Aligote

I want to reiterate, I don't think the issues I talked about was the sole or main reason for the decline, just one of them. However, pre-DDOS 2025 already had an unprecedented decline in player pop, I believe attributing that to COVID or the decline of Ssethtide has as much weight as simply staleness and player burnout. I think the reasons for the decline are multifaceted, but currently, the issue that's most approachable for player retention and growth is the game itself. That's what I focused on. Now, I don't think Paradise is dying, but players being driven away is precisely what I agree with. If the server continues in the way it is, that will be a long-term issue. Only time will tell what the consequences are.

Paradise Station has been having a declining playerbase since 2021 (figure 1) and I have some potential reasons why that could be. I'd like to make it known that these reasons aren't definitive and there can be a plethora of outside factors that led to the decrease. A wise man once told me about bias and how notable experiences can manipulate our perception. However, I think those experiences can still hold value and those who relate can gain some sort of incite. I believe a stagnation of roleplay and staff conduct played some part in the decline. Roleplay Going off the definition of roleplay provided by the Paradise wiki, it describes roleplay as playing a character in a story (A Crash Course on Roleplaying, What is Roleplay?). I think talking and interacting with other players and the environment is integral to roleplay and the development of a story. Based on these terms, roleplay is lacking on Paradise. Mainly, roleplay around conflict is limited by antag vs sec dynamics, and roleplay between crew is neglected for mechanics. Currently, Advanced Rule 8 on valid-hunting states that they try to balance things around Security when dealing with antags (Advanced Rules, Rule 8). In conjunction, Rule 6 on antag conduct restricts what antags can do to their objectives (Aligote, Admins and Antag Conduct), while staff rulings restrict crew to calling sec and shoving to save others from antags (Aligote, Self Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law). Taken together, the rules are explicitly enforcing a dynamic of sec vs antags. What this means is that roleplay between crew, sec, and antags is heavily limited. Antags can't do gimmicks or substantially interact with crew outside their objectives, while crew can't directly interact with antags outside calling security and shoving ineffectually. This also means there aren’t choices or branching experiences, just the same protocol for a situation. There's no fear RP surrounding their presence, there's no RP when they attack, and there's no RP watching them fight security. The situation has gotten so bad, exfiltration is being discussed to allow antags who finished their objectives to just leave the round, because antags wouldn’t add to the round after they completed their objectives (Pollard, Discord). The idea of balance has also been pinned to this sec vs antag dynamic, leading to a warped view of “balance” and “fairness” that discourages intuition in favor of repeating the same experiences. It should be noted that there are other conflicts the crew can engage in. There are antags like Nukies, Terror Spiders, Blob, Demons, Xenos, and Wizards; and there are PvE mobs like space carp, giant spiders, and sentient vending machines. However, those are obviously not roleplay-oriented. External threats are all designed to kill and hold no quarter, even wizard’s antag guidelines discourage friendliness or talking by both sides (Antag Policy, Wizards). Funnily enough, even external threats like cultists are affected by the antag vs sec dynamic, with antag guidelines instructing crew to prioritize running away or calling security when spotting cultists before ascension (Antag Policy, Cultists). These threats could have a de-roleplaying effect on the round as well, I remember a round where there was a test-merge for xenobiology organ surgery and I wanted to roleplay as an interested assistant. However, a wizard spawned and the scientist at reception brushed me aside to make gun kits. This isn’t a critique of these sorts of threats, I’d take them over the ones restricted to sec, but it must be stated that the antags limited by the sec vs antag dynamic should be the ones most capable of roleplay and they aren’t doing well. On the other hand, roleplay is heavily limited among the crew in general. There is a higher focus on doing your job (mechanics) than roleplaying. Drawing from my experiences playing assistant, people would try to limit discussion as much as possible to return to their duties, with no emergency in sight. This could be because of genuine assistant resentment, which seems fairly prevalent among players and staff since 2021, these sentiments usually demand assistants replace their role with another job in order to involve themselves with other crew (Landerlow, Remove/modify paycheck for the assistant job)(Abydos, Am I wrong to want people…out of my workplace?). Which is concerning because assistants are the most common job rolled (Warriorstar, Github) and are considered one of the most able to roleplay by Paradise’s wiki (Assistant, Intro). Encouraging assistants to give up their roleplaying capacity and gimmicks for “real jobs” is a visible viewpoint in-game, and likely is an indicator to what many players prioritize. A focus on jobs (mechanics) isn’t a problem unique to Paradise, but it is a current that, paired with a focus on sec vs antag conflict, leads to baffling experiences. A primary example that comes to mind is when I tried to roleplay getting hazard pay after helping defeat a terror spider prince, command staff just brushed me aside and directed me to the ERT. I tried to roleplay with the ERT and they just walked away to hunt vampires while I was typing, threatening me when I tried to continue the conversation. Staff Conduct In general, staff seem to have lagged behind in community engagement. In particular, staff enforce this faulty structure for roleplay and haven’t been able to address its issues for a long time. This has led to an environment of fear over inconsistent and restrictive admin enforcement, discouraging creativity and roleplay. The last community meeting was in 2023 (Landerlow, discord). On October 30th, 2024, there was the community survey (Dsdiy, discord). The last time a community meeting was mentioned was on April 2, 2025 (Dsdiy, discord), two months since posting. On another note, responses to admin complaints have been a burgeoning issue, with responses taking around a month or more. This issue has been raised with staff recently; however, some admin complaints continue to get responses 2 weeks or a month later. As the main avenue for inconsistent admin rulings to be addressed, it has performed poorly. I want to state that I’m not insulting staff for being late; I know they are volunteers and busy. I’m a wiki contributor and I will never get the time spent updating armor graphs back. However, as head staff have said themselves, it is an issue and if staff do not have the time to carry out their duties, there is no shame in delegating responsibility to someone who does have the time. And there are definitely people who have the time, SOP has consistently been updated along with other additions, but major issues like this and roleplay seem to be ignored, and I may know why. Ok, so let’s say there is a base and a superstructure. The base consists of what makes the server what it is; the superstructure involves everything else about the server, and they influence each other. I believe what makes a server are its Rules and mechanics, they dictate how people act and play in-game and make up the base. Everything else, such as the player base, attitudes, and staff, is the superstructure; they can influence the rules and mechanics, but the base shapes the superstructure more. I believe the base, which incentivizes a sec vs antag dynamic, has created a grouping of players that enjoy security and wish to preserve its current state. This group of players in the superstructure is more likely to be involved and become staff members who are incentivized to not change the base too dramatically. In 2025, the second most played role after assistants is security officer, and that rubs off on staff attitudes and attitudes in general. In the context of all this, since August 2023, an issue was known that in order to uphold sec vs antag balance, the defense of a coworker was limited to shoving and other restrictions. However, this was not stated or based on the rules, but likely Space Law (Aligote, Self Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law). As a result, admin enforcement and judgment around valid hunting have been notoriously inconsistent and restrictive. Head Staff knew of this issue for two years, stated they would address it, but haven’t. Despite leaving things ambiguous, that does not mean liberating. Because of how the entire system is set up with a general tendency towards enforcement, be it substandard admin complaint procedure, focus on “balance”, or contradicting rulesets/direction, enforcement on ambiguous matters are sometimes the most inconsistent and restrictive. Conclusion Recently, forum activity has been filled with discussion of balance. Since May, there have been Admin complaints, appeals, and entire discussions about balance. In general, Admin enforcement of “balance” has lent itself to admin micromanagement, inconsistency, and frustration, as most admin complaints are consistently backlogged. On that same note, general attitudes influence admins back to reinforce that behavior, shunning interesting opportunities for a dysfunctional, eldritch view of “fairness”. Alongside other baffling things I noticed, people seem to be acting like Oblivian NPCs when they spot a xeno bursting (ajc007007, Riddle me this:...(Accidental xeno round)), I felt like I should analyse and explain everything I’ve seen. To make something clear, I’m not trying to turn Paradise into something it isn’t; I’m basing every critique on statements Paradise makes about itself and from what I’ve experienced in the past. From my few years playing and contributing, watching who stays and who leaves, what’s upheld and what’s neglected, I think my perspective holds value. Many of my points aren't novel; players have known about issues with sec vs antag balance for years, and the fact that it hasn't been addressed is an issue. Aside from the short-term crisis of the DDOS, I believe there is a long-term crisis facing general player appeal for Paradise. There are many things going for Paradise; it has an active wiki team, lore team, Github contributors, and staff. The host dealt with the initial DDOS attack in around a day, and contributors just TMed a new PvE event that spawns in demons and megafauna (Pollard, Github). However, all of this would be for naught if the core gameplay and roleplay are still lacking and stale. The solution would have to lie with the players and staff reevaluating their perspectives about the game and broaching the issue. Staff should improve engagement with the wider player base, such as community meetings and admin complaints, while also dealing with key features of the “round cycle”, with roleplay and combat in the perfect blend. Figure 1: Note: The dip is obviously from the recent DDOS attack.

Fun is a subjective term, and there has been a decreasing amount of players ever since 2021, I think we need to address reasons why that's the case. This idea that it's just "part of Paradise" is what I'm critiquing, neglect of roleplay in order to balance combat is not a natural phenomenon. It needs to be stated, every other medium roleplay server does not explicitly state that they balance combat around security and antags. The way Paradise rounds currently operate isn't natural, it's the result of administrative enforcement like any other server. For instance, the crew are limited in how they can respond to antags, if a crewmember spots an antagonist attacking another crewmember, they are expected to radio security and only assist by shoving (Aligote,Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law). Likewise, antags are limited by their objectives (Aligote, Admins and Antag conduct), while security is limited to Space Law. All these are examples of staff enforcement of sec vs antag balance. Crew can't directly affect antags and antags can't really affect anyone outside their objectives, limiting roleplay options. Paradise doesn't pride itself as a combat system with roleplay seperate from it, it prides itself as the perfect blend of roleplay and combat. It ironic how this statement claims that roleplay shouldn't be enforced, when the main issue is sec vs antag balance being enforced; the solution would mainly be removing restrictions. Also, Paradise already enforces roleplay standards with Rule 2, and other servers already have ways for antags to nurture roleplay. Some servers have escalation policies that incentivize antags and non-antags creating and escalating situations of conflict (Grinkdaboy,escalation). Virtually all other servers also allow antag gimmicks, unlike Paradise. Again, Paradise prides itself as the perfect blend of roleplay and combat, perhaps we can analyze where it falls short of that statement and adjust correctly

I think a forest is being missed through the trees. Looking over the discussion so far, the main topic of vampire balance seems to be vampire balance against security. Now I understand it's because that's the general framework Paradise determines balance with, the Rules themselves state, "If you want to hunt antags, then there is an entire Department for that: Security. We attempt to balance things around Security and their Rules of Engagement and equipment." However, the majority of players during a round still deserve mention. How does the crew fair against vampires? Well, pretty awfully. Crew are very easily stunned, de-radioed, and snatched into maints. The worst part is that's generally accepted as a core feature for a vampire's survival during a round, including by staff. For the sake of "balance", vampires "need" stuns to be able to catch prey in the first 15 minutes so they don't starve. That's what I find so weird about discussions of balance, rather than discussing the impact of things in terms of the broader playerbase, it boils down to how it affect antags and security, leading to conclusions that aren't great for anyone involved. Stuns are accepted because they allow vampires to catch prey and are counterable by security, crewmember just have to deal with it because "losing is part of the game". I think a better question to ask is how do vampire currently affect roleplay? Well, vampires will starve if they don't get blood and are pressured to get blood, discouraging roleplay early in the round. The victims of vampires aren't really experiencing roleplay. And Security doesn't roleplay with vampires. This leads to most rounds being security and vampires playing pac-man in maints while some crewmembers are picked off in the process, with no real benefit to anyone. Nobody is getting an interesting story or experience in a situation like this. All the issues of low sec pop are just symptoms of the fact that balance focusing on antags and security, with a disregard to roleplay, is a flawed concept.

Did they actually roleplay as Oblivian guards and say "must've been the wind" or did they just forget about you?

Material Analysis of Laxis Adrax Space Stations Laxis Adrax, also known as Lavaland, is one of the formost planets claimed by Nanotrasen, the biggest Megacorporation of the 26th century. Rich in resources like Plasma, it's also placed in bluespace rich space. As a result, it has become one of Nanotrasen's crown jewels in Epsilon Eridani and the Orion sector at large. Since acquiring Lavaland from the now-defunct Althland Mining Company. Nanotrasen has developed several Space Stations to orbit the planet, with the same focus on bluespace research and resource extraction. The role of these space stations and their crew will be analysed in the wider context of the sector and history. The issues and potential solutions will be discussed as well. The Station and Crew Nanotrasen's Space Stations include the NSS Cyberiad, NSS Farrugus, and NSS Cerebron. Due to their proximity to sources of plasma and bluespace, the economics of these stations involve exporting hefty amounts of these materials along with other metals. Bluespace research comes in a less direct form; rather than direct research on bluespace, the application of ready-tested bluespace technology is used by the crew. In a sense, the crew are guinea pigs to the effects of bluespace and bluespace technology. A good example is the development of the Bluespace Harvester, despite being developed outside the Stations, these stations will be the first to experiment with the technology once its completed. Other activities the stations partake in are secondary objectives. These objectives involve exporting products to Central Command for various reasons, but they are optional for the crew and serve a lesser purpose. In its wider context, it must be mentioned that Lavaland is inhabited by a group of Unathi settlers, colloquially called ashwalkers. They are the indigenous people of Lavaland and have been undergoing a conflict with outsiders ever since mining operations began. There have been accounts of miners attacking and destroying ashwalker nests, no doubt a crime against sentient life. To coincide with this, Lavaland is located in the Epsilon Eridani sector, a buffer region that divides the TSF from the USSP. Discovery of Epsilon Eridani began after the Cygni Rebellion of 2443; TSF made sure to expand its grasp over space to ensure the USSP didnt get to them first. In a sense, Nanotrasen's ownership of Epsilon Eridani is to prevent USSP presence in the region. In a sense, the stations of Lavaland serve political goals of empire, rather than just economic ends. Issues and Solutions The crew are both victims and perpetrators of a great evil that these stations perpetuate. Back in the TSF or other entities in the Orion sector, economic hardship pushed many to work for Nanotrasen and these space stations. As a result, they work to produce great wealth in terms of materials and knowledge for Nanotrasen and receive scraps in return. Most crew receive a paycheck of 400 credits a shift, which is below the living wage in Mars and forces many of the crew to become reliant on nanotrason for basic housing and food. In comparison, the money given to department funds outclasses crew compensation by hundreds, and it's not an investment. That money came from the value created by the crew's labor, and it's diversion to "funds" is mearly a way for NT to reincorporate that money into themselves; the same can be said for EFTPOS transactions that Nanotrasen encourages amongst the crew, where 50% of all credits transacted go back to them. To coincide with this, these stations are prime targets for Nanotrasen's enemies in corporate warfare, which they partake in equally or more so. Despite the Syndicate's perception as pirates or loosely connected criminals, the few investigations done by the TSF always reveal men in suits rather than bandanas. The crew is placed in a dangerous environment, is scrapped of their worth, and is mistreated by those meant to protect them. Contrary to security's namesake, Security is most involved with attacking the crew rather than enemies of the corporation. One of the foremost crimes in space law is "rioting", described as an unauthorized or disruptive assembly. This crime is most often used against union activity and strikes, which security gleefully destroys and abuses the crew over. Security does not see themselves as crew, they see themselves as machines who, as the few given a living wage, will fight against the crew's interest. The crew can't even own weaponry to protect themselves in their dangerous environment, and are abused by security if they do. On the other hand, the crew is still complicit in Nanotrasen's efforts to destroy the ashwalkers and USSP expansion. As the foremost bodies of Nanotrasen oppression, they are placed in not just a physical ditch, but a moral one as well. Ultimately, there is only one true solution to this problem. The crew must find some way to change masters of the station. The USSP is the prime candidate. Based on their track record, the USSP has been at the forefront in the liberation of oppressed peoples. Examples such as their allegiance to the New Caananites and Vulpkanin support this fact. Contrary to both the TSF and Nanotrasen, who have destroyed people like the Kidan and Tajarans, the USSP uplifts those they come across. If the USSP ruled the stations, ownership would be given to the crew and compensation would be based on value created rather than value left after theft. Conclusion The times we live in are interesting, and although the true solutions seem far and unobtainable, we must understand our place in the galaxy and keep fighting for its partial realization. We must fight for just compensation, fight for crew unity, and fight for our souls against the destruction of the ashwalkers and every people against Nanotrasen's oppression.

Hi, so this forum thread was moved to suggestions by my request. Anyways, something else I noticed when playing again is how the current rigid system doesn't work well in various circumstances. For instance, I was playing a disaster round with a blob; during the chaos, I saw someone being murdered by a syndicate agent. All of Sec was essentially dead, and being forced to shove to save this crewmember and most likely dieing isn't intuitive in this situation. This belief that you should always shove and let Security respond doesn't work well for roleplay and variety. In the discord announcement from April, Paradise suggests to, "please be open-minded and remember this game runs 24/7, with all kinds of rounds, all kinds of people, and all kinds of stories being told and experiences being played out." (Warriorstar, Discord), which emphasizes how there are many circumstances that can develop. Something I realized is that the current escalation/validhunting guidelines are based on very stringent conditions that goes against the spirit of that statement. So, again, I hope this issue is addressed. I know staff are busy on other things but I believe this is something the community should keep in mind.

That is fine, your words have been removed.

Back in January, there was an announcement and poll on the introduction of more PvE oriented rounds into the game (Dsdiy, discord). As the community meeting seems to near with every survey, a major issue should be on conflict balance and how it affects roleplay. Despite discussions of moving away from PvP, its shortcomings should be analyzed for more comprehensive solutions to be proposed. Now, a major proponent of conflict balance are the antags, and what they do is crucial to the roleplay experience. However, by looking through the rules, admin statements, and admin conduct revolving around antag conduct and conflict, there is a clear lack of roleplay capacity for antags and conflict on Paradise. The Rules The Rules are the main authority on Antag conduct that both admins and players use to base their actions. A major factor for the current state of conflict and roleplay is because of how the rules are written. According to the main rules, "Remember the goal of an Antagonist is to make the round exciting, fun, and dangerous, within limits. You should make an effort to add to the round, as opposed to simply completing your objectives and carrying on normally."(Rules, Rule 6). This seems to align well with what Advanced Rules state in how "the primary purpose of this Rule is to stop antags 'murderboning'”(Advanced Rules, Rule 6). The implication is that there is some alternative to completing antagonist objectives that allows antagonists to add roleplay value to the round; that these rules merely prevent excessive killing. However, the Main Rules elaborate that "you must work towards your objectives, not general mayhem."(Rules, Rule 6), which every other source of authority pins policies onto. For instance, Advanced Rules directly states restrictions against stealing high risk items, pre-emptively killing sec, subverting the AI, using low collateral bombs, or sabotaging telecomms unless they directly align with objectives(Advanced rules, Rule 6). Antag Policy reaffirms this statement multiple times in their own policies, such as how changelings are only allowed to use absorption in order to accomplish their objectives(Antag Policy, Changelings). There is a clear statement here that despite the initial remark against completing objectives and neglecting roleplay, antags are straightjacketed into focusing on their objectives only. The rules state its intent is to prevent excessive murder, however, their definition of excessive is also misleading. For instance, the Advanced rules state that, "It is permitted for antags to kill witnesses to stop themselves being caught. This must be immediately a problem. Killing someone in case they witness a potential future action is not ok."(Advanced Rules, Rule 6). Which states that killing potential witnesses is restricted until they turn into a witness and become a threat to your objectives. This is a far more stringent condition than killing a person entirely unrelated to your objectives. Along with other restrictions like those against killing security, the logical conclusion is that excessive murder is any murder unrelated to objectives. Moreover, harm unrelated to objectives is not allowed. Admin Statements This interpretation of the rules is demonstrated in how staff respond and explain the matter to players. For instance, in two separate year old Discord discussions on Antag gimmicks and Antag killing unrelated to objectives, both admin responses stressed the need to align actions with objectives and to ahelp for clarification or permission(Meow19,discord)(Gatchapod,discord). It's important to clarify that these admins are retired but their statements are still supplementary information. It is how admins interpreted the rules on this topic a year ago and with the lack of opposing information, seems to be consistent. Less dated and more concrete statements that support this interpretation can also be found in ban appeals. Additionaly, there is a visible trend of demanding certain behavior that restricts conflict and roleplay. In an antag ban appeal from August 2024, the stated ban reason was mainly for excessive violence and trying to fish for sec fights after completing objectives. The appellee explained how they were being chased by sec as a changeling in the shuttle and resorted to lethal force when cornered(Damian,Antag banned by dearmochi). In response, the admin stated, "regarding the fight on the shuttle...I'm simply confused as to why you were staying in the shuttle's medical area in full view of the brig area ... In my view, you were cloaked and had an entire shuttle to hide in (or simply an escape pod) but opted to stay in the medical area and pick fights with security which was not giving chase by that point, only attacking you when you were in full view of them."(Dearmochi,Antag banned by dearmochi). Which openly implies that antags must conciously evade confrontation if it doesn't perfectly align with their goals; that antagonists must act a certain way to minimize "excess" harm, to the point they must evade security, take a pod, or hide. Statements like this should be clear in how they affect roleplay, they punish interaction and instill fear for interaction. Admin Conduct This trend in admin oversight can be seen carried over to antag interactions in general. In another ban appeal from August 2024, the stated ban reason was for attacking a changeling that wasn't posing a threat(Withereal, Ban appeal for Witherael). The appellee explained how they suspected a coworker was a changeling for letting them die and hit the changeling with a hatchet before getting awarned. Then, when they got trapped together in botany later on, the appellee radioed to sec for help and resorted to self-defense when the changeling attempted to kill them(Withereal, Ban appeal for Witherael). The admin's stance was, "Though it is fine to call Security on an antagonist you've witnessed, it would be best to do so out of their reach because you are giving them a valid reason to silence you. By calling them out in front of them you are putting them in this awkward spot where they have to silence you which would push you to attack back, though not in a last resort kind of self defence."(Dearmochi,Ban appeal for Witherael). Which has an implication similarly imposed on antagonists. Crewmembers are forced to act in a very certain way that has to abide by stringent interpretations of validhunting rules by not just calling sec, but calling sec while not provoking the antagonist, even when trapped with them. These decisions punish conflict, they punish interaction, they ultimately punish roleplay. The appellee made a great statement on this particular topic: Conclusion The current system of antagonist, sec, and crew interactions is flawed. Roleplay suffers as a result of the Rules and how it's implemented by admins. The Rules over Antag conduct encourage doing objectives and neglecting roleplay because there are no permittable Antag alternatives to objectives. Additionally, even if a minority of admins work like described here, the possibility you can be punished like this seems to be a reason roleplay continues to suffer. On another note, this seems to be a conceptual issue that a shift to PvE wouldn't fix. The burgeoning issues with rules and admin oversight will only continue until they are addressed. Finally, I want to state that this is a resolvable issue; every SS13 server has rules like this with their own ways of addressing roleplay. It's just a matter of acknowledging the problem and working on it.

Now, there was newly acquired information given to me months ago that I should've posted here. It had to do with defending others in terms of location, like whether the incident occurred in an unrelated department. Before I inquired, this was the position I stated in the thread. So, after talking with a Head staff, they stated that trespassing does matter as well. There is leeway but the general rule of thumb is to not defend coworkers in another department if you witness them being attacked. So, here is the current state of my understanding on this topic. My Understanding I believe the contradictions and solutions discussed in my initial post(please read if new to thread) still hold true with this new info. Regarding contradictions, something new I noticed is that both provisions on reasonable force and trespassing are referenced in Space Law's self-defense description. However, I noticed the description also states, "beating someone while they're down should be considered Assault unless the defender's life was in danger.", which contradicts the Rules own statement on this topic, "hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense." It's just unfortunate that this situation is allowed to continue and sow confusion because Space Law seems to be the connection between all these unknown Rules limitations, but also seems to openly contradict the Rules. There's also always new discord conversations on what's allowed and new limitations constantly appear, statements such as that post against cuffing and also statements against going into maints. I've read some ban appeals and don't plan to again for my own sake, but I've read posts allowing chasing into maints to save others; maint doors aren't an invisible wall. On the other hand, I have read cuffing being noted as a compounding factor for a validhunting/self-antag ban, but blanket statements against cuffing irrespective of intent seems questionable. Irrespective of the validity of these constantly growing limitations, confusion from them will only continue unless the core issue is addressed and communicated properly. Regarding solutions, trespassing is now just another factor to address. I most prefer my initial proposal to follow a "face value" interpretation of the rules that mainly focuses on intent, irrespective of reasonable force and now trespassing. The ability to escalate to lethal force if responded to lethally when saving someone is still a major point of discussion if it's decided that provisions on reasonable force and disarming should be followed. The limitation against saving others in another department is also up for debate now, I personally believe there shouldn't.

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. Don't worry about posting out of place, in fact, this thread wants admin input. Anyways, I believe your opinion/suggestion aligns well with one of my suggestions in the "Proposed Solutions" section of my first post. A very important point you brought up is the potential lack of consensus among staff on this issue. Especially because I have seen recent discord conversations of staff members discussing this topic and asserting that their interpretation aligns with headmin rulings. In particular, I found this discussion; Some posts have been cut but this was the general thread of the conversation. This topic of admin inconsistency is extremely important because, as shown by the previous discussion, some staff are telling others that headmins and staff have a set policy on this issue. This stance, even addressed in the discord conversation, would still be an issue because the public still doesn't know it, which adds to the eggshell mentality you brought up. Like, I didn't even think about cuffing apparently being prohibited, these compounding interpretations will only continue to sow confusion, doubt, and frustration until the core issue is openly addressed. Now the end of this discord conversation implied that this issue would be addressed, but this was from February and the issue still seems to be there. Now, I want to say again, I understand why this topic of self-defense and Valid-Hunting got in this condition. But something I have realized is that, from playing other SS13 servers, this is a uniquely Paradise issue, there isn't any other server I know that connects Validhunting and self-defense to provisions in Space Law. I have noticed this reductive framing by staff, where they simplify their interpretations of defending others by saying, "you can defend others, you just can't kill or cave the attacker's head in". Which just hides the real RP and gameplay implications of being superficially restricted to disarming. It affects your round experience greatly, I remember being saved by someone doing everything they can to stop my attacker, hitting them with a fire extinguisher and all, that experience still sticks with me. So yeah, I believe we hold common ground on this issue. I may have a more bleak view of the topic.

Hi, it's been more than 10 months since the last post to this thread. There was IRL stuff that came up and I didn't have time to return to this or Paradise in general. However, some very timely factors such as the admin inconsistency form have convinced me to finish this thread. I have used that form and I hope admins won't misinterpret me posting on this thread as trying to get their attention, they serve different purposes. This thread was meant to be a discussion amongst other players. The issue still seems to be relevent and there was some information I had gotten that should've been posted here but I didn't have time to. However, before I post that information, I would feel bad if I didn't respond to the last post. The new information doesn't affect the discussion around the points made by @Teebonesnek so I will do that first: The issue with this point is that in the current framework we're working with, you are allowed to disarm until you're killed, which I believe is worse than being allowed to lethally retaliate. Either way, you're able to lay down your life, the current framework makes it more nonsensical. The second sentence about difficulties in proving innocence also confuses me because the rules already allow players to defend themselves lethally if attacked, scenerios where antags get put into crit and die are already handled in game through roleplay; interacting with sec and getting players to corroborate what happened is roleplay. These points especially confuse me because I don't understand why roleplay/realism should justify hindering "fun" to this degree. To explain, in Rule 4 its states, Similar to this vein, realism or "it's what they would do" to let your friend die and get dragged into maint while you run away doesn't make sense to me because it's not fun for anyone, not even really the antagonist. I understand "fun" is a subjective term but.....if you enjoy abandoning people you're roleplaying with every time they're attacked, I believe you're in the minority. Roleplay and realism should be enablers of fun interactions, not justifications to inhibit them. Paradise presents itself as a medium roleplay server with the perfect blend of roleplay and action. However, it has the worst of both worlds in this situation where you have to shove until you're killed to save someone, which makes no sense roleplay-wise and isn't great engagement-wise either. To be clear, roleplay justifications against certain behavior do have value, but there are limits, especially with how the current rules framework DOES allow you to defend others by shoving until your killed. These arguments of realism/roleplay are difficult because they're highly subjective as well, like why wouldn't I try to defend a close coworker with all I've got? That's also sort of the point with roleplay, there's supposed to be multiple branching options to handle a situation. It's just confusing to try and justify a policy that hinders engagement, hinders roleplay, by bringing up realism in a Medium roleplay server thats suppose to balance both. A general issue with this point is that I don't like the endgoal that is supported in it. I don't support a paradigm of security vs antagonist, the server is suppose to be a balance between action and roleplay, action shouldnt be completely reserved for a minority. I don't believe the rules support this either, Validhunting rules and precedents state that you can defend yourself, defend others, and even interfere with antagonists, just not in way where you're hunting for ways to kill antags. By design, the crew should have a role in this system. The argument that there is a fundemental issue with the ability to use lethal force because it would justify both sides being lethal and change the dynamic of the game doesn't hold up because this entire issue is a COMMUNICATION ISSUE, many players didn't even know there was a difference between lethal and nonlethal ways to defend others, the dynamic has already been this way. There is no severe crew vs antag combat because the main factor is PURSUIT, the burden of responsibility is always the antagonist, they have the ability to leave the conflict at any time and the defending crew won't chase them because thats what's currently dictated in the Rules on Self Defense, none of my suggestions would change that. This view that antags should just be expected to execute you for intervening doesn't hold up, they have the freedom to leave if things go sour, your freind doesn't because they're being killed. I believe I have mostly responded to these points with my previous paragraphs. Even with the most restrictive parameters set, antags could still be swamped with crew trying to shove them against a wall, it's like this post was offering an even more restrictive proposal to only allow running away and preserving your own life. Again, this is a COMMUNICATION ISSUE, the dynamics aren't changed in the ways presented here. The current system is that people don't know the difference between lethal and nonlethal as defined by "Self Defense" in Space Law when they defend other crew from antags, that is the issue.

Alright, it's added.

Greetings, I believe your idea is good. However, I would suggest just incorporating a step-by-step guide to setting up in the chemist wiki page. It may not be the best example, but a precedent is set in the botanist page if you want something to base it on. However, there are sentiments against making guides that just tell you what to do because some believe part of the fun of SS13 is exploring its mechanics, so I do suggest discussing it on the server's Discord Wiki Channel. They're very much open to ideas. Best of luck

It's cool that you have your own interpretation of valid hunting, but is this a suggestion of what you want it to be or how you mainly assume it is right now? Because right now, there is no evidence that I have found, where you have to account for this affair with a "staging area". If your intention is to save someone, I don't think you're disallowed from even shoving if the antagonist runs away WITH the victim, from the initial attack, that's written in... the Rules/Advanced Rules of self-defense. If this is a suggestion, my thoughts are that this restricts players even further than necessary. Remember, I initially had a gripe with having to use nonlethal force and being unable to escalate when escalated upon, this suggestion grants the former and also forces players to leave their coworkers behind if the attacker runs away with the victim out of the bar where they attacked.

It's good that you said that because after all, the first sentence of Space Law's Self Defense note is: I also made a hyperlink error, but in my first Admin Complaint (correctly hyperlinked), staff did argue against me following into the bridge after the abductor as well. However, in the same complaint, I was informed I could've tried disarming the abductor. I did ask about disarming in another department and if lethal measures are ever allowed to defend coworkers in my discussions with a head of staff. To my understanding, it seems like a blanket measure and players are generally restricted to disarming in most circumstances, regardless of whether they are in a public area or not. My understanding could be flawed and staff clarification could help but that's my perception as it stands. Perhaps I'll ask about it later IDK.

I understand that's the concern but I do not believe the line of logic is sound. If you intend to save someone, if you meet an antagonist's level of force after they start coming after you, your intention can still be to defend yourself and your coworker. The attacker can still run away because your intention isn't to valid hunt. Objecting against substantially fighting back against an antagonist killing your coworkers, killing YOU, out of fear it can be seen as valid hunting when the antagonist is the one who initiates the conflict, I cannot support that. This can't be simplified as an attacker giving a warning shot and the player using it as an underhanded excuse to valid hunt, this is a broader approach that affects how antagonists could murder whoever they want without substantial resistance, because of an unwarranted fear.

I tried to edit in a hyperlink directing towards Space Law's Modifiers and Special Situations section, but the forums keep freezing. I'm just gonna post to be thorough. Read the above post before going to conclusions. Space Law's Modifiers and Special Situations

Hi, I felt I should discuss this topic since I think more people should know about and engage with it. I'd also like to preface that I will reference some of my past complaints for context, but the discussion shouldn't be about me complaining. The framework of this topic was the result of extensive "research", but I shouldn't be taken as an authority on valid hunting or whatnot. "My Understanding" is just that and should be taken with a grain of salt, the only definitive authority should be any appropriate staff responses, if there are any, I suppose. My Understanding Contradictions (For ME) Proposed Solutions

As some know, there has been substantial progress made by the lore team recently. As a result, some discussion has started of lore team applications being reopened. I also know some people who are interested in writing lore, although I can't speak for them on whether they're interested. So I'm wondering, what are your guys' thoughts on lore applications opening or not?

Remember Warriorstar's videos? It could be Paradiso's Archangles

Loss in Space

Space Rights

The Modern Comedian