you absolutely certain it would be okay (you catch them in the act of murdering a bunch of people, they're an antag)), and if regular conflict does end in murder then at the very least toss the body to medbay. As an extension of this rule, if they come back for more later then usually murder would be acceptable, but again this is up to context.
i play Lauser McMauligan. clown name is Cold-Ass Honkey
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
i have three other top secret characters as well.
tell the best admin how good he is
Spoiler:
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Responsibility in escalation
> crit someone
> take them to medbay
> they get healed
> come back
> they kill you
If you're going to force people to coddle those who have picked a fight and lost then there really needs to be some policy that disallows the instigator from starting the conflict again because as of now being critted by someone and going back is /generally/ IC escalation.
> take them to medbay
> they get healed
> come back
> they kill you
If you're going to force people to coddle those who have picked a fight and lost then there really needs to be some policy that disallows the instigator from starting the conflict again because as of now being critted by someone and going back is /generally/ IC escalation.
Last edited by Cobby on Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
- captain sawrge
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Sawrge
Re: Responsibility in escalation
This is the main situation I'm getting at.ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:>crit someone
> take them to medbay
> they get healed
> come back
> they kill you
If you're going to force people to coddle those who have picked a fight and lost then there really needs to be some policy that disallows the instigator from starting the conflict again because as of now being critted by someone and going back is /generally/ IC escalation.
When it's a case where one person is a clear instigator, whether by assault or theft or whatever crime enough to merit critting someone, why should the initial victim have to help out the aggressor? I really think this kind of stuff should be totally hands off on an OOC level. If you get into a fight and ahelp losing you're abusing the administration system.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Responsibility in escalation
If you start a fight apropos of nothing and get dunked, and ahelp, I'm either not doing anything about it or giving you a warning for banbaiting.
If someone walks into your department and you kill them and gib the body the first time you see them trespassing with no mitigating factors, I'm bwoinking you.
If you start big shit, you get big shit. But if you use someone else starting an extremely trivial and unimportant bit of shit as an excuse to remove them from the round, then you're the problem.
It's a simple concept but difficult to codify for every situation.
If someone walks into your department and you kill them and gib the body the first time you see them trespassing with no mitigating factors, I'm bwoinking you.
If you start big shit, you get big shit. But if you use someone else starting an extremely trivial and unimportant bit of shit as an excuse to remove them from the round, then you're the problem.
It's a simple concept but difficult to codify for every situation.
- ShadowDimentio
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:15 am
- Byond Username: David273
Re: Responsibility in escalation
The escalation tiers go
Verbal
Disarms
Punches
Weapons
Crit w/ heal
Kill
If someone's being killed either the killer is either escalating badly or the victim deserves it. If you're being enough of a faggot for someone to kill you, they are in no way obligated to clone you, as you very clearly were the one being a douche.
Sit out the rest of the round and reflect over how to not get your ass beat in the future.
Verbal
Disarms
Punches
Weapons
Crit w/ heal
Kill
If someone's being killed either the killer is either escalating badly or the victim deserves it. If you're being enough of a faggot for someone to kill you, they are in no way obligated to clone you, as you very clearly were the one being a douche.
Sit out the rest of the round and reflect over how to not get your ass beat in the future.
Spoiler:
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Responsibility in escalation
This is kind of an aside, but it's about related situations: it's also worth noting that a LOT of the 'dindu nuffin killed/attacked/arrested me fnr' ahelps we seem to get come from people who break into the captain's quarters and start mass disarming them, or who knock tasers out of security officers' hands and lead them on a merry chase during an antag-heavy round, or who follow someone into the armory and start loading their pockets with weapons when they haven't been invited to and there's no immediate threat, or who break into some important area and do something 'as an experiment' (e.g. turn off gravity, put n2o in the pipes, steal a plasma tank).
You are NOT safe from being called out on banbaiting behavior when you ahelp for something just because you didn't 'harm' anyone. If you act like an antag, you get dunked like an antag.
There are a lot of good(?) players who push the boundaries on this, but the thing that makes them good(?) is that they are perfectly okay taking the beatdown that they deserve.
A lot of times something is an IC issue because it can be handled by people ICly retaliating. That only becomes a problem if the escalation process is short-circuited (e.g. killed someone because they took a welding mask from robotics and literally did nothing else) or if it's not a legitimate retaliation and is just someone murderboning for fun, etc.
In my team at work we have a saying: "Provocative, but not malicious." As a greytider, if you can stick to that, and accept your IC just desserts, you probably will be fine.
Note, however, that we usually bwoink to find out what's going on if we see someone doing something really shitty as a non-antag, like releasing plasma, or setting off welderbombs, or throwing grenades. If it turns out you have a reasonable explanation, we move on. So make sure you have a reasonable explanation.
You are NOT safe from being called out on banbaiting behavior when you ahelp for something just because you didn't 'harm' anyone. If you act like an antag, you get dunked like an antag.
There are a lot of good(?) players who push the boundaries on this, but the thing that makes them good(?) is that they are perfectly okay taking the beatdown that they deserve.
A lot of times something is an IC issue because it can be handled by people ICly retaliating. That only becomes a problem if the escalation process is short-circuited (e.g. killed someone because they took a welding mask from robotics and literally did nothing else) or if it's not a legitimate retaliation and is just someone murderboning for fun, etc.
In my team at work we have a saying: "Provocative, but not malicious." As a greytider, if you can stick to that, and accept your IC just desserts, you probably will be fine.
Note, however, that we usually bwoink to find out what's going on if we see someone doing something really shitty as a non-antag, like releasing plasma, or setting off welderbombs, or throwing grenades. If it turns out you have a reasonable explanation, we move on. So make sure you have a reasonable explanation.
- Screemonster
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:23 pm
- Byond Username: Scree
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I'm reminded of the legal concept of fighting words.
As in, there are technically nonviolent actions you can take that are still blatantly going to get your ass beat for doing them and you shouldn't bitch if you do them and then someone beats your ass.
If you're that kid who goes up to another kid and waves his arms around them and lunges at them and stops at the last minute and says "I'm not touching you, you can't do anything!" when they get pissed off at this, only to yell to the teacher when they finally shove back as though you've got some moral high ground because they were the ones that escalated to actual physical contact first, the teacher knows exactly what kind of little shit you are.
As in, there are technically nonviolent actions you can take that are still blatantly going to get your ass beat for doing them and you shouldn't bitch if you do them and then someone beats your ass.
If you're that kid who goes up to another kid and waves his arms around them and lunges at them and stops at the last minute and says "I'm not touching you, you can't do anything!" when they get pissed off at this, only to yell to the teacher when they finally shove back as though you've got some moral high ground because they were the ones that escalated to actual physical contact first, the teacher knows exactly what kind of little shit you are.
- DrPillzRedux
- Rarely plays
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:45 am
- Byond Username: DrPillzRedux
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I like how people are now agreeing with my sentiment on escalation from last year.
>ligger griffs sec by breaking windows, disarming officers and stealing sec shit
>they disarm me, I stun them with my baton
>they start breaking my detectives office window
>I shoot them with the shitty detectives revolver
>they come back, take my revolver, and space it
>ask HoS about it, they just say to space em because they've already been brigged 3 times
>space the ligger
>okand: WOW WHY DID YOU SPACE THE SHITTY LIGGER
>ligger griffs sec by breaking windows, disarming officers and stealing sec shit
>they disarm me, I stun them with my baton
>they start breaking my detectives office window
>I shoot them with the shitty detectives revolver
>they come back, take my revolver, and space it
>ask HoS about it, they just say to space em because they've already been brigged 3 times
>space the ligger
>okand: WOW WHY DID YOU SPACE THE SHITTY LIGGER
thot_slayer wrote:don't be a degenerate online if you don't want people to treat you like a degenerate morty
bandit wrote:what is this
a correct post by pillz
-
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:02 pm
- Byond Username: Reece1995
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Escalation is a fools game. Decapitation strike is the best option. Shoot to kill.
The crime is life.
The sentence is death.
The crime is life.
The sentence is death.
- Arianya
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
- Byond Username: Arianya
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I would say that escalation should also take into account what the "killer" chose to carry.
If you have access to tazers and stunbatons but you choose to only carry around a confiscated esword then you're kind of a shit when you escalate what would have been a taze and done to a full body mutilation because "All I had was an esword!"
If you have access to tazers and stunbatons but you choose to only carry around a confiscated esword then you're kind of a shit when you escalate what would have been a taze and done to a full body mutilation because "All I had was an esword!"
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry
Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg
Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Another factor is going out of one's way to start shit. The difference between a legit conflict that arises organically, and someone following a player around (for instance) and constantly provoking them, where the path of least resistance would be to not do that.
That said this does not work the other way around. You can go out of your way to clone someone but you are still responsible for your actions.
That said this does not work the other way around. You can go out of your way to clone someone but you are still responsible for your actions.
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Responsibility in escalation
People already get banned for this, although I'm sure FantasticFwoosh can tell you all about that :^)Arianya wrote:I would say that escalation should also take into account what the "killer" chose to carry.
If you have access to tazers and stunbatons but you choose to only carry around a confiscated esword then you're kind of a shit when you escalate what would have been a taze and done to a full body mutilation because "All I had was an esword!"
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
- BeeSting12
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
- Byond Username: BeeSting12
- Github Username: BeeSting12
- Location: 'Murica
Re: Responsibility in escalation
what is the point of being hos if i cant kill people with my antag gearArianya wrote:I would say that escalation should also take into account what the "killer" chose to carry.
If you have access to tazers and stunbatons but you choose to only carry around a confiscated esword then you're kind of a shit when you escalate what would have been a taze and done to a full body mutilation because "All I had was an esword!"
- Arianya
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:27 am
- Byond Username: Arianya
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Too bad you can't kill a corgi cult for shit >:(BeeSting12 wrote:what is the point of being hos if i cant kill people with my antag gearArianya wrote:I would say that escalation should also take into account what the "killer" chose to carry.
If you have access to tazers and stunbatons but you choose to only carry around a confiscated esword then you're kind of a shit when you escalate what would have been a taze and done to a full body mutilation because "All I had was an esword!"
While I wasn't involved in the original thing, it was mostly in reference to the whole situation with the Russelltalbott note appeal.ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:People already get banned for this, although I'm sure FantasticFwoosh can tell you all about that :^)Arianya wrote:I would say that escalation should also take into account what the "killer" chose to carry.
If you have access to tazers and stunbatons but you choose to only carry around a confiscated esword then you're kind of a shit when you escalate what would have been a taze and done to a full body mutilation because "All I had was an esword!"
Frequently playing as Aria Bollet on Bagil & Scary Terry
Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg
Source of avatar is here: https://i.imgur.com/hEkADo6.jpg
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I think this ban apeal shows how disproportionate our rules are against "the person who started it"
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12808
>Pick up tray out of kitchen
>Get beat to crit by chef
>Kill the chef
NO YOU STARTED IT HUR DUR BAN
https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12808
>Pick up tray out of kitchen
>Get beat to crit by chef
>Kill the chef
NO YOU STARTED IT HUR DUR BAN
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- Lazengann
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
- Byond Username: Lazengann
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Did you even read Kor's reply
- pubby
- Github User
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:45 pm
- Byond Username: Pubby
- Github Username: pubby
Re: Responsibility in escalation
The chef doesn't have a way to remove people from his kitchen other than by attacking them with his knife. The problem is that the other players take knifey stabby to mean lethal escalation, and respond of course by fighting back. And if they get crit, they now have their valids to get revenge on the chef. It's awful all around.
- Lazengann
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
- Byond Username: Lazengann
Re: Responsibility in escalation
The problem was that the chef didn't tell him to leave. Kor was right in that the chef could've been adminhelped. Current policy is fine.
-
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:13 pm
- Byond Username: Feemjmeem
- Github Username: feemjmeem
- Contact:
Re: Responsibility in escalation
CPTANT, it's possible for more than one person to do the wrong thing in a given situation.
-
- Github User
- Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:55 pm
- Byond Username: Basilman
- Github Username: Militaires
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Chef should've been banned for ban-baiting.
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Responsibility in escalation
At the risk of yet another litigating Ban Appeals/peanut gallerying in Policy Discussion:
Of course the burden is naturally going to be on the person who started it, and that is how it should be. Sometimes the conflicts are organic and mutually escalated. But more often in my experience, the defender didn't ask to get involved in a conflict. The instigator is the person who made the choice to start shit, often for petty and/or graytiding reasons. Start shit get hit.
In this case, the guy wanted to break in and steal a tray (he never said why he deserved to have a tray, which you really don't NEED if you're not the chef) when there are approximately a dozen ways to get a tray that do not involve breaking into the kitchen and then gibbing the person who doesn't want you there. The chef just wanted to go about his business. They're not equal situations.
(The fact that this kind of thing is litigated by admins OOC instead of security IC is a problem, but a separate one.)
EDIT TO ADD: New shit has come to light about the incident in question, please take this as a general comment and not specific to the incident
Of course the burden is naturally going to be on the person who started it, and that is how it should be. Sometimes the conflicts are organic and mutually escalated. But more often in my experience, the defender didn't ask to get involved in a conflict. The instigator is the person who made the choice to start shit, often for petty and/or graytiding reasons. Start shit get hit.
In this case, the guy wanted to break in and steal a tray (he never said why he deserved to have a tray, which you really don't NEED if you're not the chef) when there are approximately a dozen ways to get a tray that do not involve breaking into the kitchen and then gibbing the person who doesn't want you there. The chef just wanted to go about his business. They're not equal situations.
(The fact that this kind of thing is litigated by admins OOC instead of security IC is a problem, but a separate one.)
EDIT TO ADD: New shit has come to light about the incident in question, please take this as a general comment and not specific to the incident
Last edited by bandit on Sat Sep 02, 2017 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- bandit
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 7:35 pm
- Byond Username: Bgobandit
Re: Responsibility in escalation
non-edit to add: Also about *why* you are doing a thing. Stealing a tray because there are war ops and you want to be armed? I don't know why you'd want a tray, but no one would fault you. Stealing a tray just because you can? Fuck outta here.
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Responsibility in escalation
It is possible for neither side to be wrong.....feem wrote:CPTANT, it's possible for more than one person to do the wrong thing in a given situation.
That is the entire point of escalation.
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- imblyings
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
- Byond Username: Ausops
- Location: >using suit sensors
Re: Responsibility in escalation
But did you get banned for this pillzDrPillzRedux wrote:I like how people are now agreeing with my sentiment on escalation from last year.
>ligger griffs sec by breaking windows, disarming officers and stealing sec shit
>they disarm me, I stun them with my baton
>they start breaking my detectives office window
>I shoot them with the shitty detectives revolver
>they come back, take my revolver, and space it
>ask HoS about it, they just say to space em because they've already been brigged 3 times
>space the ligger
>okand: WOW WHY DID YOU SPACE THE SHITTY LIGGER
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.
- Oldman Robustin
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 2:18 pm
- Byond Username: ForcefulCJS
Re: Responsibility in escalation
The simplest escalation rule is to simply require "reasonable" reactions to other people's behavior.
Not reasonable in any real-world sense of course, but reasonable in terms of how it impacts another player's round. Our escalation policy seems to have dumbed down over the years into "do whatever the fuck you want to anyone who bothers you".
Scenario: Greyshirt breaks robotics window and starts trying to break into the surgery area.
You can:
1) Ignore it
2) Tell them to leave
3) Call security
4) Attack them with minimal force using disarms, a flash, a few punches, etc.
5) Attack them with lethal force but either let them flee or drag them out in crit
6) Use overwhelming force to kill them as quickly as possible and permanently remove them from the round(i.e. flash + circ saw until debrained, space the brain)
It's much healthier for the game to encourage people to stick with #1 to #4. The reality is that even this standard "greytiding" is at most a minute or two of inconvenience and authorizing lethal force because someone broke your window in a non-critical location is silly. Even though the assistant is the "aggressor" here, in my view they lose that status if a roboticist wordlessly enters the room and starts trying to hack their limbs off for breaking and entering. The story shifts if the assistant uses violence to try and stick around, pulls out a weapon or other contraband, or makes repeat intrusions.
Smart policy is to keep everything in context and not let people murder each other over slight inconveniences or nuisances.
Not reasonable in any real-world sense of course, but reasonable in terms of how it impacts another player's round. Our escalation policy seems to have dumbed down over the years into "do whatever the fuck you want to anyone who bothers you".
Scenario: Greyshirt breaks robotics window and starts trying to break into the surgery area.
You can:
1) Ignore it
2) Tell them to leave
3) Call security
4) Attack them with minimal force using disarms, a flash, a few punches, etc.
5) Attack them with lethal force but either let them flee or drag them out in crit
6) Use overwhelming force to kill them as quickly as possible and permanently remove them from the round(i.e. flash + circ saw until debrained, space the brain)
It's much healthier for the game to encourage people to stick with #1 to #4. The reality is that even this standard "greytiding" is at most a minute or two of inconvenience and authorizing lethal force because someone broke your window in a non-critical location is silly. Even though the assistant is the "aggressor" here, in my view they lose that status if a roboticist wordlessly enters the room and starts trying to hack their limbs off for breaking and entering. The story shifts if the assistant uses violence to try and stick around, pulls out a weapon or other contraband, or makes repeat intrusions.
Smart policy is to keep everything in context and not let people murder each other over slight inconveniences or nuisances.
- Qbopper
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:34 pm
- Byond Username: Qbopper
- Github Username: Qbopper
- Location: Canada
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I agree, but it's also important to consider the overall contextOldman Robustin wrote:The simplest escalation rule is to simply require "reasonable" reactions to other people's behavior.
Not reasonable in any real-world sense of course, but reasonable in terms of how it impacts another player's round. Our escalation policy seems to have dumbed down over the years into "do whatever the fuck you want to anyone who bothers you".
Scenario: Greyshirt breaks robotics window and starts trying to break into the surgery area.
You can:
1) Ignore it
2) Tell them to leave
3) Call security
4) Attack them with minimal force using disarms, a flash, a few punches, etc.
5) Attack them with lethal force but either let them flee or drag them out in crit
6) Use overwhelming force to kill them as quickly as possible and permanently remove them from the round(i.e. flash + circ saw until debrained, space the brain)
It's much healthier for the game to encourage people to stick with #1 to #4. The reality is that even this standard "greytiding" is at most a minute or two of inconvenience and authorizing lethal force because someone broke your window in a non-critical location is silly. Even though the assistant is the "aggressor" here, in my view they lose that status if a roboticist wordlessly enters the room and starts trying to hack their limbs off for breaking and entering. The story shifts if the assistant uses violence to try and stick around, pulls out a weapon or other contraband, or makes repeat intrusions.
Smart policy is to keep everything in context and not let people murder each other over slight inconveniences or nuisances.
if shitter mcfuckhead has been constantly annoying you all round it's probably reasonable to just go to #5 after the 4th time he's climbed the table and tried to steal the surgery tools
Limey wrote:its too late.
- Not-Dorsidarf
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:14 pm
- Byond Username: Dorsidwarf
- Location: We're all going on an, admin holiday
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I agree that escalation policy has swung too far from "You are powerless against the greys" towards "Being in a department not your own is an automatic on the spot death sentence"
kieth4 wrote: infrequently shitting yourself is fine imo
There is a lot of very bizarre nonsense being talked on this forum. I shall now remain silent and logoff until my points are vindicated.
Player who complainted over being killed for looting cap office wrote: ↑Sun Jul 30, 2023 1:33 am Hey there, I'm Virescent, the super evil person who made the stupid appeal and didn't think it through enough. Just came here to say: screech, retards. Screech and writhe like the worms you are. Your pathetic little cries will keep echoing around for a while before quietting down. There is one great outcome from this: I rised up the blood pressure of some of you shitheads and lowered your lifespan. I'm honestly tempted to do this more often just to see you screech and writhe more, but that wouldn't be cool of me. So come on haters, show me some more of your high blood pressure please.
- CPTANT
- Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 1:31 pm
- Byond Username: CPTANT
Re: Responsibility in escalation
And a ban if you fight back.Not-Dorsidarf wrote:I agree that escalation policy has swung too far from "You are powerless against the greys" towards "Being in a department not your own is an automatic on the spot death sentence"
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:21 pm The rules exist to create the biggest possible chance of a cool shift of SS13. They don't exist to allow admins to create the most boring interpretation of SS13.
- Lazengann
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 2:26 pm
- Byond Username: Lazengann
Re: Responsibility in escalation
No the policy is as perfect as it's going to get
- captain sawrge
- Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:13 pm
- Byond Username: Sawrge
Re: Responsibility in escalation
kill anyone that f*s with you but don't ahelp whe nyou get pwned for it
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Even if we create unofficial lines [that is, well you can only kill after XYZ has occurred otherwise you've overescalated], people will still toe these lines since they have became de facto rules. It's why you have people ahelp for "well I did X but they did Y and Y was too much of a response to X so I think they should be banned".
You cannot win.
It's why the "transgressor takes his [un]just due" policy is really the only fathomable way to enforce it that doesn't end up in people exploiting the system, which sucks.
Honestly just IC issue it 24/7 and it's a coin flip of whether they escalated properly or not :^)
You cannot win.
It's why the "transgressor takes his [un]just due" policy is really the only fathomable way to enforce it that doesn't end up in people exploiting the system, which sucks.
Honestly just IC issue it 24/7 and it's a coin flip of whether they escalated properly or not :^)
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
-
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 10:26 pm
- Byond Username: KorPhaeron
Re: Responsibility in escalation
The way that I generally enforce it is if someone wrongs you then 1-6 are all generally acceptable IC responses. If you don't want to suffer disproportionate bad consequences then don't wrong people in the first place.
But if you overescalate (5-6) like a psychopath over something minor then they're allowed to go nuts back, you've forfeited your killbaiting protection. If you don't want to get "killbaited" respond non lethally or call security or something.
But if you overescalate (5-6) like a psychopath over something minor then they're allowed to go nuts back, you've forfeited your killbaiting protection. If you don't want to get "killbaited" respond non lethally or call security or something.
- Cobby
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:19 pm
- Byond Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobby
- Github Username: ExcessiveUseOfCobblestone
Re: Responsibility in escalation
This is a really good way to handle it.Kor wrote:The way that I generally enforce it is if someone wrongs you then 1-6 are all generally acceptable IC responses. If you don't want to suffer disproportionate bad consequences then don't wrong people in the first place.
But if you overescalate (5-6) like a psychopath over something minor then they're allowed to go nuts back, you've forfeited your killbaiting protection. If you don't want to get "killbaited" respond non lethally or call security or something.
Voted best trap in /tg/ 2014-current
-
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:31 pm
- Byond Username: DrBee
Re: Responsibility in escalation
It is surprising how hard it is for people to actually ROLE PLAY, escalation as a rule is based entirely on roleplaying the situation out like a rational, normal human.
"would doing this get me put in prison in real life" is a good guideline to follow in escalation, and calling security needs to be used as an option more.
If you straight up murder a dude without even asking sec to toss the guy out then you may have gone a bit too far.
"would doing this get me put in prison in real life" is a good guideline to follow in escalation, and calling security needs to be used as an option more.
If you straight up murder a dude without even asking sec to toss the guy out then you may have gone a bit too far.
- Grazyn
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:01 am
- Byond Username: Grazyn
Re: Responsibility in escalation
I don't think it's worth a new thread so I'm gonna use this one. Reading one of the latest ban appeals made me think and I'd like a clarification on something.
Situation: sec officer permabrigs someone, admin tells the officer to release the guy. What happens if the guy tries to kill the officer when he comes in?
On one hand, admin interference means the permabrigging was unjust, and thus the guy should be allowed to escalate against the officer (perma being the same as execution rule-wise), and there is a precedent for an officer being banned after he killed a prisoner (whom he was told to release by an admin) when the prisoner attacked him in perma. This interpretation looks sound according to server rules: if someone is griefing, they're valid both IC and OOC, and a griefer killing someone they griefed when they react falls under kill-baiting. The prisoner attacking the officer was nothing other than reaction against a griefer, and while killing the officer was thus valid, the officer defending themselves was not.
On the other hand, one could say that the situation was already being dealt with by the admin when he told the officer to release the guy, and the guy should not attack the officer because being released is already compensation for the griefing they suffered. But this seems counter-intuitive compared to how other similar situations are usually dealt with: an admin wouldn't chastise someone for trying to kill a griefer who kidnapped and locked them in a room for 10 minutes, even if admin intervention was needed to free them, and surely wouldn't let the griefer kill the guy "in self defense" when they come for him.
Situation: sec officer permabrigs someone, admin tells the officer to release the guy. What happens if the guy tries to kill the officer when he comes in?
On one hand, admin interference means the permabrigging was unjust, and thus the guy should be allowed to escalate against the officer (perma being the same as execution rule-wise), and there is a precedent for an officer being banned after he killed a prisoner (whom he was told to release by an admin) when the prisoner attacked him in perma. This interpretation looks sound according to server rules: if someone is griefing, they're valid both IC and OOC, and a griefer killing someone they griefed when they react falls under kill-baiting. The prisoner attacking the officer was nothing other than reaction against a griefer, and while killing the officer was thus valid, the officer defending themselves was not.
On the other hand, one could say that the situation was already being dealt with by the admin when he told the officer to release the guy, and the guy should not attack the officer because being released is already compensation for the griefing they suffered. But this seems counter-intuitive compared to how other similar situations are usually dealt with: an admin wouldn't chastise someone for trying to kill a griefer who kidnapped and locked them in a room for 10 minutes, even if admin intervention was needed to free them, and surely wouldn't let the griefer kill the guy "in self defense" when they come for him.
- Nilons
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:38 pm
- Byond Username: NIlons
- Location: Canada
Re: Responsibility in escalation
That's happened with I think icepax and jmad, may have been repukan. What happens is you get banned for not leting the prisoner kill you apparently despite that making no sense whatsoever
- imblyings
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
- Byond Username: Ausops
- Location: >using suit sensors
Re: Responsibility in escalation
>be kindergarten teacher
>some toddler takes a toy from a second toddler for no raisin
>sigh but get up to deal with it by asking the toddler to give the toy back to the second toddler
>toddler fumbles over with the toy in hands, about to give it back when the second toddler punts him in the face
>now have to deal with a lawsuit from angry parents
similarly if you ask for OOC intervention, that is a massive de-escalation because you've just asked for an admin to come in and settle things. Or at least it should be this way. If you've asked for an admin to settle things but still want to settle things yourself well then dont ask for an admin.
>some toddler takes a toy from a second toddler for no raisin
>sigh but get up to deal with it by asking the toddler to give the toy back to the second toddler
>toddler fumbles over with the toy in hands, about to give it back when the second toddler punts him in the face
>now have to deal with a lawsuit from angry parents
similarly if you ask for OOC intervention, that is a massive de-escalation because you've just asked for an admin to come in and settle things. Or at least it should be this way. If you've asked for an admin to settle things but still want to settle things yourself well then dont ask for an admin.
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.
- Grazyn
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 11:01 am
- Byond Username: Grazyn
Re: Responsibility in escalation
So to clarify: Officer goes back to free prisoner as requested by admin, prisoner attacks him
case 1: officer kills the guy -> officer is in the clear, guy had already requested admin intervention and thus forfeited any further escalation on his part
case 2: prisoner kills the officer -> prisoner gets warned/banned for the reason stated above
case 1: officer kills the guy -> officer is in the clear, guy had already requested admin intervention and thus forfeited any further escalation on his part
case 2: prisoner kills the officer -> prisoner gets warned/banned for the reason stated above
- imblyings
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:42 pm
- Byond Username: Ausops
- Location: >using suit sensors
Re: Responsibility in escalation
case 1, unless there are circumstances which cannot be foreseen
The patched, dusty, trimmed, feathered mantle of evil +13.
- Gigapuddi420
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 8:08 am
- Byond Username: Gigapuddi420
- Location: Dorms
Re: Responsibility in escalation
Normally I go with this, but from time to time you get put on hold and left to stew in a shit situation. I don't blame anyone for solving something in character when left to hang in limbo for 10+ minutes after a admin responded 'I'll look into it'. Even worse if that limbo includes being locked in a room with no ID or equipment. It can be a bit of a slap in the face to finally resolve grief on your own long after you told a admin about it then hear about how the whole thing doesn't matter anymore. Comes across as the admin just wiping their hands of the initial ahelp by waiting for it to fix itself.imblyings wrote:similarly if you ask for OOC intervention, that is a massive de-escalation because you've just asked for an admin to come in and settle things. Or at least it should be this way. If you've asked for an admin to settle things but still want to settle things yourself well then dont ask for an admin.
Sometimes things are happening fast enough a issue will resolve itself, but when it opens with a pretty clear cut problem and gets left that long it is very frustating.
Imperfect catgirl playing a imperfect game.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]