I want to reiterate that my initial position on this was that adding a rule for this was stupid. I still think that way.
But I read the rules page and I think y'all should too, and while I can't see how someone would judge that this particular action was okay, I can see how someone would be confused about lavaland roles. The whole 'lavaland roles' section of the rules was added in relation to exactly this ambiguity and frankly it didn't do the job it set out to do: we should establish firmly that lavaland roles, while still having some basic rule protections (e.g. Rule 1), are not meant to have as much of an impact on the game as 'real' roles. The 'your life is cheap' and 'escalation rules are relaxed' statements don't say that.
I'd recommend making this very simple change:
From THIS:
Follow the flavour text you receive upon spawning to the best of your abilities. Unlike the rest of the rules, these roles are very much defined and guided by roleplay rather than a system of "valid" or "not valid."
Your life is cheap though, and escalation rules are greatly relaxed both for you and any crewmembers interacting with you.
In other words:
to THIS:
Lavaland roles are not meant to be replacements for or equal to station roles. People shouldn't kill you for no reason, but you're expected to follow the flavor text you receive upon spawning, and escalation rules are relaxed against you.
While some Lavaland roles (such as Syndicate comms officers and ash walkers) are 'light antagonists,' it should not be your goal or intent to significantly impact the round outside of Lavaland except through emergent gameplay. Don't nuke the station, but maybe help the nukies over the radio by watching their backs.
or something to that effect.
This addresses a few specific things:
1) The way the current text is worded, it suggests that you can retaliate for almost no reason in the same way that the players can retaliate for almost no reason. This should not be the case and is generally not how these policies are enforced.
2) It does not substantially increase the length or complexity of the rules, but does caution against over-engagement in a way which the original text does not.
I don't see this as "caving," I see this as clarifying what, frankly, is a poorly written policy already on the rules page.
Again, for veteran players of the game who have existed since before ghost roles existed, OR for people who have played roleplaying games before, it's pretty obvious that ghost roles are intended to be NPCs. Since y'all are going to bring up Slig again for some reason, yeah, he should have known better. But the way the rules are currently written, it IS possible for some newbie to come in and not understand that ghost roles shouldn't be used to just blatantly fuck with people, and since I have to handle an ahelp about someone doing that at least once or twice a month, I'm pretty sure it's worthwhile to make this change.