Succumbing.

[firecage]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Well, for the most part. Unsure where this should be placed. But I figure this is the best place.

So what is the policy on succumbing when you are knocked into crit and then ahelping. According to Skorvold it completely removes your right to adminhelp to complain about being killed. Like really, the first time I have ever heard this.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

You people will post stupid hypotheticals about anything. (See: Helios)

Actions taken after critical definitely effect the decision making process. If you succumb, you are removing yourself from the round rather than seeing it out and void any valid adminhelp you have.

That's pretty much the basic jist. And it's been like this. You all act surprised as if this was new.

Next thing I'm doing is crit someone, then keep them alive forever with inaprov/dexalin/whatever until they succumb and lose their right to ahelp.

Oh, but officer, I tried to heal them, and they wouldn't let me!

[Pandarsenic]

>Implying we wouldn't be ever harsher on someone for keeping someone alive but in critical to try to force them into succumbing

C'mon, guys, you're smarter than that.

[Aurx]

>Implying we wouldn't be ever harsher on someone for keeping someone alive but in critical to try to force them into succumbing

C'mon, guys, you're smarter than that.

The issue is that Brotemis is spreading bad information, and people are being facetious to show how terrible what he's saying is.
"If you succumb, you are removing yourself from the round rather than seeing it out and void any valid adminhelp you have." is pure bullshit. Both from an actual policy standpoint, and from a sensible policy standpoint.

[KingLouisXIV]

It's on a subjective, per-case basis. Stop acting retarded.

[bandit]

I don't really see how it is retarded to question things when multiple admins make definitive statements that directly contradict one another.

[Brotemis]

Not bad information in the least. Anyone who says " well if X is ok then first thing I'm going to do is Y."

No, quit being a manchild.. As king Louis has said, quit acting like retards and if you do something like keeping someone in crit just as you said would, expect nothing short of an extremely harsh ban and ire from admins and players alike.

That's just plain malicious. There is literally nothing to clarify. Cross bridges as you approach them.

[Steelpoint]

Isn't the point of "Policy Discussion" is to actually discuss issues on police and implementation? Not brush aside the issue with a broad statement that completely ignores the point of the thread?

Here's the thing, the OP wants to know the Policy/Standing behind succumbing when your in critical, and your ahelp rights in that scenario (Putting aside the background reasoning for this thread). Here is what several admins have to say on that issue.

Succumbing forfeits your right to complain as it prevents your attacker or anyone else from healing you.

I'd rather we be investigating these on a case-by-case basis. On one han it is shitty to start a fight and complain when you lose, but it's also not cool to have your right to fair play suddenly revoked arbitrarily when you're not at fault.

There's no fucking way suiciding voids your adminhelp rights, but it DOES signal an OOC desire to exit the round.

This succumbing thing is a case-by-case basis.

If you succumb, you are removing yourself from the round rather than seeing it out and void any valid adminhelp you have.

It's on a subjective, per-case basis. Stop acting retarded.

Now you can see how confusing things get when you have nearly half a dozen admins giving their own opinions and interpretations on the subject matter.

On a logical standpoint, I would go with the case-by-base situation being the de facto rule on this issue, but that does not remove the need to for this to be clarified in a unified matter instead of having 100 different stances on the issue.

How do I take this statement by one admin "This succumbing thing is a case-by-case basis.", and take that over another statement by another admin "Succumbing forfeits your right to complain as it prevents your attacker or anyone else from healing you."? The answer is you don't.

In conclusion, don't call out people as "manchildren" and being retarded just cause they have a differing or conflictive opinion, that just makes you look like a idiot, and I think we can go with the ruling being that the situation is on a case by case basis, and that if your ejected from the station or put in a similar situation where rescue is impossible or unlikely then you can freely succumb.

[Brotemis]

And yet people will push for a "solid policy" because 'fuck admin decision making, admins shouldn't be making judgement calls, there should be a flowchart that determines if a ban is needed and if not, tell the admin to fuck off because it's in/not in the rules so I can do this.'

The rule of thumb is that succumbing will almost always void your adminhelp.

If someone knocks you into crit and tries to keep you there as a nonantag, you can bet there's an admin breathing down their neck.

If you want to remain in the round, you'll see it through as we take care of the adminhelp process.

not cool to have your right to fair play suddenly revoked arbitrarily when you're not at fault.

As has been said in the rules, you're not in control of everything, shit happens, and we'll be there to help if that shit stinks. But only one person can make you succumb.

[miggles]

im pretty sure there's a reason people dont trust admin decision making and its because its not always good
policies ensure that players see admins making decisions they agree with instead of causing controversy
when someone sees an admin do something they think is bad they start a policy thread to discuss whether this decision should be allowed for admins to make in the future

[Aurx]

Policy is not some mysterious holy book penned by God Himself, it's just logical extensions of rules for common situations and formally agreed upon solutions to divisive issues. In this case, policy is directly derived from the facts that succumbing removes information, information on how the aggressor follows through after critting you is important, and when admins have to make assumptions they tend towards positive.

[Pandarsenic]

Seriously, people.

Stop trying to find ways to have being shitty to other people protected by the rules when you're nonantag. Just wait for antag status to fuck with people.

If you're acting in good faith (using inaprovaline to try to get someone to medical because you had a fight that escalated IC) and someone succumbs, it's totally different from if you're dragging them to a corner and CPRing them for fifteen minutes to fuck with them. If you start shit with someone (stripping their clothing while they're standing in the hallways) and succumb as soon as dunked, that's COMPLETELY different from if you succumb in the medical lobby.

I am sure you're all fully capable of using common sense, so please do actually use it.

[bandit]

It's a hell of an assumption to say that everyone in this thread is just trying to get away with shit. It's even worse because this thread is essentially about people being griefed, not people griefing. And when you have six admins saying contradictory things, like Steelpoint pointed out, not all of which are common sense and most of which directly contradict one another ("There's no fucking way succumbing voids your adminhelp rights" vs. "if you succumb... you void any valid adminhelp you have" for one), it is fair to ask for a clarification of what exactly is going on.

Seriously, one line in the adminhelp section like "Succumbing before you adminhelp prevents the admins from gathering information about your attacker's intentions and is therefore frowned upon" and this will be a lot clearer -- and that means without actually adding any policies that didn't exist before, just making them public because clearly not everyone knew this. (For instance, I knew succumbing voided your rights, but no one ever told me why. A lot of people upthread didn't know the succumbing thing at all.) It's literally all anyone is asking.

[Skorvold]

This is partly my fault as I didn't clarify to Firecage how issue specific it is, making it sound blanket as fuck without me meaning it that way.

This thread was very obviously not made to discuss this, it was most likely made because the effected person didn't want to wait till round end to say something in Ban Request or Admin Complaints.

[bandit]

Yeah, I've been very purposefully trying to keep my views on the situation/character out of this so this thread doesn't turn into glorified steno.

[Helios127]

Now I just want to state. The reason people like me all flip their shit is because certain admins who really shouldent be admins like banning people for very unjustifiable things. Now ideally, theese admins would be removed but I get it, an admin cant sell out anouther admin. Its not a us vs them thing, I could count the badmins with a single hand chopped vertically.

This post will probobly be deleated for being a shitpost, which I get but I need to put this out here.

[Pybro]

So wait. If a non-antag stuns me, pulls me into maint, and murders me, he gets off without any consequences because I succumbed? I mean, I'm in maint in crit, I'm not going to be found or revived.

What if I don't want to stare at a black screen for five minutes? Just because I don't want to do so doesn't suddenly make it okay that a non-antag killed me for nary a raisin.

[KingLouisXIV]

So wait. If a non-antag stuns me, pulls me into maint, and murders me, he gets off without any consequences because I succumbed? I mean, I'm in maint in crit, I'm not going to be found or revived.

What if I don't want to stare at a black screen for five minutes? Just because I don't want to do so doesn't suddenly make it okay that a non-antag killed me for nary a raisin.

For pete's sake. No.

This is in strict instances where you go down and INSTANTLY SUCCUMB. I mean, you succumb RIGHT as you hit critical. If you get left in maint and succumb, nobody is going to blame you and you can ahelp it afterwards; there are ways to check your body even if it's stuffed inside a locker, and if you provide a name to your attacker it's all the better.

The whole 'right to adminhelp' thing stems from succumbing instantly after being brought down in a fight, and then trying to adminhelp that somebody killed you.
"But they DID kill me!"
No, they brought you into crit. There's a huge difference that I shouldn't need to explain.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Well then it is on case-by-case basis and why would you need some stupid generalized policy for it

[KingLouisXIV]

Well then it is on case-by-case basis and why would you need some stupid generalized policy for it

[callanrockslol]

Like almost everything else this is dealt with on a case by case basis? good, everything is as it should be.

Brotemis stop confusing everyone with your aristocratic avatar.

[Helios127]

This thread should be locked now.

[damiac]

Uhh.. one thing that seems to be missed here... regardless of the question of 'did he kill the guy' isn't it already against the rules to go around critting people?

I mean, sure, succumbing means the guy who did the critting cannot be called a murderer. That makes sense, the guy who succumbed wasn't murdered.

But, regardless of that, the guy who did the critting still attacked someone into crit. Regardless of what happens after, shouldn't he be subject to the punishment for unjustified attack?

I mean, isn't the policy actually pretty clear? Succumbing in a situation where you could reasonably be revived* nullifies your ability to ahelp murder. You can still ahelp the situation that put you into crit.

*I know this is open to interpretation, but what I mean is, if you're in space, or hidden away somewhere, you're not in a position to be reasonably revived.

[paprika]

This thread should be locked now.

[Pandarsenic]

This looks more or less resolved, as mentioned. PM if it needs an unlock.