Revisiting Hulkmania's Escalation Rules

[sinfulbliss]

(Sorry for making one so soon after the other but this is the last one)

Recently there has been discussion about the newly revised escalation rules. Specifically the Rageguy-Thoman ban brought to light some issues with it which are worth looking over again. Indeed Hulk said,

[...]The policy was always meant to undergo some testing and changing as time goes on, and was never meant to be the ultimate final version.

(viewtopic.php?f=33&t=31034)

The issue that was raised is whether or not it's fair to truly consider a conflict over just because one party was brought to medbay after being incapacitated/killed.

The recent appeal brought this to light because technically Rageguy was correct in his initial ban. Once Thomas was healed (after being delimbed, killed, and stuck as a ghost for 20 min), he wasn't allowed to immediately then round-remove the captain. But it also wasn't really fair to require him to hold no grudges about the fact he was killed and delimbed, so his ban was removed. Clearly there is a discrepancy then between escalation rules and the commonsense understanding of escalation.

Hulk said "the flow of power is NEVER in favor of the instigator," so even if Thomas escalated a new conflict after being revived, he wouldn't be allowed to severely maim or harm the captain unless the captain decided to defend himself lethally: it's up to the defender to decide the level of violence the conflict should increase to, and the captain would be the defender in this new conflict. But in this case it was deemed that Thomas was justified - at least in killing the captain on sight (perhaps round-removal here would still be too far).

I think the commonsense understanding is this: If you are the instigator in a conflict and are killed, it makes sense that once revived you are not allowed to immediately try to kill the defender (e.g., if you steal insuls from engineering and are killed, you cannot then immediately kill the engineers after being revived). But, and as was the case in this ban appeal: if you're the defender and are killed by the instigator, you should be allowed to remember this and set the terms of escalation of the new conflict. Here you would be justified trying to kill someone for killing you previously.

This would protect players who just want to do their jobs and avoid fights, while also preventing the situation of someone who was killed and tormented not having any IC recourse after being revived because the conflict ended (except to ahelp). Players should not be forced to choose between ahelping or doing nothing as in Thomas's case - they should be allowed to retaliate IC and resolve their conflict ICly - even if they were killed and it officially "ended" - so long as they were the defender beforehand.

[chocolate_bickie]

What counts as instigating a conflict?

If someone breaks into your department isn't that instigation?

And by extension Thomas started a conflict by tiding tech storage.

[sinfulbliss]

What counts as instigating a conflict?

If someone breaks into your department isn't that instigation?

And by extension Thomas started a conflict by tiding tech storage.

Thomas tiding into tech storage didn't count as instigation against the captain unless you consider tech storage part of the captain's department for some bizarre reason.

[iamgoofball]

What counts as instigating a conflict?

If someone breaks into your department isn't that instigation?

And by extension Thomas started a conflict by tiding tech storage.

Thomas tiding into tech storage didn't count as instigation against the captain unless you consider tech storage part of the captain's department for some bizarre reason.

the captain's department is the entire ship

[Shellton(Mario)]

I would say this sounds good makes sense. Its pretty dumb that you just forget about your ass getting beat by some shithead after being taken to medbay for little to no reason.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

What counts as instigating a conflict?

If someone breaks into your department isn't that instigation?

And by extension Thomas started a conflict by tiding tech storage.

Thomas tiding into tech storage didn't count as instigation against the captain unless you consider tech storage part of the captain's department for some bizarre reason.

I'd consider the entire station the Captain's department because he kinda oversees all of it.

[Pandarsenic]

As I mentioned elsewhere, there are certain things you can do, especially after you've won but before bringing someone to medbay, that are incredibly obnoxious and disproportionately time-consuming, like removing a significant percentage of your victim's blood, limbs, and/or organs, then dropping them off and hiding behind the current draft/implementation of the rules as a shield against what I can only call getting your just deserts.

My initial gut feeling is that if you do those things after you've already won the fight - they've *surrendered, they're cuffed, they're crit, etc. - you should basically be considered the aggressor in a new conflict, and they can ambush you to fuck you up or let it go as they prefer. If you don't get them healed after doing that because "Now they can come after me," it's considered the same as any other RR.

The reset condition for fights without after-the-fact torment could perhaps be, rather than "You get them to Medbay" that you do your best/good faith effort to get them healed within the bounds of resources you have available, IC willingness to commit crimes to get medicine, etc., since if medbay is overloaded/full of traitors/bombed that doesn't actually help get them back in the round? I don't know how I feel about this one, though.

(re: Cap's department - Cap is not HoS, don't be a comdom if people are doing crimes that aren't overly disruptive or invading your personal spaces or high-security areas)

[wesoda25]

Clearly there is a discrepancy then between escalation rules and the commonsense understanding of escalation.

There is and always will be, I think. Escalation is entirely context dependent and it’s impossible to codify some sort of comprehensive approach to it. Personally as admin I stopped caring about the letter of the rule long ago because of this.

I mentioned this to another admin and they made a great point: “Escalation exists for players more than us (admins).” Building on this, I think if we portrayed escalation policy as a blueprint of acceptable play as opposed to a strict rule which players must abide by it would perform a lot better. Players would be able to deviate from the blueprint, but in doing so run the risk of punishment. As always they would be encouraged to ahelp before, if possible, as admin discretion can and would differ.

[chocolate_bickie]

What counts as instigating a conflict?

If someone breaks into your department isn't that instigation?

And by extension Thomas started a conflict by tiding tech storage.

Thomas tiding into tech storage didn't count as instigation against the captain unless you consider tech storage part of the captain's department for some bizarre reason.

I generally count peoples departments as what they have by default.

[Pandarsenic]

Nobody's job involves chilling in tech storage unless the HOP appoints someone to chill there and hand out stuff people ask for. It's nobody's department and 90% of the stuff there goes untouched and unused even when it would be useful to loot (repairing machines, etc.)

[sinfulbliss]

Clearly there is a discrepancy then between escalation rules and the commonsense understanding of escalation.

There is and always will be, I think. Escalation is entirely context dependent and it’s impossible to codify some sort of comprehensive approach to it. Personally as admin I stopped caring about the letter of the rule long ago because of this.

I mentioned this to another admin and they made a great point: “Escalation exists for players more than us (admins).” Building on this, I think if we portrayed escalation policy as a blueprint of acceptable play as opposed to a strict rule which players must abide by it would perform a lot better. Players would be able to deviate from the blueprint, but in doing so run the risk of punishment. As always they would be encouraged to ahelp before, if possible, as admin discretion can and would differ.

I agree completely, it would be ridiculous to try to make escalation policy tailored to every scenario imaginable. But the scenario of being killed and revived, then wanting to "get even" with your murderer, is incredibly common and something players already do regardless of escalation policy. Particularly if they weren't the instigator to begin with.

If you are bwoinked for killing someone and reply with, "they instigated a fight I didn't want to have and hacked me to bits," this would be considered valid reasoning by almost anyone you ask. But the admin could reply with, "once you are killed the conflict ends, you are not allowed to kill them after" and note or ban the player. Indeed that is what Rageguy did, and if it weren't for their own reflection and good judgement after (which basically told them the current escalation policy doesn't work here), the ban would remain.

If the policy is bad enough to confuse an admin who is trying to apply it in good-faith, and go against what everyone considers commonsense escalation, then it should be revisited in my opinion.

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

Nobody's job involves chilling in tech storage unless the HOP appoints someone to chill there and hand out stuff people ask for. It's nobody's department and 90% of the stuff there goes untouched and unused even when it would be useful to loot (repairing machines, etc.)

Isnt it part of the engineering department?

[toemas]

i dont really think that me making a hidden wall so that i could grab the one spare pair of gloves and some machine boards so i could do some chem autism had any impact on anyones round, it seems unfair to call it "starting a conflict"

[Imitates-The-Lizards]

i dont really think that me making a hidden wall so that i could grab the one spare pair of gloves and some machine boards so i could do some chem autism had any impact on anyones round, it seems unfair to call it "starting a conflict"

I agree having your legs chopped off over it is much too far, but that's definitely still breaking and entering. The captain would have been very justified in arresting you.

[Pandarsenic]

Nobody's job involves chilling in tech storage unless the HOP appoints someone to chill there and hand out stuff people ask for. It's nobody's department and 90% of the stuff there goes untouched and unused even when it would be useful to loot (repairing machines, etc.)

Isnt it part of the engineering department?

It has an engineering-flavored door, and its access is (I believe) native to all Engineering and Science IDs. However, it is nothing but a storage room. Every single thing in it can be researched and printed except for the gloves, and most of the stuff in it can be casually printed at roundstart. It's only useful to people who want to build shit. Like I said, 90% of the stuff there goes untouched and unused even when it's useful, because usually you can just print the stuff by the time telecomms is bombed or whatever.

[Archie700]

The problem is that while tech storage in itself is harmless, it's right next to a room that definitely isn't - secure tech storage - also known as that room with the AI upload.

[Shellton(Mario)]

The problem is that while tech storage in itself is harmless, it's right next to a room that definitely isn't - secure tech storage - also known as that room with the AI upload.

IT is divided in 2, if someone is hacking into tech storeage just watch them or just leave them be and come back a few mins later to see if secure was hacked into. Then react accordingly

[Pandarsenic]

The secure tech storage door is similarly reinforced to the vault (shielded wires) and the AI Upload on meta, which both face hallways of varying traffic levels.

[Archie700]

Yeah, but people tend to conflate the two and think that tech storage as a whole is a secure area.

[Screemonster]

My initial gut feeling is that if you do those things after you've already won the fight - they've *surrendered, they're cuffed, they're crit, etc. -

Third rule of fight club: Someone says stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.
Anything you do to them after that is a new fight. That you started.

[Hulkamania]

headmins asked me to take a look at this thread, and I've been rather busy but I'm parsing through it now.

A few general thoughts, none about the specific details of this described conflict:

The Captain is the defacto leader of the ship and if they want to be a security officer, they have the right to do that.

Escalation policy doesn't need to (and can never) cover every single possible scenario in explicit detail, that's why people have brains and that's why admins haven't (yet) been replaced with robots. While it should be adjusted if there are any large gaps in the text, the other rules operate alongside it and bogging down the rules page with an ever expanding list of specific exceptions defeats the point of the rewording.

Conflict ending doesn't explicitly have to be on an incapacitation or death, but is the most common conclusion of a conflict that goes to a fight. It's kind of common sense, but if you're no longer actively trying to attack one another then it's over. Likewise just because you're not physically fighting doesn't mean it couldn't be considered "conflict." I can fuck over a chemist by disassembling their dispensers or any number of other things. Escalation is not purely about violence although it is the most common and useful situation to think of it in.

Anyone intentionally trying to rules lawyer it to hell and back instead of backing up on good faith interpretation is asking for trouble, likewise any admin who sees someone is genuinely acting in good faith but against the typical enforcement of the server should also be given leniency.

[sinfulbliss]

Conflict ending doesn't explicitly have to be on an incapacitation or death, but is the most common conclusion of a conflict that goes to a fight. It's kind of common sense, but if you're no longer actively trying to attack one another then it's over.

So to be clear: if someone instigates a fight with me, and I escalate to lethals, then they kill me, deblood me, and cut off all my limbs, resulting in a 20 minute revival process in medbay -- am I allowed to kill them upon being revived? Or do I have to consider the conflict over once killed, and now reset any conflict with them (a conflict which they can choose to never escalate to lethals, and therefore one in which I am not allowed to kill them)?

I want to emphasize this scenario is incredibly common, escalation rules suggesting this isn't a scenario where you can retaliate is an issue multiple players complained about when it was initially released so I'm not trying to be nitpicky here or anything. If the player that was killed was wronged, they should be able to continue the conflict and set the terms of the new engagement despite being the "new" instigator, because getting killed is really good reason to be pissed off at someone and is often taken as justification for one's actions in trying to hurt someone.

[Pandarsenic]

My take is if they keep doing things that will be shitty to heal (delimbing, for instance) after you cannot or will not keep fighting back, then they try to hide behind the letter of escalation policy, they have failed the good faith check. If they do that and ahelp when you revenge murder them I'm going to ask them what they expected to happen.

Conversely, someone with like 8 hours on tg who tries to promptly get you to medbay but doesn't understand bleeding/carrying on tgcode and just drags you the whole way there and plops you in the lobby is fine.

[Timberpoes]

Conflict ending doesn't explicitly have to be on an incapacitation or death, but is the most common conclusion of a conflict that goes to a fight. It's kind of common sense, but if you're no longer actively trying to attack one another then it's over.

So to be clear: if someone instigates a fight with me, and I escalate to lethals, then they kill me, deblood me, and cut off all my limbs, resulting in a 20 minute revival process in medbay -- am I allowed to kill them upon being revived? Or do I have to consider the conflict over once killed, and now reset any conflict with them (a conflict which they can choose to never escalate to lethals, and therefore one in which I am not allowed to kill them)?

I want to emphasize this scenario is incredibly common, escalation rules suggesting this isn't a scenario where you can retaliate is an issue multiple players complained about when it was initially released so I'm not trying to be nitpicky here or anything. If the player that was killed was wronged, they should be able to continue the conflict and set the terms of the new engagement despite being the "new" instigator, because getting killed is really good reason to be pissed off at someone and is often taken as justification for one's actions in trying to hurt someone.

Escalation works alongside the rules.

If escalation escalates up to lethals and your target kills you, debloods you, and cuts off all your limbs, resulting in a 20 minute revival process in medbay - There's a pretty strong chance that one of the below scenarios applies:

They are an antagonist, escalation no longer applies; OR
They are breaking the rules because this is shitty escalation, escalation no longer applies; OR
They think you are an antagonist, and they think escalation no longer applies.

When you make an assumption, you shoulder the responsibility if you made the wrong call.

To me, the safest approach is to ahelp, explain what happened and inform the admin team of your plans.

As long as you don't phrase a question like "Is this dude an antag?" - Most admins are chickens and are afraid they're being baited by validhunters to reveal antag statuses, so they'll give you a non-answer and waste another 5 minutes of your oh-so-precious time.

Best to just be upfront and say "I believe this dude is an antag for x/y/z reasons, gonna go get revenge now cuz they fucked with me" and wait to be told IC issue or "don't bother he's being banned anyway".

[BeeSting12]

I don't think players should be encouraged to adminhelp any time they're about to kill someone, and admins should not create an environment where players feel like they have to. To some extent players shoulder the responsibility of making the wrong call, but when working on limited information, part of the point of the game, they shouldn't be expected to know all.

If they want to adminhelp because they feel they've been wronged in a rules breaking manner, then they should forfeit all rights to IC retribution. When admins say "we're looking into this" or "IC issue", that essentially gives the answer right there whether the player is an antag or not and gives the ahelper confidence in going out to kill the player, which I don't think is in the spirit of the game. No one should have 100% confidence when they go out to get revenge.

I also think it puts the admin in a poor position because they're either forced to investigate the issue to the fullest extent possible (or risk wrongfully okaying someone's death), or tell the player "sure go for it" under the conditions the player was truthful and later find there were more circumstances.

No matter how you look at it, it's not fun to ask permission to just play the game like it's meant to be played.

[Misdoubtful]

I don't think players should be encouraged to adminhelp any time they're about to kill someone, and admins should not create an environment where players feel like they have to. To some extent players shoulder the responsibility of making the wrong call, but when working on limited information, part of the point of the game, they shouldn't be expected to know all.

If they want to adminhelp because they feel they've been wronged in a rules breaking manner, then they should forfeit all rights to IC retribution. When admins say "we're looking into this" or "IC issue", that essentially gives the answer right there whether the player is an antag or not and gives the ahelper confidence in going out to kill the player, which I don't think is in the spirit of the game. No one should have 100% confidence when they go out to get revenge.

I also think it puts the admin in a poor position because they're either forced to investigate the issue to the fullest extent possible (or risk wrongfully okaying someone's death), or tell the player "sure go for it" under the conditions the player was truthful and later find there were more circumstances.

No matter how you look at it, it's not fun to ask permission to just play the game like it's meant to be played.

I've seen, and accidentally created environments with this kind of ahelp culture. It never really sat well with me. People will opt to not do anything more often than not and wonder if they will have to deal with ire culturally, or administratively if they do something. There are still environments around like this too, if anyone is interested in taking a field trip.

Its why I just stick to things being justifiable.

[Timberpoes]

It's up to every individual player to take responsibility for their own actions. It always has been.

But I assert that while it is fun for a few to break the rules, the amount of total fun across all players is lessened compared to everyone playing in good faith.

I am not suggesting players ahelp to ask for permission. I am suggesting players ahelp if they're about to rely on escalation to kill someone where it may not be entirely obvious the someone they're seeking to kill is an antag.

Escalation rules exist to allow non-antags to fight with non-antags fairly and within the good-faith spirit of SS13. They allow non-antags to get into fights knowing the limits and risks (i.e. - The limits on what non-antags can do back to them, and the risks that the other player is an antag and doesn't have to play by those same rules).

Good escalation rules encourage and allow non-antagonists to perform antagonistic actions towards non-antagonists in a fair way. They work best when limiting the ability for players to RDM/round remove eachother for dumb and/or pointless and/or minor reasons and work best when players feel comfortable both starting and being the target of IC conflicts.

And they only work when followed, and only work when those that aren't following them are encouraged to follow them by admins.

[sinfulbliss]

I am not suggesting players ahelp to ask for permission. I am suggesting players ahelp if they're about to rely on escalation to kill someone where it may not be entirely obvious the someone they're seeking to kill is an antag.

This is an incredibly common occurrence and I'd find myself ahelping essentially every round if followed. That's part of the reason for the thread - I'm hoping escalation rules can be something a player can use as a guide so they can avoid asking an admin every round if they can or can't kill someone, when they could instead use their understanding of escalation to know what the admin would consider justified. I agree with what others have said that ahelping any situation where you'd want to rely on escalation to kill someone, where that person might not be an antagonist, waters down otherwise natural IC conflict.

This though is very helpful to see:

They are breaking the rules because this is shitty escalation, escalation no longer applies;

It was always my understanding that if you break the rules in your escalation against someone, you essentially lose all IC and OOC protections. There was no mention of this in escalation rules aside from "acting like an antagonist" (but experienced players usually can tell if it's over-escalation or actual antagonist actions, which complicates the issue), and some seemed to even suggest the only good way to handle it is to ahelp. So thanks for this clarification.

[Timberpoes]

I honestly can't say to you that players lose IC/OOC protections if they break the rules in escalating, because I'd be banbaiting everyone who tried to rely on it.

What I mean by that is: You as a player are probably not informed enough about the "state of the current shift as a whole from an administrative level" to make a call on if the other player broke escalation or not.

If you get revenge against someone because you think they broke escalation rules and act like they lost all their IC and OOC protections and they did not - You've broken the rules yourself instead. And now you're the one in trouble with the admins.

Or the worst case scenario - Someone breaks the rules and you break the rules worse to get revenge on them. That usually doesn't end with IC issue being pushed. It usually ends with two players getting notes instead of one.

It's why I don't suggest admins take a hands-off approach to escalation.

When spoken to as a whole, our players tend to prefer there be less rule breaking shitters and griefers around. By taking matters into their own hands, to a neutral third party there isn't the impression of a shitter being dunked by a righteous God of Robustness. They just see two rule breaking shitters shitting things up.

IC conflicts should be handled IC. Rule breaks should be handled OOC. A scenario where players break more serious rules in response to other players breaking less serious rules (or not breaking any rules at all) is something I try to avoid encouraging.

[dirk_mcblade]

I am not suggesting players ahelp to ask for permission. I am suggesting players ahelp if they're about to rely on escalation to kill someone where it may not be entirely obvious the someone they're seeking to kill is an antag.

This is an incredibly common occurrence and I'd find myself ahelping essentially every round if followed. That's part of the reason for the thread - I'm hoping escalation rules can be something a player can use as a guide so they can avoid asking an admin every round if they can or can't kill someone, when they could instead use their understanding of escalation to know what the admin would consider justified. I agree with what others have said that ahelping any situation where you'd want to rely on escalation to kill someone, where that person might not be an antagonist, waters down otherwise natural IC conflict.

It seems clear to me that timber isn't proposing you to ahelp to ask for permission but rather to ahelp to cover your ass ("I'm going to kill X for Y reasons"). It lets the admin know what your grievance is and gives them the option to intervene if you're being unreasonable in your retaliation. Makes you getting banned less justifiable if they had a few minutes of warning and it at least skips the "hey what's going on?" Phase of a ticket.

[sinfulbliss]

I honestly can't say to you that players lose IC/OOC protections if they break the rules in escalating, because I'd be banbaiting everyone who tried to rely on it.

I don't think you'd be - if they choose to handle it IC they'll always open themselves up to being wrong and misreading the situation. But to say you keep your IC and OOC protections even after over-escalating in a rulebreaking way, means you can then ahelp the person who chose to respond by killing or round-removing you, and get them in trouble for handling it IC.

It reminds me of this rule in chess tournaments. If your opponent makes an illegal move, you can call the arbiter and have them forfeited. But if you play anyway, in what was an illegal position, your opponent can now call the arbiter and have you forfeited for making an "illegal" move, even though technically they were the ones who created the illegal position. It's pretty scummy and most players won't do this, but it reminded me of that. If you decide to break the rules you should forfeit your right to be protected by them.

It seems clear to me that timber isn't proposing you to ahelp to ask for permission but rather to ahelp to cover your ass ("I'm going to kill X for Y reasons").

It's completely reasonable, and makes sense. But I would be doing this almost every round, and would probably feel like a massive goober making ahelps every round that I'm going to kill someone for X Y and Z. Not to mention it would ruin the flow of the game (I hate to pull the immersion card but it really would pull you out of the game to do this). I don't envision this being practical for most players.

[spookuni]

We've deliberated on this and decided on the following addendum to the escalation rules:

"Conflict is automatically suspended when one participant is dead or incapacitated, a player who uses the state of incapacitation to take further action against the downed party chooses to extend the ongoing conflict past its original endpoint, and opens themselves up to further reprisal to avenge damage or recover stolen possessions"