Escalation discussion and criticism thread

[J_Madison]

Post your examples of escalation regarding IC incidents, sec incidents, whatever incidents you think you were right or wrong(ed) on. I'll give you my opinion on the matter, and so can everyone else.
I hope with these kind of open discussions we can come to an agreement or find similar ground on how we escalate incidents.

This is in response to TehPear welcoming anyone to try to set a standard for IC escalation.
You're entitled to your own opinion and nobody is wrong or right in this thread.

Format:

Code: Select all

IC name:
Job:
Server: Basil/Sybil
What happened:
TL;DR:

It is important to include IC names.

[oranges]

Code: Select all

IC name:J madison
Job:Forum Shitposter
Server: Metaserver(tgstation)
What happened:He ruined my metagame by posting a thread at the wrong time. Delicate positioning of forum poster forces were completely interrupted and destroyed. This lead to a defeat against the furry freedom clique and multiple furry pulls being forced through with a detrimental effect on the game and the metagame(via github) that I currently play for the higher challenge level.

I've had to resort to manipulating the metagames on other servers in order to restore the balance their threads caused to my position.
TL;DR:he fucked up my day

[DemonFiren]

Oranges is doing Nar-Sie's work.

[J_Madison]

Sounds interesting but why is it important for IC names?

Some people static name and are treated differently. This changes interactions, for instance a repeat greytider with the same name is more likely to get harsher treatment than his random naming counterpart.

[CPTANT]

Ok I have one.

I was playing HoS and a lawyer was running around the hallway with an esword and ebow. I tazed him and cuffed him.

While I was cuffing him an assistant came from out of view grabbed the esword, murdered the lawyer with it by hitting him 6 times with it, shot me with the ebow and ran off. I chased him and he shot several more ebow bolts at me, but ultimately lost him.

When I saw him again I tazed him and shot his head full of buckshot.



After that I got admin questioned for half an hour about why I killed him before finally it was said it was semi-ok

Seriously, act like an antag, get treated like an antag.

[D&B]

One thing I found quite perplexing is how chemists are allowed to kill botanists if they need to get a stolen machine back, but if the botanists respond to the lethal force with equal lethal force and they fend off the attack successfully (the chemist dies) the botanist will get shit on by the adminbus.

This is off something I got a note for among others (as in other people.)

[kevinz000]

Why is this a thing?

[Saegrimr]

Sounds interesting but why is it important for IC names?

Some people static name and are treated differently. This changes interactions, for instance a repeat greytider with the same name is more likely to get harsher treatment than his random naming counterpart.

This sounds like a big metagrudge list and needs to be fucking canned. Not surprising coming from you though.

[CPTANT]

Sounds interesting but why is it important for IC names?

Some people static name and are treated differently. This changes interactions, for instance a repeat greytider with the same name is more likely to get harsher treatment than his random naming counterpart.

This sounds like a big metagrudge list and needs to be fucking canned. Not surprising coming from you though.

Well when someone does the exact same shit several rounds in a row it's pretty hard to not crack down on it.

[Archie700]

One thing I found quite perplexing is how chemists are allowed to kill botanists if they need to get a stolen machine back, but if the botanists respond to the lethal force with equal lethal force and they fend off the attack successfully (the chemist dies) the botanist will get shit on by the adminbus.

This is off something I got a note for among others (as in other people.)

>they can lethal me for stealing something they need for their jobs but I can't lethal them for trying to take back what I stole from them

No wonder you were rule 0'd.

[CPTANT]

One thing I found quite perplexing is how chemists are allowed to kill botanists if they need to get a stolen machine back, but if the botanists respond to the lethal force with equal lethal force and they fend off the attack successfully (the chemist dies) the botanist will get shit on by the adminbus.

This is off something I got a note for among others (as in other people.)

>they can lethal me for stealing something they need for their jobs but I can't lethal them for trying to take back what I stole from them

No wonder you were rule 0'd.

But stealing isn't equal to murdering someone at all. Going from theft to murder is an escalation and that escalation should be fine to respond to with your own lethal force.

[Screemonster]

If you steal shit from people you don't get to hide behind Le NAP they attacked first memes to murder them if they have to use force to get it back

goading someone into attacking you so you can murder them "in self-defence" is pretty much textbook killbaiting

[CPTANT]

If you steal shit from people you don't get to hide behind Le NAP they attacked first memes to murder them if they have to use force to get it back

goading someone into attacking you so you can murder them "in self-defence" is pretty much textbook killbaiting

Yes and I have always found that if you do not consent to that kind of escalation you should not escalate to that point.

[onleavedontatme]

Killbaiting and escalation rules seem almost mutually exclusive in their overlap and is probably the worse defined or agreed upon area of our rules.

[D&B]

One thing I found quite perplexing is how chemists are allowed to kill botanists if they need to get a stolen machine back, but if the botanists respond to the lethal force with equal lethal force and they fend off the attack successfully (the chemist dies) the botanist will get shit on by the adminbus.

This is off something I got a note for among others (as in other people.)

>they can lethal me for stealing something they need for their jobs but I can't lethal them for trying to take back what I stole from them

No wonder you were rule 0'd.

Again, I have only had it happen once, and healed the chemist after they attacked me.

But it's a weird line when in other conflicts you're expected to get sec rather than man up on your own, and in this one it gets to liberally become "Haha you stole something you need for your job too but fuck you just let yourself be killed."

[Haevacht]

You don't need mutagen.

Plants can evolve on their own with left 4 zed, or you can, you know, ASK THE FUCKING CHEMISTS.

[CPTANT]

Killbaiting and escalation rules seem almost mutually exclusive in their overlap and is probably the worse defined or agreed upon area of our rules.

Basically there is no "proportional escalation" since any conflict is always started by one party and that party will just be accused of killbaiting if they retaliate.

[Archie700]

Short of critting or killing, you essentially should lay yourself down for IC punishment if you steal a chem dispenser.

If you're going to punch or push people who punch you once, or even just take the chem dispenser peacefully, expect yourself to be hit until your sprite lays down.

[J_Madison]

Sounds interesting but why is it important for IC names?

Some people static name and are treated differently. This changes interactions, for instance a repeat greytider with the same name is more likely to get harsher treatment than his random naming counterpart.

This sounds like a big metagrudge list and needs to be fucking canned. Not surprising coming from you though.

Well when someone does the exact same shit several rounds in a row it's pretty hard to not crack down on it.

Bingo, it's a big ask not to kill someone for greytiding if it's their 8th round in a row, and if you release them they'll come down worse.

Metagrudge goes both ways. You can't expect to be treated better and not treated worse for it.

Killbaiting and escalation rules seem almost mutually exclusive in their overlap and is probably the worse defined or agreed upon area of our rules.

Can't create absolutes otherwise people toe the line between killbaiting and escalation.

For escalation, one party needs to be actually wronged and feel the reason to take revenge, i.e. wrongly arrested Janitor brigged for 5 minutes.
For killbaiting, one party must voluntarily commit a wrong, feel wronged, then feels the need to take revenge, i.e. arrested for breaking into brig, take revenge by killing sec officers and impeding arrests.

Short of critting or killing, you essentially should lay yourself down for IC punishment if you steal a chem dispenser.

If you're going to punch or push people who punch you once, or even just take the chem dispenser peacefully, expect yourself to be hit until your sprite lays down.

Stealing of vital and limited equipment. Absolutely no excuse for stealing them even if "the chemists aren't using it" or "there's only one chemist". There will be a chemist that will arrive. And there will be a chemist that needs it more than your botany needs.

If you steal a chem dispenser you almost deserve to have your round stolen.

[Grazyn]

If you steal shit from people you don't get to hide behind Le NAP they attacked first memes to murder them if they have to use force to get it back

goading someone into attacking you so you can murder them "in self-defence" is pretty much textbook killbaiting

I'm kinda torn on this one, on one hand it seems reasonable but on the other hand this basically means that you become valid (please excuse me for the horrible term) just for stealing the machine, regardless of any escalation rule. Follow me for a second: botanist steals the thing, chemist comes to reclaim it using lethal force (and is the first to use lethal force), at this point you say that the botanist should just lay down and accept death or face a ban. I think killbaiting only applies in situations where someone started shit with the explicit purpose of killing someone "in self-defence", but the machine is actually useful for the botanist, it's not the same as a greyshirt stealing it just to bait the chemist into a conflict. The death of the chemist is a consequence of him escalating to lethals, not the main purpose behind the botanist's actions.

tl;dr:
do something annoying to another player with no other purpose but to annoy him until he's tricked into using lethal force, then kill him -> killbaiting
do something annoying to another player for *reasons* without trying to start further shit, but he doesn't stand down -> escalation

[BeeSting12]

Isn't this what the cuck shed is for?

[CPTANT]

But now I still haven't heard whether or not killing someone after he murders a prisoner and shoots you with an ebow is proper escalation or not.

[BeeSting12]

But now I still haven't heard whether or not killing someone after he murders a prisoner and shoots you with an ebow is proper escalation or not.

i think it is. he acted like an antagonist and got treated like one, he shouldn't whine to the admins when he gets killed for it.

[TehSteveo]

This isn't what I had in mind of writing something that clearly defined situations. All this is everyone giving their opinion. I wanted something objective that defines every situation and if it was okay or warrants an action being taken by an admin. This is what many seemingly want instead of an admin making a ruling whether or not it was proper.

[ShadowDimentio]

Now That's What I Call Metagrudge: Volume 2

[D&B]

>Wants objectivity when one of the official rules is ambiguous and vague as hell.

Hmmmmmmmmm

[TehSteveo]

>Wants objectivity when one of the official rules is ambiguous and vague as hell.

Hmmmmmmmmm

I invite people to come up with what they perceive as more objective rules as well. So if you want to spend your free time doing that; knock yourself out.

[TehSteveo]

>Wants objectivity when one of the official rules is ambiguous and vague as hell.

Hmmmmmmmmm

I invite people to come up with what they perceive as more objective rules as well. So if you want to spend your free time doing that; knock yourself out.

Yeah, I was hoping this thread might go somewhere with that since it invited experience over theory.

What I took a double take on was the wanted inclusion of IC names because not only can players take up new names or hit random, it doesn't help to metagrudge them here on a level that might as well be a ban request. That and repeat offenders of moronically destructive crimes or out of bounds behaviour have a username, not a character name, for admins to deal with, not forum goers, which I thought JMad would know by now.

It's hardly healthy to have a policy thread or even any thread where there's a list of names associated to shames to refer to whenever you play sec or otherwise to then decide perma/execution/1,000,000 gulag points is a suitable punishment to them breaking one window because someone said they once broke every window on the station interior and exterior. If I remember correctly, you can use your own past IC experiences with them to justify your behaviour now, within reason, but I doubt an admin will listen to someone who says "This person on the forums said the guy I arrested shot people with the russian revolver as a non antag last year and I found them with the bartender's shotgun as greyshirt so execution is right."

I quite agree with this and many others who raised questions over this thread; which is more or less a metagrudge list and may as well be like having ban request open with everyone allowed to peanut gallery post. I'm going to lock this thread as I find it dumb. I do welcome the community at attempting to come up with better rules which a new thread can be created. Maybe something could come of that as the rules are not the most perfect and are very much interrupted by admins.