Escalation Policy Rewrite

[GPeckman]

Bottom post of the previous page:

In a recent peanut thread, an admin mentioned that current escalation policy is flawed and the headmins were considering a rewrite. Now I'm curious, is a rewrite actually planned or in progress?

[sinfulbliss]

removing the clause for round removal for 2nd time escalations is no bueno i think

The general idea seems to be that if people are consistently coming back to start fights over and over again they're violating rule 1 because they have no reason to do so besides being a dick. The conflict should resolve itself after someone has been crit or the fight ends; there's no reason someone should come back if they're a non-antag (save for very specific IC reasons).

I like this policy because I feel like the game is healthier when the rules push people towards organic, natural interactions instead of functioning as a checklist you need to tick off before you're allowed to make the person horizontal again.

the round removal clause was important because it was “if someone is being a dumb fuck stupid head and is coming back for seconds, then you can round remove them and stop them from coming back for thirds”

idk what the expectation is on how you should respond to this happening in-game, honestly. or at least in the current rules. are we just expected to Turn Them Over To Security or whatever? are we not allowed to round remove if someone escalates a second time?

This may be a stretch but I reckon this would qualify as the “GREAT reasoning” required to kill them, and now you can kill them. Also, because you only have to bring incapacitated targets to med “where reasonable,” I reckon this would trigger the “it is not reasonable to treat this guy” clause, so at best you can kill them and leave them where they are. PERHAPS you can justify cutting their head off if the admin would agree you had “good IC reasoning” behind it, but good luck with that. Maybe you can argue their behavior was acting like an antag and hence they were valid for RR. But all this requires a pretty specific reading of the new rules that I reckon some admins wouldn’t adopt.

Otherwise yeah you kinda just have to keep critting/killing them and getting them treated until an admin gets on to ban them I guess.

[dendydoom]

i'm interested to see how this plays out. it's very hard to try to discuss these imaginary conflicts in a vacuum and make rulings on them because of the extremely context sensitive nature of the game in general. like i said before i think there will be some inevitable appeals/complaints over rulings that adopt different interpretations of the rewording and it will take community discussion and headmin rulings to refine and clarify the "spirit" of the rule.

This may be a stretch but I reckon this would qualify as the “GREAT reasoning” required to kill them, and now you can kill them. Also, because you only have to bring incapacitated targets to med “where reasonable,” I reckon this would trigger the “it is not reasonable to treat this guy” clause, so at best you can kill them and leave them where they are.

this is my reading of it too and most likely how i would rule on it. i think it's a meaningful change to ask players to adopt the mentality of "i killed them and left them dead because of x, y, z IC reason" rather than "because they came back a second time and escalation policy says that means i can put them in a meat grinder".

in other rules we ask players to not operate solely on hypotheticals and i would like to see this be the case for escalation too. if there is clear evidence that you have tried to end the conflict (critting them and getting them treated obviously included if the conflict warranted this level of violence) and they keep coming back to re-initiate it then this would be enough of an IC reason to me to leave them dead.

[Screemonster]

As antags are not bound by escalation policy, breaking escalation policy is acting like an antagonist :^)

[kieth4]

I just wanna attack people fnr and have epic conflict

[TheBibleMelts]

alright it's been a good while since there's been any buzz about this, so i'm going to consider that a good thing until a new thread gets brought up about the new version and we begin the process again.