If someone succumbs, is it the person who crit them’s fault?

[confused rock]

This is a situation that’s always seemed obvious to me but I surprisingly couldn’t find a past ruling. If someone succumbs quickly after being crit, whose fault is it that they died? I always assumed it was treated as suicide. Am I missing a past ruling that’s set in stone?
If succumbing is the fault of the crittee, then since succumbing is possible at any point and ups crit to murder, should critting just be treated as murder in the rules? Is killing someone and cloning them the same as critting and healing someone?

[Lazengann]

I blame the succumber and I disagree with the note that sparked this thread

[confused rock]

Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered with the thread, there are plenty of answers. What’s STP’s word count for?

to clear up something here
if you break into someones workplace antagonize them and then let yourself be beaten to crit and you then succumb and ahelp afterwords you will be banned for ban baiting.

[Lazengann]

He didn't ahelp

[Lazengann]

The next question will be "who did ahelp" answer is nobody

[Istoprocent1]

He didn't ahelp

Then its a bit more messed up. Admin decides on taking action without anybody requesting it, makes what seems to be a clear mistake, player still gets punished.

As for the policy there could be two possible solutions:

1. Succuming = Forfeiting. Once somebody succumbs, they should not be allowed to ahelp as well as not count towards any other possible actions (ie. 5 guys get critted, they all succumb, they should not count towards any punishments due to succumbing).

2. Remove "succumb" verb altogether to avoid confusion.

[Lazengann]

He didn't ahelp

Then its a bit more messed up. Admin decides on taking action without anybody requesting it, makes what seems to be a clear mistake, player still gets punished.

As for the policy there could be two possible solutions:

1. Succuming = Forfeiting. Once somebody succumbs, they should not be allowed to ahelp as well as not count towards any other possible actions (ie. 5 guys get critted, they all succumb, they should not count towards any punishments due to succumbing).

2. Remove "succumb" verb altogether to avoid confusion.

no those are dumb sometimes you're just screwed and it's time to skip to being a ghost

[Istoprocent1]

He didn't ahelp

Then its a bit more messed up. Admin decides on taking action without anybody requesting it, makes what seems to be a clear mistake, player still gets punished.

As for the policy there could be two possible solutions:

1. Succuming = Forfeiting. Once somebody succumbs, they should not be allowed to ahelp as well as not count towards any other possible actions (ie. 5 guys get critted, they all succumb, they should not count towards any punishments due to succumbing).

2. Remove "succumb" verb altogether to avoid confusion.

no those are dumb sometimes you're just screwed and it's time to skip to being a ghost

If you are so quick to ghost, then first option would be the one you agree with. You succumb, because you have no problems with being dead and by forfeiting you knowingly prevent any assistance to get back into the round the fast way.

If you want to ahelp, then you need to wait and let it play out, otherwise you would be banbaiting. Imagine new meta being people instantly succumbing, then just waiting and hoping that a hypervigilant admin goes and starts noting down people on their behalf without actually ahelping. This is one of the reasons why this thread was started.

[Shadowflame909]

I always thought this was already a policy.

If you succumb, you forfeit any complaints and any grievances you have about the situation should then be IC.

Succumbing = Forfeit.

[Stillplant]

What's stopping people from ahelping while they're in crit?

[teepeepee]

if they're not dead they can't banbait by ahelping "this guy just killed me wtf??" because even braindead banbots can wait and see if they get healed while in crit and IC issue them

[Cobby]

you can succumb if they hide you in a remote locker, get spaced, or something like that.

If they're trying to do SOMETHING and you succumb, you don't get to ahelp about them killing you.

You can always ahelp while you're in crit though...

[Agux909]

In my opinion, dying, not dying, "forfeiting" or not: These shouldn't be decisive points about someone getting punished or not. The context, actions and apparent motives of someone leading to X situation should be, and their demeanor when being called out for it.

Why should rule enforcers be influenced by the specific victim's thoughts about it? This may give the wrong impression to the perpetrator that they can keep doing it because they did it this one time and got scot free, and maybe just because the victim doesn't take the game seriously and doesn't care if someone else kills them for no reason.

Something else would be a player asking another one to kill them, which is completely different.

[Cobby]

You can be okay to beat someone up but not to kill so those points do matter when the victim voluntarily pushes themselves past the tier that would have been acceptable otherwise.

I don't care if it's "right" or "wrong", if every player involved was okay with it that's fine with me. If they do it again to someone who didn't like it, I can easily explain how their first situation was an exception and not the rule.

Reminder, admins are not here to enforce rules. They are here to ensure people have a good time, with rules being a guideline by which we define what a good time is when there are conflicts between players.

[Agux909]

I agree with that. Maybe I worded my post wrong. What I was trying to say is that it's indifferent if someone "succumbs after being crit", there needs to be context behind it.

These are my thoughts:
(both examples are with non-antag roles)

.Player A crits Player B after escalation, starts taking Player B to medbay or seems to be looking for a way to heal them, but Player B succumbs before they can assist them. The death of Player B can't really be attributed to Player A

Now:

.Player A crits Player B after escalation, carries the body out of public sight, and doesn't seem to be doing anything which will result in Player B getting better, maybe even leaves the place. Player B succumbs after seeing this, or dies naturally. Here given this context, the actions leading to the death of Player B can be attributed to Player A, regardless of the actions taken by Player B (succumb or not)

Anyway, just my thoughts

[Shadowflame909]

I still say, Player B can eat a fat F.

Sec should on a normal round be crawling maint. Bored assistants will do so alike.

The chances for him to be found is not null.

It happens all the time.

[confused rock]

Shadowflame, someone dragged to maint and left to die is left to die, regardless if they survive. If you space someone and they’re lucky enough to loop around and hit arrivals, you still spaced them.

[Sandshark808]

Shadowflame, someone dragged to maint and left to die is left to die, regardless if they survive. If you space someone and they’re lucky enough to loop around and hit arrivals, you still spaced them.

Unfortunately this isn't true. I have a ruling from NecromancerAnne showing that if you're spaced and someone finds and revives you by chance, it's a mitigating factor that lowers the severity of the spacer's actions.

[Shadowflame909]

My argument was not for mitigating player A's actions.

It was simply saying that, how often have you found yourself. Right after you're dead, someone comes into maint and sees your body.

That's happened to me more times then I can count.

If you succumb. Your simply just not giving yourself that chance.

[Istoprocent1]

In my opinion, dying, not dying, "forfeiting" or not: These shouldn't be decisive points about someone getting punished or not. The context, actions and apparent motives of someone leading to X situation should be, and their demeanor when being called out for it.

This is some slippery logic. There needs to be decisive points, so everybody knows what is allowed and what is not. You can see that individual rulings are from wall to wall and sometimes context gets ignored completely.

At the moment you can see that the problem arouse, because the context was ignored - context being a tider going gorillas in the brig.

Why should rule enforcers be influenced by the specific victim's thoughts about it?

Mainly because there are people who don't need to be hugged 24/7 and understand that the fun part of the game is playing the game rather than dealing with some random drama and competitive ahelping.

[Cobby]

if the body is being hidden you should still not succumb until you've spoke with the admin first.

Getting spaced should be considered trying to hide the body, that was just a bad ruling (or it's being oversimplified here).

[Gigapuddi420]

I would strongly recommend to people not to succumb without a good reason; if you're in the process of being killed and you succumb it can often be argued that you didn't give the other person the chance to stop after critical and take you to med-bay resulting in a more muddy investigation into the conflict. Worse still, if the other party had a good reason to be beating your ass and you succumb before they can heal you back up it'll look really bad on you if you chose to ahelp that as though they killed you. It doesn't take much effort to see what the guy killing you will do once you're down and it'll help your case if they acted improperly.

That isn't to say you completely forfeit any 'right' to complain if you do succumb. Just make sure not to misrepresent your complaint should you decide to ahelp; if you succumb they haven't actually 'killed' you and presenting it as such can easily look like ban baiting. Be concise and honest when explaining your problem, try to avoid lying by omission too as it's really unhelpful when you complain about someone killing you and you just happen to neglect to mention you set fire to them beforehand.

[Sandshark808]

if the body is being hidden you should still not succumb until you've spoke with the admin first.

Getting spaced should be considered trying to hide the body, that was just a bad ruling (or it's being oversimplified here).

I was wrong about it being Anne who offered that reasoning, it was the headmins' ruling as seen here. At any rate, they suggested that since I was cloned eventually it served as a mitigating factor and no note was warranted even though the AI player acted in bad faith and bragged about it.

[Anonmare]

If you succumb while very clearly in easily revived range, or while someone is actively treating you - you don't get to complain about them and I will not waste my time treating someone who succumbs as they clearly want to stay dead

[deedubya]

If the act of them putting you in crit in the first place was ahelpable to begin with, you succumbing should make no difference to the punishment the offending player receives. The only argument I'd make for it is that if you choose to succumb extremely early and ahelp it, you should also cop a warning/ban for baiting. It's pretty obvious when someone does it just to try and beef up their incoming ahelp. But that wouldn't change the fact that the act that put you into crit was ahelpable to begin with, if applicable.

[Nabski]

I know I've accidentally last breathed a time or two while having a whisper conversation in crit, and then one of those is over the threshold where it ends you. I don't think it's ever been in a situation where I was unhappy with the results, because I was typically talking to someone that was either going to try to fix me, or just a last insult at someone that wouldn't anyways.

[teepeepee]

isn't the succumb verb and whispering a last word logged differently anyways?

[Reyn]

If the act of them putting you in crit in the first place was ahelpable to begin with, you succumbing should make no difference to the punishment the offending player receives. The only argument I'd make for it is that if you choose to succumb extremely early and ahelp it, you should also cop a warning/ban for baiting. It's pretty obvious when someone does it just to try and beef up their incoming ahelp. But that wouldn't change the fact that the act that put you into crit was ahelpable to begin with, if applicable.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but, What you're getting at is...


If someone succumbs because they know they wont get assistance, or if the death wasn't valid to occur anyways, IE, Put in hardcrit and left to bleed out by some random greytider, It's not the succumbers fault as long as they can reasonably bet that person wont heal them without looting them

If someone is put in crit in a normal fight or is accidentally critted, and succumbs before they have a chance to determine if the person was valid in doing it, if they're going to heal them, or if there's any chance of rescue, INENTIONALLY to make just a crit into a kill, then its the succumbers fault to try to bolster their ahelp, but if the incident which put them in crit is ahelpable, it's to be ahelped, just with a grain of salt.

Circumstance matters, and, If I interpereted you correctly, I agree for the most part. I've occasionally succumbed because I was left to bleed out.

[deedubya]

If the act of them putting you in crit in the first place was ahelpable to begin with, you succumbing should make no difference to the punishment the offending player receives. The only argument I'd make for it is that if you choose to succumb extremely early and ahelp it, you should also cop a warning/ban for baiting. It's pretty obvious when someone does it just to try and beef up their incoming ahelp. But that wouldn't change the fact that the act that put you into crit was ahelpable to begin with, if applicable.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but, What you're getting at is...


If someone succumbs because they know they wont get assistance, or if the death wasn't valid to occur anyways, IE, Put in hardcrit and left to bleed out by some random greytider, It's not the succumbers fault as long as they can reasonably bet that person wont heal them without looting them

If someone is put in crit in a normal fight or is accidentally critted, and succumbs before they have a chance to determine if the person was valid in doing it, if they're going to heal them, or if there's any chance of rescue, INENTIONALLY to make just a crit into a kill, then its the succumbers fault to try to bolster their ahelp, but if the incident which put them in crit is ahelpable, it's to be ahelped, just with a grain of salt.

Circumstance matters, and, If I interpereted you correctly, I agree for the most part. I've occasionally succumbed because I was left to bleed out.

tl;dr of my awkwardly written post: If the way you got put into crit is against the rules, you succumbing(at any point) should have little to no effect on the ahelp you send. Otherwise, it should be viewed as bad faith and banbaiting to succumb early and use it as fuel for an ahelp.

[Sandshark808]

isn't the succumb verb and whispering a last word logged differently anyways?

Yes. It's even mentioned in the appeal.

[Kingtrin]

The next question will be "who did ahelp" answer is nobody

From the thread:

Lastly, the only reason I started watching (which I informed you) is that after a minor spat with the AI you cut all cameras in the brig, then started arguing with the AI to the point I got asked to watch you for shittery. You tiptoed all round, and as an admin I personally disagree with how you conduct yourself as a player in a security position. It was a difficult decision to press this issue into a note, but I stand by it as a marker for your consistent borderline behavior.

This would imply someone ahelped to watch due to this minor spat. Really seems like the trigger was pulled largely due to this in combination with "consistent borderline behavior" which, unfortunately, was not elaborated on.

[Reyn]

Ive got some time, so I might as well give a full statement on how I feel, even though my statement means absolutely nothing

Is succumbing banbait/ does succumbing make a scenario nul and void In every situation
Circumstance to circumstance. If someone is left bleeding out in a cell in brig, then it's fine to succumb, or if there's a clear lack of intention to revive you, and scenarios like that, Succumbing as "not delaying the inevitable" or "Yeah I'm fucked" should be fine. However, this does not mean that just because you succumbed it should escelate the severity of the situation. "If you're left to bleed out anyways, and nobody makes an attempt to stop it given a RESONABLE AMMOUNT OF TIME" treat ahelp as per if they just crit, and see if any attempt is made to revive afterwards. Perhaps ask the critter if they intended to heal or revive them otherwise. If they didn't, or no attempt was made, in a NON VALID SITUATION, if the person AHELPS AFTERWARDS, don't just immediately dismiss it. That's happened a lot. I've been killed for no fucking reason and just because I succumbed while either bleeding out or just wanting to be out of the round, I was ignored even on the basis of being crit.

IF SOMEONE IS NONVALIDLY OR ABUSIVELY PUT INTO CRIT AND THEY INSTA SUCCUMB, ONLY TREAT AS IF IT WAS JUST PUTTING THEM IN HARD CRIT.
Sometimes people succumb just to relieve stress.

On the flipside...

CAN scumming be banbaiting or potentially nullifying to the situation

Someone succumbing INSTANTLY as soon as they enter hardcrit should NOT be treated as death. It should be treated as being critted. If they were in a valid situation to be critted, and instantly succumbed instead of doing anything like waiting to see if theyre being revived, Treat them as if they were validly critted and not outright murdered. If A hulk is critted, and then succumbs instantly, due to crit being one of the few ways to disable a hulk, don't treat it as murder. Same goes for fighting tiders and such. If someone succumbs WITH NO GOOD REASON TO DO SO, DO NOT TREAT IT AS A KILL, JUST A CRIT.

If they want to just leave the round, treat it as crit, and don't punish them. maybe warn if a banbait attempt was made

If they treat crit as murder when they instantly succumb in an ahelp, warn them about it, politely at first. If they pull the stunt again, give them a harsher warning. Ban after that. (Not ruling just suggestion)

For the love of god, however, ASK people if they're salty about a situation if they succumb if you think it should be acted upon, or wait for an ahelp. Give them time to cool down in that case.

Seriously though, there's inconsistancy in the rules, and it seems circumstances get reversed a LOT, where people who succumb out of being left to bled out or being done with a games shit just get ignored, while some people who succumb instantly get a bolster to ahelps.

I'm sorry if this is an inconherent mess, but i REALLY had to let that out.

[imsxz]

succumbing is a shitty verb that should probably get removed anyways, given how simple it is to abuse and the drastic consequences it can have on the succumber and the person that would have benefited from them NOT dying, but that isn't a policy issue.

if you succumb when it wasnt clear you would die, dont ahelp the fact that you died or anything that happens as a result of your death(such as being stuffed in a locker, as succumbing literally says that you dont want to live). in this case, just ahelp that you were crit for whatever reason. it isnt difficult to grasp.

if you succumbed in a place where you were obviously left for dead, such as thrown out an airlock, or shoved in a locker in maint, then sure you can ahelp about that but just say you were crit and then shoved into a locker and seemingly left for dead. just because someone may as well have killed you doesnt mean they did kill you. it makes the admins job tougher and less likely to believe your story, and generally leaves a shitty impression.

if you succumbed at a time where you THINK you were going to be finished off, you're dumb but you can probably get away with saying that they killed you. you probably shouldnt succumb though because if you do and tell an admin that they KILLED you, the admin will at the very least take extra time checking to see if it was likely you were going to die, or bug you about why you said that you were killed when you succumbed or some shit.

tl;dr dont say that you were killed if you succumbed. if you were crit and then left in space, and then succumbed, say that you were crit and then left in space. Dont say that you were killed unless you want to waste both your own and the admins time - possibly leading them to believe you were banbaiting - it really gives no positives unless the admin doesnt check the logs to see if you succcumbed. And even in that case, it's immoral to prey upon less thorough admins.

tl;dr 2 remove succumb. you'll still have the ability to ghost if you dont wanna wait until you die.
p.s. keep last whisper but make it trigger on death instead of forcing succumb. or don't, because fuck suicide bombers.

[Sandshark808]

p.s. keep last whisper but make it trigger on death instead of forcing succumb. or don't, because fuck suicide bombers.

People will continue to suicide murderboners because it's funny and easy. Even if they can't use voice activation they'll just kill you using a health sensor + igniter assembly, which is arguably easier.

[skoglol]

succumbing is a shitty verb that should probably get removed anyways, given how simple it is to abuse and the drastic consequences it can have on the succumber and the person that would have benefited from them NOT dying, but that isn't a policy issue.

Remember https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/41961 ?

[imsxz]

succumbing is a shitty verb that should probably get removed anyways, given how simple it is to abuse and the drastic consequences it can have on the succumber and the person that would have benefited from them NOT dying, but that isn't a policy issue.

Remember https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/41961 ?

i feel itd be easier to get people to agree with a full removal of succumbing

[wesoda25]

idk succumbing is a kind of nice ability to have, (certain) admins just need to not be dumb and not count succumbing as dying.

[oranges]

succumbing is a shitty verb that should probably get removed anyways, given how simple it is to abuse and the drastic consequences it can have on the succumber and the person that would have benefited from them NOT dying, but that isn't a policy issue.

Remember https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/41961 ?

coders literally proven correct once again

[skoglol]

succumbing is a shitty verb that should probably get removed anyways, given how simple it is to abuse and the drastic consequences it can have on the succumber and the person that would have benefited from them NOT dying, but that isn't a policy issue.

Remember https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/41961 ?

i feel itd be easier to get people to agree with a full removal of succumbing

Well part of the point I am making here is maintainers say its an admin issue - which makes it a policy issue. Personally I would like to see it restricted, as there are legitimate reasons to succumb. That PR would need some work by adding a timer in addition to the damage limit to the succumb.

[deedubya]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24540 Another one that got hit by the good old succumb into ahelp true combo. Can we put a stop to this banbaity garbage yet?

[Nervere]

Succumbing to your wounds means you don't have a right to ahelp the conflict, and the person who attacked you won't be punished.
You're not confused on precedent, Rock. If anything, it's the headmins.

[PKPenguin321]

Succumbing to your wounds means you don't have a right to ahelp the conflict, and the person who attacked you won't be punished.
You're not confused on precedent, Rock. If anything, it's the headmins.

I'd like to add to this by saying that this is sorta case by case. Admins can see your health at the time that you succumbed. If you succumb at -1 HP and ahelp that you were murdered, you're full of shit and we'll ignore you as we have for years. If you're at -95 and had been in crit for 10 minutes with nobody even near you to help you at that point (again, we CAN see most of that just by checking your attack logs), it shouldn't really matter if you succumbed or not in most cases.

[Qbmax32]

I just reject ahelps where someone succumbs and then says “xy killed me!”

[Cobby]

you might could get away with making succumb threshold a config but from a Code PoV it's not really our realm to say when it is/ is not acceptable. Too many variables that the administration could disagree on to draw hardlines via code.

[Tlaltecuhtli]

people saying “code issue” are retarded if admins require a secondary brain to understand succumb = valid, succumb +ahelp = banbait we should just have autoban when you kill a not antag as not antag

[deedubya]

I dunno, restricting succumb/death whisper to 50% hardcrit via the code wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Not really a policy discussion issue, though.

[Ayy Lemoh]

I hate death whisper because I find it annoying when one second you can whisper and the next causes instadeath. Death whispering is kinda cool besides that.

I'd hate it even more if it caused me to deal with banbait as either an admin or player though.

[knacker48]

I hate death whisper because I find it annoying when one second you can whisper and the next causes instadeath. Death whispering is kinda cool besides that.

I'd hate it even more if it caused me to deal with banbait as either an admin or player though.

Maybe if it gave you a prompt that its gonna kill you, although that might make it take too long and you might die before you can tell your murder they're a cunt

[Sandshark808]

What if there was just a limited number of last whispers you could make, and beyond that it won't let you speak anymore until you ghost?

[Denton]

If admins don't drop the hammer on ban baiting succumbers, it's IMO an administrative issue.
Code wise we can't really distinguish between "I've been stuck in crit and just want to die" and "I'm gonna succumb and then ahelp like the ban baiting fuck I am". That's up to admins to judge.