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