What is valid instigation, and when is a conflict truly over?

Locked
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

What is valid instigation, and when is a conflict truly over?

Post by sinfulbliss » #630509

Since new escalation policy has been in effect, there are some new issues that have yet to be completely ironed out. Although this will happen naturally in-game, there are definitely new questions being raised with how escalation should be (new and old admins for example, may enforce differently based on how escalation was when they joined the team). There are two main issues that have come up a lot. I'll include the old policy as well for reference:

1) When a conflict is truly over, and what it means for a conflict to be over.

New:
If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is incapacitated, the standing participant is expected to make an effort to treat the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once treated the conflict is over; any new conflict with either individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.
Old:
If you are the instigator in a conflict and end up killing or severely impairing the round of the person you are fighting, you should make a reasonable effort to return them to life at least once or make amends, only seeking round removal if they continue to pursue you. This protection doesn't apply to an instigator being killed.
Two main differences here: 1) previously, the instigator of a conflict did not have to be brought to medbay by the person they instigated against. Now, if the instigator is killed and left to rot in maintenance, the defender should be bwoinked for not making an effort to revive them. 2) New escalation now demarcates when a conflict "ends." After someone loses (i.e., is incapacitated) in a conflict and is healed, they cannot then instantly try to kill the person again.

This second difference is the most controversial by far, and it is easy to see why. Consider the following situation:
John and George get into a conflict. Suppose it is a valid conflict that involves valid instigation, and George is the instigator. Over time, the conflict becomes more and more heated, and the players do worse and worse things to each other. Eventually, George gets the upper hand. He leaves John broken, bruised, and stripped of all his belongings. John is incapacitated and brought to medbay, where he remains for 15 minutes before he is finally fixed of all his wounds. John is incredibly upset, and we would think he'd have a right to give George his due. But because he was incapacitated, the conflict is deemed over, and he is out of luck.

Current escalation rules therefore seem to punish the loser. If you are incapacitated, the conflict is over and you are not allowed to re-initiate it. You would have to escalate a new conflict to re-engage - it is assumed you cannot use "I lost the previous conflict" as valid reasoning for instigating a new conflict. It definitely seems many admins would look to a more commonsense approach for these situations as opposed to enforcing the escalation rules as written.

2) The new limits on instigation.

New:
As a non-antagonist you may begin conflict with another player with valid reason (refusal of critical services, belligerent attitude, etc) OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. Whomever you engage is entitled to respond to your actions. If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for causing conflict in the first place, you may face administrative action.
Old:
You may instigate conflict with another player within reason (you can't completely destroy their department, kill them unprovoked, or otherwise take them out of the round for long periods of time) but they are entitled to respond with violence.
Previous escalation rules implied you could instigate a conflict so long as the instigation didn't severely impact the round of the defender - rule 1 applying. Current escalation rules put more emphasis on needing a valid reason to instigate in the first place. But it seems in order to instigate validly, you would have to be wronged in some way to begin with - if someone refuses critical services, or acts belligerently, for instance. This is then the real "instigation," and we might say the person needed a valid reason for refusing critical services or behaving belligerently in the first place!

The issue that has been mentioned before is this opens up the field to a lot of banbaiting. Suppose you hack into someone's department. They can now essentially attempt to murder you, and if you defend yourself and win the fight, they can ahelp claiming you interfered in their ability to do their job. But surely the person who begins the violent conflict should be held at greater responsibility than the person who was avoiding conflict the entire time.

There is also this clause: "[...]OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job." So you can instigate if either A) you have a valid reason, or B) it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. Is this what is meant by the policy, or should it be "AND" instead of "OR"? As is, it implies you can start a conflict FNR, so long as it doesn't cause excessive interference. The fact "OR" is in caps seems to imply that this is what was intended, but it's worth clarifying since these are very different meanings.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Blase
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:54 pm
Byond Username: MacBlaze

Re: What is valid instigation, and when is a conflict truly over?

Post by Blase » #631256

For the first point, I don't agree. I believe the example to be hyperbole. If someone takes all your shit, It would be insane not to get your shit back. Its not clear if you can beat them to shit in return. I would think not. For the second point, you have an actual good case. For Manuel MRP, I would say that it should be OR. If I have a valid reason that leads to a fight, Its probably going to leave one of us hurt enough to interfere with the job. If I want to start shit, as long as its not excessive and severe greytiding, I should be able to.
User avatar
Hulkamania
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:42 pm
Byond Username: Hulkamania

Re: What is valid instigation, and when is a conflict truly over?

Post by Hulkamania » #633497

I have been asked to weigh on this by headmins as I wrote the bulk of the new policy. I will also preface this statement by saying the policy was always meant to undergo some testing and changing as time goes on, and was never meant to be the ultimate final version.

I'll address your second point first, as it will provide insight into the first. There are no new limits on instigation other than someone impeding your ability to do your job. Your "example" of someone hacking into your department is not that. Someone breaking into your department to steal a beaker is also not that. Someone breaking into your department to steal a chem machine is LIKELY that. This is to say if this does not have long-lasting impacts on your ability to do your job, this is the only time this is an issue. The policy was specifically made with the idea in mind that not all conflict is bad, and that putting a stop to all non-antag conflict would be horrible for the game.

Lets have a few more examples of acceptable vs non-acceptable instigation:

Stealing someone's shoes in the hallway, spreading lube inside botany, jumping the counter and taking food in the kitchen. All these are acceptable, because they do not PREVENT someone from doing their job, aka excessively interfere. They may provide a temporary disruption to the job, aka they may have to waste time throwing you out, they may need to get new shoes, they may need to wait for lube to wear off. None of these *excessively* interfere, although whether or not they constitute a rule 1 break is irrelevant for the purposes of this particular discussion use your own judgment in game.

Stealing the chem machine from chemistry, disassembling all the plant trays in botany, taking a security officers belt and backpack, spacing all the hardsuits in engineering. These would be excessively interfering with a job because they prevent that job from being performed at all in the vast majority of cases.

Now here's an important note: You CAN STILL INTERFERE EXCESSIVELY but only IF you have valid reasoning to do so. The statement in the rule is an OR statement (in all caps) for a reason. If the chemist was treating you like shit and you had a reason to be pissed off? You now perhaps have more valid reasoning to take his chem machine away. But walking up and saying "can I have that" and them saying "no" is not reason enough to *EXCESSIVELY* interfere with their job.

It should NOT be an and statement because that would eliminate an entire brand of IC conflict.


Okay, now that we've established that by design the policy is meant to accommodate and encourage some levels of IC conflict, lets move on to your first point.

I think your main issue here is that you are misunderstanding the fundamental aspect of initiation (which is why I'm covering this second).

Using your example of John and George you leave out some VERY crucial points. Namely who started the conflict to begin with. You gloss over this by saying it was valid, but the rule is dependent on who is and isn't the instigator, and why. Lets say for the sake of discussion then that in a worst case scenario John was the person on defense and got their things taken (ouch!)

First and foremost, they chose to continue to escalate as the defender. The entire policy is based around the defender being able to dictate not *when* engagement happens, but the *terms* of said engagement. If someone is in your department and you don't want them there, they can only respond to level of violence that you respond with yourself. The flow of power is NEVER in favor of the instigator outside the initial engagement. So if John responds with grabbing and punches, only then can George also respond with grabbing and punches. This is again, baked into the rule by design. If John wishes to run away and report them to security, they can. If John wishes to engage them violently, they are CHOOSING TO ACCEPT PERSONAL RISK. There is no guarantee in any kind of engagement that you will be the winner, but by choosing to act violently, you are opening up the possibility of loss. If you never make it violent to begin with (which is your right as the defender) you will never end up in a situation where you're going to lose all your things to begin with.

Another thing here: If someone takes ALL your possessions, that is to say possessions that were not involved in the conflict, that's likely an OOC issue. Say George wanted some insuls that John had laying in his work space and they fought over them, eventually leading to John's demise. There is absolutely no reason for George to be taking more than the insuls and maybe one or two shiny things they see laying around. Deliberately knocking the player out of the game by taking all their things would be EXCESSIVELY INTERFERING WITH THEIR ABILITY TO DO THEIR JOB.

Moreover, in that instance, John WOULD have grounds to start conflict with George again. The rule does not say they cannot try to get their things back, it says the conflict must ESCALATE AGAIN. This time John would be the instigator, and it would be up to George to decide if it should increase to violence once again.


Finally, this entire rule was made with the idea that just because a fight leads to crit/death, admins can still get involved. Even if John tries to get their stuff back, they could still get an admin involved in the original conflict who could then decide if it was an IC issue or if things escalated too far. This isn't to say admins act as some kind of "gotcha" where you can pull the trigger and get the person banned, you make the statement that it encourages "banbaiting", but admins are humans who think for themselves and make rulings according to how they feel a situation was or wasn't warranted. Ultimately they can make whatever choice they want, as is their right under rule 0.

I hope this helps illuminate some of the thought process put behind making this policy.
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: What is valid instigation, and when is a conflict truly over?

Post by sinfulbliss » #633501

This is extremely helpful and clears up a lot of the concerns me and many other players had about the new escalation policy when it came out. I have no followups, it has been fully illuminated.

Thanks for the thorough explanation!!
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
RaveRadbury
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:41 am
Byond Username: RaveRadbury
Github Username: RaveRadbury
Location: BK ChatZone
Contact:

Re: What is valid instigation, and when is a conflict truly over?

Post by RaveRadbury » #633507

We agree with Hulkamania's post.

Headmin Votes:
RaveRadbury: Agree
Dragomagol: Agree
NamelessFairy: Agree
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Maxipat