Reviving Hulkamania's Escalation Policy Proposal

[Fikou]

I think our current escalation rules are not satisfactory enough, with stuff like

If a player wrongs you(theft, attacks, etc), you may retaliate. If you choose to retaliate with violence, you in turn have opened yourself up to violence. If you choose this route, do not expect admins to help you out if you die, even if you were not the original instigator.

which leads players to not ahelping bad escalation, because they fought back and lost, and most admins dont even care about that blurb
or

If you think it's unfair or excessive they killed you for taking their ID, consider not stealing next round.

which is misleading for both admins and players, as you can see by half the admins having different rulings on if stealing someones shit is an ic or an ooc issue, nobody really knows what to do

Hulk's escalation policy, back from 2019 I think would be good for the server, here it is:

As a non-antagonist you may initiate a conflict with another player with valid reason (refusal of critical services, beligerant attitude) OR if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. Whomever you engage will be entitled to respond to your actions. If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for initiating in the first place, you may face administrative action.

If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict with non-lethal means whenever possible, escalating your severity as the conflict continues. As the defensive party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the transgressing party is always able to respond in kind.

If a conflict leads to violence and a participant is killed, you are expected to clone or revive them, unless you have reason to believe they were an antagonist. Once cloned or revived the conflict is over; any new conflict with that individual must escalate once again. If you get into a conflict again with that individual, they may be removed permanently from the round.

Obviously some parts are not up to date, like mentioning cloning, but other than that I think the only disagreeable part is adding a protection to the instigator in a conflict, so they must be healed just like the person defending themselves
What do you think?

[cSeal]

While our current escalation policy isn't the worst, it could certainly be better. I'd be interested in reviewing and revising it, and hulks escalation policy proposal is pretty close to what I think would be perfect (sans the bit where the instigator of a conflict would have to be revived by the victim, as you said, though I think disallowing round removal still would be healthier than what we have now)

[Riggle]

I believe BeeStation has very well written escalation policy. It is MRP, but we can still take a page out of their book. It has clearly defined steps and when you are allowed to escalate to the next one.

https://wiki.beestation13.com/view/Escalation_Policy

[Agux909]

Current escalation policy is actually is very bad. It allows in paper for people to killbait. Of course, usually admins know better and will use common sense to deal with it, but it should definitely be changed.

A player spends the round bothering someone without directly harming them, then that someone gets reasonably upset, and instead of ahelping immediately, attempts to kill them out of frustration, and then the other party takes advantage of this to round remove them. If current policy is taken literally by an admin, they'd have no reason to take action nor bat an eye when this is ahelped, which is nuts.

As I said, this is usually not the case, but why not have rules written to align more properly with how the administrative consensus actually is?

[Misdoubtful]

NSFW:

NSFW:

See above spoilers (especially the video). Doesn't need to be complicated. Just reasonable.

[Screemonster]

A player spends the round bothering someone without directly harming them, then that someone gets reasonably upset, and instead of ahelping immediately, attempts to kill them out of frustration, and then the other party takes advantage of this to round remove them. If current policy is taken literally by an admin, they'd have no reason to take action nor bat an eye when this is ahelped, which is nuts.

which is weird 'cause it flies directly in the face of the kor "if you do something that is of no benefit to you besides upsetting people I will ban you if you ahelp after getting killed for it" policy

annoying the shit out of someone to get a rise out of them while deliberately not being the one that makes the step to violence so you can hide behind escalation policy is something that's come up in a few peanut threads

[Hulkamania]

My policy in its currently existing form was actually made to be modified after admin/player feedback, but at the time of making it was based on gathering information from players on what did/didn't work about policy and where they thought the holes were.

I'd be interested to see it being brought back, if only because I put a lot of effort into trying to make it something worthwhile only to have it fall through the cracks for various reasons.

Some edits:

The cloning part can easily be rewritten for the more modern age, and it would actually cut down on word count further.

A big part of this policy proposal was to amend the idea that people can only seek IC or OOC resolution, but in fact offers three avenues of resolution without totally locking yourself out from any of the other three (security resolution, OOC resolution, or handling the aggressor yourself)

It's in general mean to encourage a more "defensive" playstyle in regards to escalation without actually removing the ability for people to start IC conflict entirely

[Pandarsenic]

"if you do something that is of no benefit to you besides upsetting people I will ban you if you ahelp after getting killed for it" is a great policy

Especially with an addition of "If someone ahelps you doing that shit without fighting you, you can be told to fuck off about it"

[sinfulbliss]

I think an escalation policy like this would allow for bwoinks over very minor offenses, encouraging ahelping minor crimes like assault and theft versus sorting it out IC. After that marinates for a while you'll have a much calmer and less chaotic server. Something which many LRP players definitely don't want.

My main gripe is with:

If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for initiating in the first place, you may face administrative action.

Someone steals my toolbelt FNR (poor reason for initiating conflict), I punch them, they punch back, I welder, they welder back, I eventually get murdered and ahelp. They get bwoinked for poor escalation. This isn't something I'd like to see on LRP. Those sort of small petty fights give it that chaos factor you can't find in other servers and is extremely vital to TG.

I once fought a man for 20 minutes, both of us dying multiple times and reviving the other, over a pair of insuls. How boring it would be if we could ahelp instead.

[Hulkamania]

I think an escalation policy like this would allow for bwoinks over very minor offenses, encouraging ahelping minor crimes like assault and theft versus sorting it out IC. After that marinates for a while you'll have a much calmer and less chaotic server. Something which many LRP players definitely don't want.

My main gripe is with:

If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for initiating in the first place, you may face administrative action.

Someone steals my toolbelt FNR (poor reason for initiating conflict), I punch them, they punch back, I welder, they welder back, I eventually get murdered and ahelp. They get bwoinked for poor escalation. This isn't something I'd like to see on LRP. Those sort of small petty fights give it that chaos factor you can't find in other servers and is extremely vital to TG.

I once fought a man for 20 minutes, both of us dying multiple times and reviving the other, over a pair of insuls. How boring it would be if we could ahelp instead.

You're misinterpreting the verbage.

This is not a matter of "you can ahelp every conflict"

This line specifically means that if some dude starts hitting you or starting shit, you don't lose your ability to seek OOC retribution just because you escalate if it turns out the only reason he was starting shit was to bait you into doing that so he could then kill you.

In other words, that line exists to prevent a situation where you *could've* sought OOC resolution but at the time the conflict started you were unsure if they were just an antag or some shit, so you try to resolve it IC.

Nothing in the policy outright disallows you to cause problems, it says if you have a dumbass reason for inciting violence then you can get in trouble. It's almost entirely about kill baiting.

[Armhulen]

It's almost entirely about kill baiting.

when we were writing it, it used to be a really big problem because the old escalation rules were worse

[sinfulbliss]

-

If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for initiating in the first place, you may face administrative action.

-
This is not a matter of "you can ahelp every conflict"

This line specifically means that if some dude starts hitting you or starting shit, you don't lose your ability to seek OOC retribution just because you escalate if it turns out the only reason he was starting shit was to bait you into doing that so he could then kill you.

If you don't want a conflict to become harmful do not respond with harm. If you respond with harm, you open yourself up to harm. If you enter a fight to the death, you can't ahelp if you die, surely, because it was a fight to the death. Traditionally, so long as your body is brought to medbay after you lose the fight, it's fine.

It seems this policy opens itself up to people abusing it after they lose fights that occurred due to normal, valid escalation. People can start shit without the intent to kill me. If I respond with violence, I can be retaliated against with violence. If I respond with enough violence that implies the intent to kill, they can retaliate by killing me.

If I'm brought to medbay after, there is no OOC retribution to be had. I simply lost a valid fight. If I didn't want to fight, I should not have harmed in the first place. Tons of players on LRP love RDMs, they love combat for combat's sake. If you don't love it, you don't have to engage in it period. But engaging in it and then ahelping when you died, seems very strange compared to how it's treated with the current policy.

[Mothblocks]

If someone randomly attacks you, and you attack back, and they kill you, that is often considered kill baiting and despite whatever the hard text says, we've been punishing people for that for as long as I remember.

From what I remember, Hulk's escalation policy was what we're all basically enforcing anyway, but written out better. +1

[sinfulbliss]

If someone randomly attacks you, and you attack back, and they kill you, that is often considered kill baiting and despite whatever the hard text says, we've been punishing people for that for as long as I remember.

From what I remember, Hulk's escalation policy was what we're all basically enforcing anyway, but written out better. +1

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.

Current escalation policy here states that if you are the instigator, and if the conflict becomes a deathmatch and you murder the person, it is still IC so long as they are brought to medbay. This happens all the time and is standard IC procedure in a fight. There is no "but administrative action may be taken against you" at the end of this clause, which makes it way, way different from Hulk's revised policy.

Likewise,

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. If you think it's unfair or excessive they killed you for taking their ID, consider not stealing next round.

Clearly shows you are allowed to instigate conflict with someone FNR, so long as it doesn't cause undue grief that is listed in the parenthetical. By contrast, Hulk's escalation policy warns instigators they can not only be killed for instigating, but they can then be ahelped and punished OOC after already being punished IC. That is completely different from current policy.

With Hulk's policy it seems to completely disallow an instigator from murdering someone after the person they instigate against attacks them with lethal force. Does it require instigators to flee after being met with lethal force?

[Screemonster]

If you don't want a conflict to become harmful do not respond with harm. If you respond with harm, you open yourself up to harm. If you enter a fight to the death, you can't ahelp if you die, surely, because it was a fight to the death. Traditionally, so long as your body is brought to medbay after you lose the fight, it's fine.

so if some motherfucker attacks you out of the blue and you go "hrm well I don't want to retaliate with violence because then I lose my right to ahelp if he escalates further" and he murders you anyway and turns out to be an antag then what then

likewise, if you assume his attacking out of nowhere means he's an antag, fight back and lose anyway, and it turns out he's not an antag, you're not allowed to ahelp?

You're assuming that all of this is nonantag-on-nonantag violence but escalation policy has to take into account that each player doesn't know if the other is an antag or not, and in fact could well be one

[sinfulbliss]

If you don't want a conflict to become harmful do not respond with harm. If you respond with harm, you open yourself up to harm. If you enter a fight to the death, you can't ahelp if you die, surely, because it was a fight to the death. Traditionally, so long as your body is brought to medbay after you lose the fight, it's fine.

so if some motherfucker attacks you out of the blue and you go "hrm well I don't want to retaliate with violence because then I lose my right to ahelp if he escalates further" and he murders you anyway and turns out to be an antag then what then

If you are concerned about being "kill baited" then consider calling security, using non lethal means to subdue your opponent, fleeing, or otherwise working things out (talking them down, getting your stolen items replaced, etc)

But to suggest you can round-remove someone who started the fight, and then ahelp him because he instigated it FNR, seems very excessive and against the spirit of current LRP escalation.
The new policy also says you need a reason for "engaging in violence" as the instigator, period. So if you punch someone and the conflict leads to violence, at all, you can be ahelped for randomly punching someone, according to the new policy. Perhaps a severity should be added so this is more clear, because I can't imagine that's what's intended.

EDIT: Actually changed the first paragraph since I noticed current policy directly responds to this kind of situation.

[Mothblocks]

Current escalation policy here states that if you are the instigator, and if the conflict becomes a deathmatch and you murder the person, it is still IC so long as they are brought to medbay.

If you randomly attack someone, and they attack back, and you kill them and bring them to medbay, and there's no other details to the story, then historically the instigator is usually punished if ahelped, regardless of what the writing of the text is.

The escalation policy that Hulk wrote is, from what I remember, how admins have been effectively enforcing it for as long as I've been here.

[sinfulbliss]

If the conflict leads to violence and you had a poor reason for initiating in the first place, you may face administrative action."

Nothing in the policy outright disallows you to cause problems, it says if you have a dumbass reason for inciting violence then you can get in trouble. It's almost entirely about kill baiting.

Exactly, so if someone punches me FNR, and I run away, I can ahelp this because he had a dumbass reason for inciting violence. Or if not, at the very least, the instigator now has to worry about being ahelped because he incited violence FNR, and this is warned against in the new policy.

Yet people love this about LRP, that you are able to have this sort of nonantag-nonantag violence, and it makes for exciting rounds.

If you randomly attack someone, and they attack back, and you kill them and bring them to medbay, and there's no other details to the story, then historically the instigator is usually punished if ahelped, regardless of what the writing of the text is.

This is why I think some sort of severity should be mentioned. It reads as if you can ahelp an instigator simply for instigating violence period. Perhaps an instigator should not be allowed to kill you if you respond with violence, but should be allowed to crit you and then bring you to medbay. I mean, otherwise the option is either 1) don't instigate a conflict period, or 2) run like hell and hope you don't die after the person you attack responds with lethal force. Anything short of this would lead to you have to worry about a bwoink.

[Screemonster]

If you don't want a conflict to become harmful do not respond with harm. If you respond with harm, you open yourself up to harm. If you enter a fight to the death, you can't ahelp if you die, surely, because it was a fight to the death. Traditionally, so long as your body is brought to medbay after you lose the fight, it's fine.

so if some motherfucker attacks you out of the blue and you go "hrm well I don't want to retaliate with violence because then I lose my right to ahelp if he escalates further" and he murders you anyway and turns out to be an antag then what then

If you are concerned about being "kill baited" then consider calling security, using non lethal means to subdue your opponent, fleeing, or otherwise working things out (talking them down, getting your stolen items replaced, etc)

But to suggest you can round-remove someone who started the fight, and then ahelp him because he instigated it FNR, seems very excessive and against the spirit of current LRP escalation.
The new policy also says you need a reason for "engaging in violence" as the instigator, period. So if you punch someone and the conflict leads to violence, at all, you can be ahelped for randomly punching someone, according to the new policy. Perhaps a severity should be added so this is more clear, because I can't imagine that's what's intended.

EDIT: Actually changed the first paragraph since I noticed current policy directly responds to this kind of situation.

The issue isn't A attacks B, B fights back, fight escalates and B wins, then decides to ahelp on top of killing A.
The issue is A attacks B, B fights back, B loses and is round removed, B is not allowed to ahelp because of reasons.

[Hulkamania]

The issue isn't A attacks B, B fights back, fight escalates and B wins, then decides to ahelp on top of killing A.
The issue is A attacks B, B fights back, B loses and is round removed, B is not allowed to ahelp because of reasons.

this

[Jonathan Gupta]

The issue isn't A attacks B, B fights back, fight escalates and B wins, then decides to ahelp on top of killing A.
The issue is A attacks B, B fights back, B loses and is round removed, B is not allowed to ahelp because of reasons.

I haven't lost a fight ever, seems to be a issue of skill, on a serious note for losers this is a problem.

[sinfulbliss]

The issue isn't A attacks B, B fights back, fight escalates and B wins, then decides to ahelp on top of killing A.
The issue is A attacks B, B fights back, B loses and is round removed, B is not allowed to ahelp because of reasons.

Kind of ignores all the other issues I pointed out. But to be clear, are we saying that the first issue isn't ahelpable?
For the second situation: if you attack someone and they respond with lethal force, I ask again, what is your option? Do you run away now because you're not allowed to kill them since you started the fight? Do you just let them kill you?

[Archie700]

Ahelpable does not mean punishable. If a person punches you randomly and then you run away and ahelp the admin should probably do a tsk tsk on the ahelper and advise him to call security to handle it or try to avoid conflict.
If the random puncher then goes out of his way to punch him again, try to crit him and gets killed afterwards by his victim or security, THEN it starts to potentially become punishable.
Admins can use their own judgement on this.
An escalation policy ban CAN be appealed, it's not the end all be all for you.

[Cobby]

Escalation policies have always been about picking your poison of kill baiting or ban baiting. Personally I prefer kill baiting because it’s easier to tell someone to just take the L than not being able to play the game entirely for not dancing on the same lines. Kor made what I consider a really good call here with the policy acknowledging that.

I think the issue of the escalation policy is that we didn’t have people who actually backed it after Kor left, so there was no need to take on the planned culture shift because admins continued to ignore the policy (and even had support from headmins despite the explicit wording as time goes on). The ruling was worded intentionally and we’ve literally said that the ruling written is a stark contrast to how it’s enforced and act like that’s somehow a good thing.

I will say if it’s going to give room for banbaiting (by that I mean you can just continually harass someone below the threshold and they snap so you f1 and somehow you’re not in the wrong) it’s just going to go full circle where we have a policy that protects people starting shit and admins are just going to go back to enforcing escalation without interest in the “current” ruling.

If we’re pushing for the as-is wording of the policy in OP, I disagree that the person who just wanted to play the game has to go out of their way to revive someone looking to start stuff. The minimum req should be to leave them out in an area a paramedic could reasonably acquire them. If you (instigator) don’t get revived then consider your approach better so you don’t get into escalation issues in the first place.

I also disagree with the conflict being over if you die unless it makes sense to end after a fight. Most obvious example would be If you steal something that was not critical to the job but a very much nice to have (like say power tools or med supply) and I can’t reasonably reacquire them with the current situation of the station I should have full right to keep going back. I would even argue round removal should NEVER be an option for the instigator UNLESS he has tried to make amends (ie return the item).

[Hulkamania]

Archie makes a good point.

Just because someone ahelps and an investigation is done (Which will not happen anymore often than it already does now because this policy wouldn't drastically change how things are handled) doesn't mean a punishment is made every single time, or even most of the time.

Also worth noting that this policy was designed with the idea that the entire section on special escalation against security is removed.

I didn't like that the current policy essentially prevents sec from punishment on being assholes as they are often immune to IC escalation, so with this policy the entire current special ruling on security was designed to be deleted.

All of what is currently covered by this special section is covered with " if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job" because you wouldn't be griefing a security officer who's trying to arrest a dangerous traitor just because you thought it was funny to slip them, but COULD escalate on a security officer who was stun prodding you for the laughs.

[Archie700]

I also disagree with the conflict being over if you die unless it makes sense to end after a fight. Most obvious example would be If you steal something that was not critical to the job but a very much nice to have (like say power tools or med supply) and I can’t reasonably reacquire them with the current situation of the station I should have full right to keep going back. I would even argue round removal should NEVER be an option for the instigator UNLESS he has tried to make amends (ie return the item).

I agree with Cobby on this. Being killed and revived is not in itself conflict resolution. If the person killed has legitimate reason to continue the conflict (the other person being the instigator who stole something good to have or harassed them OR having caused bad escalation like shooting the clown for slipping him once), then he has the right to do so by security or by hand.

[sinfulbliss]

If the random puncher then goes out of his way to punch him again, try to crit him and gets killed afterwards by his victim or security, THEN it starts to potentially become punishable.

This is the part I disagree with. If the attacker gets killed, and the victim isn't maimed or killed, then it was handled it IC. The attacker was punished IC, so it doesn't make sense to now add OOC punishment on top of this. If the victim is killed, and the attacker had no reason for doing so, then since they can't resolve it IC they can ahelp and the instigator should be punished OOC.

Likewise, if the instigator is attacked with much greater force than they started with (i.e., being lasergunned for a punch, or weldered), and then retaliates with lethal force as their only option of surviving, it doesn't make sense to punish them for fighting back.

I didn't like that the current policy essentially prevents sec from punishment on being assholes as they are often immune to IC escalation, so with this policy the entire current special ruling on security was designed to be deleted.

Which policy are you referring to? The only relevant one I can find is:

You can't kill or maim security for trying to arrest you for legitimate reasons.

Which seems normal.

[Archie700]

You're basically saying if the person was punished IC, he should never be punished OOC regardless of any aggravating circumstances (repeatedly doing this, metagrudging).
If a person gets lasered for punching then your choices are to run away and make a note to deal with him later or ahelp as he lasers your body to death.
You are honestly confusing not ahelpable with not actionable.

[Cosmodeus]

The reason the rules changed I'm pretty sure, has a lot to do with admins being incapable of interpreting the rules AND ruling against players with the same ruler. More words and standards = harder to enforce without some ASIMOV law priority mental gymnastics. There's a ton of greytiders on the server that wouldn't be getting Hulkamania's rules enforced on them because they get profiled differently than those who do, for whatever arbitrary system you admeme's use. Players would get banned for merely shoving another player just because the other player decided to retaliate with a fire axe, which would be labelled IC issue as it has always been no matter what a few words on a screen says is against the rules, while other admins will ban the fire axe guy, and pull out the "special ruler" for people who they clearly didn't get along with previously on a personal level or the person in question is undesirable or the admin will get brownie points from their fans if they remove from the community.

[sinfulbliss]

You're basically saying if the person was punished IC, he should never be punished OOC regardless of any aggravating circumstances (repeatedly doing this, metagrudging).

I never said regardless of aggravating circumstances. Metagrudging is itself a bannable offense so would change the situation. Repeatedly doing this to different people, and dying every time, seems like a bunch of IC-issues to me, up to and until they actually roundend someone for a pointless fight they started.

If a person gets lasered for punching then your choices are to run away and make a note to deal with him later or ahelp as he lasers your body to death.

I mean punching that escalates, from the defender, into a fight to the death, and ends up with the instigator needing to defend his life. Running will not work, and dying will not work since you can’t ahelp as the instigator.

You are honestly confusing not ahelpable with not actionable.

All I care about is what is actionable — replace every time I’ve said “ahelpable” with “actionable.” What matters is what’s enforceable under the rules. Players can ahelp everything and anything.

[RaveRadbury]

We have decided to approve an adapted version of Hulk's escalation policy:

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.

If you are wronged, you are expected to handle the conflict non-lethally whenever possible, escalating in severity as the conflict continues. As the defending party the rate of escalation increases with you, up to and including violence, while the instigator is always able to respond in kind.

If a conflict leads to violence and either participant is killed, the living participant is expected to make an effort to revive the other, unless they have reason to believe the other was an antagonist. Once revived 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.

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