/tg/Station 13

Recently, I got killed by sec as a heretic despite them not knowing for sure I was one, and I got told that on LRP servers, killing an antag is never punishable no matter what.

While I'm OK with the ruling on this one, since the situation was fairly complicated, I do recall that someone got banned for randomly griefing someone who happened to be an antag.

So I'd like to check to see if killing an antag is always valid no matter what, and if it is, to question why this is the policy since I can't think of a reason why this would be.

Thanks in advance.

The way I enforce Rule 4:

Killer has to have had some substantive reason to believe the other player was an antag. Their actions should match that reasoning.

You can't rely on a rule stating you can do anything you like to antagonists if you didn't actually have good (or any) reason to believe the other player was an antag.

killing an antag is never punishable no matter what.

Only if you knew it, yes. It falls under "act like an antag get treated like an antag", but in the opposite direction.

I've dug up your ticket. It's from Sybil Round 169082.

Special link that only admins and the player involved in the ticket should be able to use (you may have to log in first): https://atlantaned.space/tgdb/ticket/169082/10

If this link doesn't work for you to view your own ticket, you can ALSO view it after logging in at https://atlantaned.space/banbus/mytickets

On Banbus, you have the option of making the ticket public via a big green button near the bottom, which will let anyone read it and give you a special link to share like this: https://atlantaned.space/banbus/ticket/df03900f0971ab13

Only you can make your own ticket public. Unless it's part of a ban appeal or admin complaint, admins are expected not to share tickets publicly.

Timberpoes wrote:I've dug up your ticket. It's from Sybil Round 169082.

Special link that only admins and the player involved in the ticket should be able to use (you may have to log in first): https://atlantaned.space/tgdb/ticket/169082/10

If this link doesn't work for you to view your own ticket, you can ALSO view it after logging in at https://atlantaned.space/banbus/mytickets

On Banbus, you have the option of making the ticket public via a big green button near the bottom, which will let anyone read it and give you a special link to share like this: https://atlantaned.space/banbus/ticket/df03900f0971ab13

Only you can make your own ticket public. Unless it's part of a ban appeal or admin complaint, admins are expected not to share tickets publicly.

Public ticket link is https://atlantaned.space/banbus/ticket/352e5ac6b47f6142

Tarhalindur wrote:Public ticket link is https://atlantaned.space/banbus/ticket/352e5ac6b47f6142

Awesome! That'll provide some important context to frame the discussion.

In that sense I disagree with Alphonzo that the current policy is Rule 4 applies regardless of what the killer knew.

I want to say that current policy - And what I teach new admins - Is that Rule 4's protections only apply when the killer has a substantive reason to believe the person they're killing is an antag.

A player can't just randomly pick a player and kill them FNR, then escape any culpability because their target just so happened to be an antag by pure coincidence.

When he says "Its what i was taught to do 4 years ago and it ain't changed since and it ain't gonna get changed anytime soon" - I think it has changed in those 4 years.

Timberpoes wrote:

Tarhalindur wrote:Public ticket link is https://atlantaned.space/banbus/ticket/352e5ac6b47f6142

Awesome! That'll provide some important context to frame the discussion.

In that sense I disagree with Alphonzo that the current policy is Rule 4 applies regardless of what the killer knew.

I want to say that current policy - And what I teach new admins - Is that Rule 4's protections only apply when the killer has a substantive reason to believe the person they're killing is an antag.

A player can't just randomly pick a player and kill them FNR, then escape any culpability because their target just so happened to be an antag by pure coincidence.

When he says "Its what i was taught to do 4 years ago and it ain't changed since and it ain't gonna get changed anytime soon" - I think it has changed in those 4 years.

Completely agree with everything Timber has already posted here.

I've run into this scenario multiple times and I have always handled it the way Timber outlined. You shouldn't be killing people who you think but no proof are suspect in the hopes of getting lucky.

Having been here for those four years this was never a thing and happening to kill an antag and getting away with it has never been a thing

Seems consensus is pretty clear. Hopefully someone can quickly ask Alphonzo on his opinion on this and we can hopefully get an equitable solution for everyone.

This is what I was taught 4 years ago by a senior admin during my trial, and nothing was brought to my attention since then that led me to change how I enforced the rules relative to that particular issue.

You’re down to stop enforcing that way though, right? Cause you gotta admit it’s pretty unfair, especially in cases such as what happened to OP.

wesoda25 wrote:You’re down to stop enforcing that way though, right? Cause you gotta admit it’s pretty unfair, especially in cases such as what happened to OP.

Yeah, if thats an option I'm totally down. It was never a good feeling giving out a ruling like that, but its what I was taught to do.

EDIT:
Its worth noting that I've seen the issue handled the exact same way by multiple other members of staff over the course of those 4 years.
Additionally, in the round this ticket is in, another administrator echoed the same thing I was trained to do in regards to tickets like these.

Again, I am totally down if this is an option, as delivering bad news like that has always made me feel a little guilty, but I don't appreciate Sticky saying that its "never been a thing."

MrAlphonzo wrote:

wesoda25 wrote:You’re down to stop enforcing that way though, right? Cause you gotta admit it’s pretty unfair, especially in cases such as what happened to OP.

Yeah, if thats an option I'm totally down. It was never a good feeling giving out a ruling like that, but its what I was taught to do.

EDIT:
Its worth noting that I've seen the issue handled the exact same way by multiple other members of staff over the course of those 4 years.
Additionally, in the round this ticket is in, another administrator echoed the same thing I was trained to do in regards to tickets like these.

Again, I am totally down if this is an option, as delivering bad news like that has always made me feel a little guilty, but I don't appreciate Sticky saying that its "never been a thing."

It's never been a correct thing but you were taught badly and it's not your fault because it's one of those three thousand unwritten things we all have to pick up and I still have blind spots after nearly a decade

We should probably put up an admin notice if that ruling is common enough that multiple admins are giving it out though. Also op should probably get an antag token

There’s absolutely no reason for this not to be in the main rules.

I don’t believe in retroactive justification in the sense that you’re using info you only knew after to justify how you came to the decision in the first place. A recent situation that was also on the forums waa around a security officer who was promoted. If the user escalated against them without knowing they were a promoted officer, I’d still nail them for escalating against a valid arrest.

In this situation, antags should not be grieffed and then retroactively allowed because they found out they could justify it as antag. The only exception MAYBE is a godawful rev round where it’s just easier to throw your hands up in the air and slam your head against a wall repeatedly

I always thought it was strange. But I've lost count of how many times I've been stopped mid-ticket by another admin who said "nah, they're an antag" (In fact, that happened with this very ticket), and after the 200th or so time that happened I just assumed my hands have always been tied in that respect.

Not like I want to just wash my hands of something and let Shitter McGee run free.

Cobby wrote:There’s absolutely no reason for this not to be in the main rules.

I always figured it was part of the "may not pre-emptively search for etc." part

This'll be codified soon enough because the headmins will presumably rule on it and it'll get added to Headmin Rulings. Though I'd be up for adding this to the main rules.
"Nonantags can do whatever they want to confirmed antags..." etc.
I think the adminnotice is also warranted if what Alphonzo is saying is true. And I wouldn't mind an antag token.

Screemonster wrote:

Cobby wrote:There’s absolutely no reason for this not to be in the main rules.

I always figured it was part of the "may not pre-emptively search for etc." part

I figured the same, it's literally there, there's really no excuse to apply that kind of ruling. Kind of embarrassing tbh.

Rule 4 wrote:...but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause...

One thing is following a hunch, searching someone with no more prior cause than your own intuition/metagame info, and getting lucky they were an antag, and that's a grey enough already for admins to keep an eye out. Something else entirely is killing/removing them from the round with no prior cause and then be like "oh they were an antag, phew". You don't need years of precedent to understand what's wrong there, just some reading comprehension and common sense.

thing is " not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause" becomes null once someone screams cult or revs

Tarhalindur wrote:"Nonantags can do whatever they want to confirmed antags..." etc.

This is an awful idea absent a concrete definition of what counts as a 'confirmed' antag.

It's still a pretty bad even then. The ability to be killed without consequence as an antag is the necessary counterpart to the 'antags can do whatever they want' rule. At most there should be an absolute minimum standard of anything better than a completely random killing.

More broadly the guidelines as to when it's ok for sec to use force against you are either horribly vague or completely out of touch with the state of contemporary LRP:

Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

Every highpop sybil round there's a half dozen tider mains who would qualify as valid under this rule, if it's actually still in effect. If it's not then it should probably be removed.

Tlaltecuhtli wrote:thing is " not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause" becomes null once someone screams cult or revs

Tarhalindur wrote:Recently, I got killed by sec as a heretic despite them not knowing for sure I was one, and I got told that on LRP servers, killing an antag is never punishable no matter what.

Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

the bolded part is something I've seen come up in the peanut threads a couple of times, where an officer will attack someone out of nowhere and the person under attack pulls out whatever weapon they have to hand to retaliate/defend themselves, and the sec player (and sec mains in the peanuts) point at the fact the assistant USED A RESTRICTED WEAPON and scream like bodysnatchers about how it was totally valid, which always invites the question of whether the person would have used the restricted weapon had the sec officer not been firing red lasers down the hallway at anyone they see

if you didn't have valids to start the fight then you should get a slap for starting it regardless of whether you subsequently obtained valids to finish it

Screemonster wrote:

Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

the bolded part is something I've seen come up in the peanut threads a couple of times, where an officer will attack someone out of nowhere and the person under attack pulls out whatever weapon they have to hand to retaliate/defend themselves, and the sec player (and sec mains in the peanuts) point at the fact the assistant USED A RESTRICTED WEAPON and scream like bodysnatchers about how it was totally valid, which always invites the question of whether the person would have used the restricted weapon had the sec officer not been firing red lasers down the hallway at anyone they see

if you didn't have valids to start the fight then you should get a slap for starting it regardless of whether you subsequently obtained valids to finish it

Yup, being the sole initiator of such an engagement which might push someone to use whatever they looted 15 mins ago to defend themselves, then to use this opportunity to kill that someone, is textbook killbaiting, and the initiator is the one that should be held fully accountable for the fate of the other player.

It's never good to start randomly shooting lethals at someone without an actual reason as non-antag, specially as sec. I know which case you're talking about and yeah, someone merely having been set to arrest doesn't qualify either.

As many have said before - "no proof, no grief". Having a "hunch" is not proof.

There is also shoving people with PDAs in their hand or carrying around a dufflebag just so one could check if the PDA is an unlocked uplink or there is something in the dufflebag which is poor form IMHO.

Zybwivcz wrote:

Tarhalindur wrote: Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4.

Every highpop sybil round there's a half dozen tider mains who would qualify as valid under this rule, if it's actually still in effect. If it's not then it should probably be removed.

Terrysec handled a similar issue by relying on the rule that allows removing tiders who tided the captain's office at or near round start.

I don't know why so many admins here are lying, but it has always been the case that if they were an antag it's fair game, even if you didn't know they were an antag.

It's way to impossible to figure out otherwise

oranges wrote:I don't know why so many admins here are lying, but it has always been the case that if they were an antag it's fair game, even if you didn't know they were an antag.

It's way to impossible to figure out otherwise

As always context is king for each situation. Of course there is impossible situations where we have to shrug and let go but there is plenty of other ones where that is not the case. The situation being talked about that prompted all this being one of those "Tough luck" moments.

To move this discussion along though we all seem to be at a pretty clear consensus and I believe no policy needs to be changed. If anybody disagrees I would love to hear from them.

oranges wrote:I don't know why so many admins here are lying, but it has always been the case that if they were an antag it's fair game, even if you didn't know they were an antag.

It's way to impossible to figure out otherwise

Here's where I think the confusion is

"Act like an antag get treated like an antag" is almost always quoted towards non antags being shitters, but it applies to antagonists too. If you're caught doing something suspicious and a player has a reasonable hunch and you get dunked for it and it turns out you're an antag, that recontextualizes your actions as that of an antagonist. This is not a blanket "Killing someone with no prior justification and then post hoc justifying it as them being an antag is fine" it's a statement that covers the vast vast majority of instances of antagonist death but does also have it's limits. It's rare to get ahelps from antags complaining that they got killed for no reason, since there's almost always a reason anyone gets into a fight.

I think it's important that we make absolutely clear that you can't post hoc justify bad kills by the victim being an antag. This is what the admins in this thread are saying and what you claim we're lying about. We do not play on a server where you can randomly kill someone and if the dice roll right you get away with it. Even random searches for heretic/cult shit aren't really allowed for similar reasons.

or the shorter version is that you can't treat someone like an antag until they act like an antag otherwise it falls foul of the pre-emptive clause

if you dunk someone completely at random there are two possibilities:
1 - they're not an antag, in which case you get beaned for randomly dunking a nonantag as a nonantag
2 - they're an antag, in which case you get beaned for pre-emptively searching for, hindering and seeking conflict with an antag without reasonable prior cause

tl;dr don't dunk people at random as a nonantag since it's bannable regardless of their antag status

Yeah its always been the case that if you gun down a random person, search their and find an open uplink it doesnt retroactively become OK.

For a while it was quite common to bwoink sec and be like "hey whyd you beat down joe" "he was an antag" "And why do you think that" "He looked at me funny"

To quote server rule 4

Rule 4 wrote:Non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause.

Non-antagonists cannot be retroactively acquitted of their actions because they discover that their victim is an antagonist after they kill them.

Rule 4 can be found here

Headmin Votes:
NamelessFairy: Yes
Dragomagol: Yes
RaveRadbury: Yes