/tg/Station 13

so to make this quick: FeemjMeem slaps a ticket on me for killing someone who damn near killed me by thunkin me on the head with a stinguisher while i was unconcious after a mysterious explosion when i passed the fella, feem says it was not a legit kill because he was a doctor that went to medbay to get healed 5 minutes after bashing my head in, now those 3 points dont mean jack shit to me as the current rules page has nothing to say about any of that, and what i did was legit based on what numerous admins have told me in the past, i'd like to know what exactly the current escalation rules are and why the hell the rules page hasn't been updated as feem refuses to tell me himself.

also sorry about posting during round, didn't realize it'd matter considering how no names were named and how little IC shit was said (basically that i just got into a fight)
and sorry about double post too, just that the one i made first is still locked despite the round ending (and possibly another, dunno)

seems like a deserved kill to me

here
https://tgstation13.org/wiki/Rules#Escalation

You didn't get a note or a ban. I said that when someone disengages from you that hard (leaving entirely) and they don't re-engage with you (they were coming back to their workplace and you dunked them) that you've acted in bad faith and you should stop doing that.

If this hadn't been a situation in which both his initial attack on you (thinking you'd bombed him) and your initial response (attacking back because you thought they'd bombed you) were 'valid', then there would have been a note. Since you were both 'right,' there wasn't.

But your initial statement in the ahelp was: "'ey man, dont matter whether or not they tried to attack me AGAIN. the problem is that they attacked me in the first place", and I wanted to let you know that, no, there are a lot of circumstances where that won't be okay.

why did the guy hit you anyway

They both thought the other had blown them up with a hot potato, but it was actually a third person that got them both.

the guy hit me because i walked past him and a hot potato bomb, most likely placed on him went off. We both DEFFINETLY got the message for it so even if he thinks i was the source of the explosion he had the info that it was from a hot potato bomb and i could've had it placed on me without me actually wanting to ynow, blow the fuck up and all that. He then proceeded to beat me up as i was unconcious on the floor apparently thinking that no, i did infact want to suicide bomb into him.
My retaliation was not because i thought he was the source of the explosion like feem seems to claim, but rather because he beat the shit out of me with a stinguisher

feem wrote:You didn't get a note or a ban. I said that when someone disengages from you that hard (leaving entirely) and they don't re-engage with you (they were coming back to their workplace and you dunked them) that you've acted in bad faith and you should stop doing that.

If this hadn't been a situation in which both his initial attack on you (thinking you'd bombed him) and your initial response (attacking back because you thought they'd bombed you) were 'valid', then there would have been a note. Since you were both 'right,' there wasn't.

But your initial statement in the ahelp was: "'ey man, dont matter whether or not they tried to attack me AGAIN. the problem is that they attacked me in the first place", and I wanted to let you know that, no, there are a lot of circumstances where that won't be okay.

I'd like to disagree with this. The doctor could've used his words since he (the victim) was knocked out. It wouldn't have been hard to detain him and question him instead of assaulting him with an extinguisher.

I hate to be one of *those* guys that say "well you said X so I can do Y" but you just said that I can run out of my workplace, beat up a guy, and complain when he kills me a few minutes later because I "hard disengaged" and went back to my workplace.

I personally don't wait for someone to attack me twice before I retaliate, I retaliate on the first time.

If you have any issues with the way the situation was handled please file an admin complaint.

BeeSting12 wrote:you just said

Nope.

Dubem wrote:the guy hit me because i walked past him and a hot potato bomb, most likely placed on him went off. We both DEFFINETLY got the message for it so even if he thinks i was the source of the explosion he had the info that it was from a hot potato bomb and i could've had it placed on me without me actually wanting to ynow, blow the fuck up and all that. He then proceeded to beat me up as i was unconcious on the floor apparently thinking that no, i did infact want to suicide bomb into him.
My retaliation was not because i thought he was the source of the explosion like feem seems to claim, but rather because he beat the shit out of me with a stinguisher

Yeah, I really hope that the other guy didn't ahelp this, it seems totally fine and clear cut, he made a bad call, tried to beat you to death and later paid the price.

i have an issue with people saying different shit about the rules, you got anywhere where i can complain about that? 'cause if it ain't here it better be somewhere

feem wrote:

BeeSting12 wrote:you just said

Nope.

feem wrote:You didn't get a note or a ban. I said that when someone disengages from you that hard (leaving entirely) and they don't re-engage with you (they were coming back to their workplace and you dunked them) that you've acted in bad faith and you should stop doing that.

Yep

I don't think it's really fair to say it's in "bad faith" to go take revenge on a player that (seemingly in this case) tried to murder you even if they are no longer actively hunting you.

I also understand that the idea of killing someone 40 minutes later over a punch would be in bad faith but it seems a bit unfair and confusing to try and tell a player that his principle is wrong when he is correct in a particular situation the adminhelp is about, and when that principle you'd like (don't go after people who disengaged) isn't on the rules page yet.

Policy or admin forums or discord seem like a better place to hash out a new rule rather than in a ticket with a player who is tunnel visioned on the thing that just happened to them in the game.

no for real, what the hell do yall mean with bad faith

Oh right, i never asked the question in the first place because the first post got locked as i was about to ask that so if you were confused by this i tried to ask that already and never got an answer for obvious reasons

If either of you had done something explicitly wrong, you would have gotten a note or a ban.

I had intended to _advise you_ that it's typically not a good idea to re-initiate a fight after someone has disengaged fully.

Please understand that no ban, and no note, was placed. Making the argument that 'they could have talked it out' is valid, but that could have taken place at any point. A point where they were both awake and neither was, at the time, engaged in combat or dying, would've been an ideal opportunity for that. Both parties eschewed this.

But again, since both players thought that the other had tried to kill them, this was at the end of the day an IC issue. My reason for responding to you the way I did in the PM, and for eventually closing the ahelp, was your following statement: 'from what every fuckin' admin so far has told me, even one punch is enough to allow for someone to kill ya.'

While that IS true under the way the rules are currently written, it's also a super shitty idea and doing that kind of thing repeatedly has in the past led to rule zero or rule 1 bans, escalation policy notwithstanding.

If we can redirect this thread into addressing that that IS how the rules are currently written, and that it CAN lead to shitty situations, and that MAYBE WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT, then that'd be great. Otherwise, file an admin complaint about my behavior.

eh, just don't _advise people_ for legit shit and confusion like this won't happen (especially when you're not making it clear that you're _advising people_)

Hunting people down should only really be reserved for suspected antags with good reason to suspect them. This was one such occasion.

for christ's sakes, quasi-ban appeals were bad enough, quasi-note appeals were even worse, don't start with the quasi-bwoink appeals for the love of clown

bandit wrote:for christ's sakes, quasi-ban appeals were bad enough, quasi-note appeals were even worse, don't start with the quasi-bwoink appeals for the love of clown

It's bad when admins interfere with their unwarranted "advise" when both sides are right, it makes the game experience miserable. Imagine if the same had happened in a different context: sec officer has incomplete information about a guy and thinks he's a suspect, tries to arrest him, they guy resists (like he is allowed to due per policy), the officer throws a brutal manhunt for him, BWOINK "Hey just so you know the guy is innocent he just doesn't want to be arrested, go easy on him"

Escalation over incomplete information can and does happen all the time, and in this case it was perfectly within the rules. It's part of the game, admins shouldn't try to defuse every single violent interaction between players until only antags and non-antags are allowed to interact.

Grazyn wrote:

bandit wrote:for christ's sakes, quasi-ban appeals were bad enough, quasi-note appeals were even worse, don't start with the quasi-bwoink appeals for the love of clown

It's bad when admins interfere with their unwarranted "advise" when both sides are right, it makes the game experience miserable. Imagine if the same had happened in a different context: sec officer has incomplete information about a guy and thinks he's a suspect, tries to arrest him, they guy resists (like he is allowed to due per policy), the officer throws a brutal manhunt for him, BWOINK "Hey just so you know the guy is innocent he just doesn't want to be arrested, go easy on him"

Escalation over incomplete information can and does happen all the time, and in this case it was perfectly within the rules. It's part of the game, admins shouldn't try to defuse every single violent interaction between players until only antags and non-antags are allowed to interact.

Just because something is inactionable by it's own, advice is often given when there's a bad line of thinking like 'from what every fuckin' admin so far has told me, even one punch is enough to allow for someone to kill ya.' is corrected to prevent conflicts in the future where really shoddy line of thinking will lead to a bad situation. That or there's a history where someone skirts the line constantly and they are told to tone down a bit. Constant really bad behavior can and will get you a Rule 0/1 ban eventually.

Also if advise makes your game miserable then maybe you shouldn't play an online game.

I'm talking about interference because I understand that there was no ahelp from the other guy. I don't mind investigation following an ahelp, I do mind admins jumping in to lecture players who acted well within the rules and provide blatant OOC information, like the other guy not being an antag and why he acted this way, for no reason other than to defuse a situation that didn't have to be defused in the first place. What he said isn't even real policy, one punch is definitely enough to escalate (if you ignore it, the following punches will weaken you and you'll die), and you are allowed to take revenge on someone who critted you, even if he merrily went back to his station after leaving you to die in a hall.

Grazyn wrote:I understand that there was no ahelp from the other guy.

your assumption is incorrect