[Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law]

3 hours ago, Pckables said:

It's a bit of a scale of how annoying it is.
I'd say disarming can definitely still be validhunting, but it depends on how far it goes. Few antags are going to care if someone that was already nearby disarms them a few times during an attack. It's expected in-fact.
But whats not expected is an angry mob of assistants chasing them down the hallways and maintenance.

I think of this being the core:
-The general area around where the crime takes place is the staging area, and you are non-security.
-Any non-security already at the staging area at the time of the crime can be non-lethally involved, as long as it stays in the staging area.
-Once one of the three parties (the antag, the victim, or you) leaves the staging area, you lose the right to get involved further.

Secondary notes:
First priority is removing the victim (or yourself if it's you) from the area, and not staying longer than you should.
Taking note of the above, this should not take very long as if the antag is in control, they should be able to leave the area quite quickly. If they haven't, then the victim is likely just as easy for you to run away with.

   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.

On 4/13/2024 at 9:43 PM, Aligote said:

Rule 8 Clarification: Self Defense

   This doesn't mean people shouldn’t defend against, or even not interfere with antags. The key words here are "hunting" and "valid". Non-Security should not be hunting for antags. Nor should people be looking specifically for situations where it is "valid" to kill someone.
   A good rule of thumb is that you can defend yourself and co-workers, but if the antag runs away, you shouldn’t be chasing them down - once they run you've succeeded in defending them. If you're not Security, you should be more concerned with the victim than the antag - don't give chase to them after they've been saved. If someone is kidnapped, chasing them should be with a goal of rescue. Once you've rescued the person, Security can apprehend the criminal, not a vigilante.

   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.

[Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law]

13 hours ago, Pckables said:

I mean I imagine it kinda revolved around "Public areas."

In public areas, antagonists are the one being scrutinized. Going loud in a populated, public area for extended periods of time trends towards murderboning or baiting towards it, and nearby people are often going to be involved.

In non-public areas however (especially ones you're not supposed to have access to), the civilian is under scrutiny. You have very little reason to be there, and less to try to jump in front of a stranger's gun.

It's good that you said that because after all, the first sentence of Space Law's Self Defense note is:

Quote

Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence.

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.

[Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law]

2 hours ago, Daeodon said:

"I don't believe it's sound judgement to object against players responding lethally to an antagonist killing them, becuase the defender was initally helping someone else."

^ Main issue here is that applied to everyone, people would just take this as an excuse to validhunt, just with the added step of "spam-shove them until they retaliate first". It'd be really easy to attempt to press an antag into attacking you and then just stab them to death when they give you a warning shot.

   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.

[Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law]

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

[Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law]

   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

Spoiler

Rules for Self-Defense and Valid Hunting state that:

Spoiler

Assault and Self-Defense
   Murder is not acceptable for non-antags. Killing should only be done in extreme self-defense, during an authorized execution, or in any situation Security can employ lethal force. If you wish to murder, or at least seriously injure, someone, Administrator permission is required;
   Violence capable of inflicting serious damage to someone, especially anything that places them into a critical state, is reserved for Antagonists. Outside Self-Defense, this kind of violence is not permitted;
Self-defense is allowed to the extent of saving your own life. Putting someone into Critical Condition is considered self-defense only if they attempted to severely hurt/kill you. Preemptively disabling someone, responding with disproportionate force, or hitting someone while they are already down, is not self-defense;
   Minor assault and fistfights are acceptable, assuming that both players have a reasonable justification as to why the fight started. Assault without any provocation or warning is strictly disallowed under a majority of circumstances.

Spoiler

Rule 8: Validhunting
   It is only the job of Security to stop Antagonists. If you are not a member of Security, then hunting Antagonists is not something you should be doing. You may not drop your job, or go out of your way, to hunt Antagonists. You may, however, defend yourself or others from Antagonist attack if you happen to witness it;
   Xenobiology/Sentient Animals: any form of non-antagonist Sentient Animals must both AHELP and Acquire Permission from the Head of Security and Captain before assisting with Security matters. You are allowed to defend yourself if either your master or yourself are attacked, but all validhunting Rules still apply unless you have been given express permission by both IC Command and online Admins.
   Antagonists that seek to destroy the station itself (Blob, Nuclear Operatives, Malfunctioning AI or Swarmers), or exterminate the whole crew (Xenomorphs or Wizards) are exempt from this Rule. However, players in jobs such as Medical, or Cargo, are expected to do those jobs if they are better suited to help the station;
   Evidence of Antagonist activity is required before you take steps to treat anyone as an Antagonist. For example, you may not force random people to drink holy water or randomly drag people into the Chapel

Advanced Rules also elaborate further:

Spoiler

Rule 8: Validhunting
   Intent: This Rule was specifically added when there was a pattern of people in Science arming to the teeth, then patrolling maint and looking for antags. Chaplains and Shaft Miners have also been a major problem here, but any role can be guilty of this.
   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. If everyone lynches antags as soon as discovered (especially with the tools available to Science, Engineering, Robotics, Lavaland loot/tools, etc), then the game is incredibly difficult for antags.
   This doesn't count against Blobs, Slaughter Demons, Nuclear Operatives, Sizards, Terror Spiders, Xenos, and Cultists summoning their god. It's expected the whole crew fights these!
We don't want a mentality where people are looking to "win" against the antags.
The Captain or the Head of Personnel cannot create a 'special role' that supersedes this Rule. An example being a Vampire Hunter job and it being filled by individuals who aren't members of Security. Command also cannot encourage the crew to validhunt in violation of this rule and members of Command who do may find themselves jobbanned from the role. If someone wants to act as a Security member, they should join Security.

Rule 8 Clarification: Self Defense

   This doesn't mean people shouldn’t defend against, or even not interfere with antags. The key words here are "hunting" and "valid". Non-Security should not be hunting for antags. Nor should people be looking specifically for situations where it is "valid" to kill someone.
   A good rule of thumb is that you can defend yourself and co-workers, but if the antag runs away, you shouldn’t be chasing them down - once they run you've succeeded in defending them. If you're not Security, you should be more concerned with the victim than the antag - don't give chase to them after they've been saved. If someone is kidnapped, chasing them should be with a goal of rescue. Once you've rescued the person, Security can apprehend the criminal, not a vigilante.

Rule 8 Precedents

   If an antag has previously assaulted/killed/etc you, there is some leeway to get revenge. Ahelping first is highly, highly, recommended.

   The point of interest here for this thread, is the topic of defending co-workers from antagonists. At face value, this should seem fairly simple, you can defend coworkers to the extent of trying to save them, and if the antagonist runs, you stop chasing as you intend to save, not valid-hunt. However, there is more to this general assumption.

   In Space Law's Modifiers and Special Situations, there is a situation called self-defense that states:

Spoiler

Self Defence:
   Acting to protect one's self, coworkers, or workplace.
   Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence. Self-defence typically involves attempts to disarm or disengage, beating someone while they're down should be considered Assault unless the defender's life was in danger.

   This DOES influence admin responses to valid hunting/self defense, as I believe it's how they interpret reasonable levels of force. To back up this claim, it was brought up in a Admin Complaint by me about a warning for validhunting, hitting a contractor with a meat cleaver to save the captain. However, there was more to that complaint and it mainly focused on my intention to validhunt and other actions I took that insinuated my valid-hunting intentions.

   That's why I'm also bringing up my second Admin Complaint. There was lost context in that there was a QM I was closely affiliated with, who was being fatally attacked by the contractor before I hit the antagonist with a cleaver, along with other actions such as avoiding the contractor and helping the Captain/QM up afterwords. Ultimately, the final decision was fairly cut and dry, the parameters set by Self Defense' description in Space Law determined what I did as valid-hunting/vigilantism.

   Again, this isn't an extentuation of my gripes with a warning I got months ago, it's my current understanding of rulings on Self-Defense when I play. Of course, trying to understand this subject with only admin complaints might not be the best way to... understand. I also discussed with head staff on this.

   From what got out of my discussions, there are several important details:

Spoiler

• Nonlethal means are allowed to defend coworkers, presumable considered reasonable force. I believe punching would be allowed.
• This might be splitting hairs, but it was stated to me that it's allowed to use lethal force to slow antagonists immune to shoves, like hulks or antistuns, presumable reasonable force.
• Most important for me, I was informed by a head staff that they don't want players using nonlethal intervention as an excuse to use lethal force when an antagonist responds to their interventions, i.e., not lethally attacking when an antagonist lethally attacks you for nonlethally intervening.

 

Contradictions (For ME)

Spoiler

   I don't think restricting someone's escalation levels improves anything RP wise or mechanics wise. I believe the majority of people don't even know this influences their in-game conduct. For instance, I know #helpchat on discord can have misleading answers but it's still telling that none of the answerers understood the connection between Space Law and the Valid-hunting/Self-defense rules when I asked the question. The one admin answer I received, I would be told was mistaken by a head of staff. 
   I understand the reasoning behind these provisions, I just have trouble accepting that I can't do much for player's I'm roleplaying and trying to have a decent RP experience with, more than shove; this is compounded with not being able to escalate when I'm lethally attacked for trying to save them. I don't believe it's sound judgement to object against players responding lethally to an antagonist killing them, becuase the defender was initally helping someone else. It's also hard thinking about being the one attacked, and knowing that my potential saviors are limited to such an extent. Where's my chance to have an enjoyable RP experience in any case? I understand and accept the doctrine that you will have to lose in this game sometimes, I just believe this goes farther than that, I don't have a chance at all when there could definitely be one.
   I hope readers understand this isn't about just playing security, I don't ever want to play that, I just want to have some sort of "dignity" when I play. This isn't something you can really just avoid the consequences of, antagonists are an integral part of the game, playing will mean being in situations where you're saving or being saved by others, I think this thread's "issue" should be addressed. 
   There is always the solution of just, "if you don't like it, leave." Although that's true, I like this server enough to atleast try and offer my thoughts and words to, I believe, improve it.

Proposed Solutions

Spoiler

   In my complaints, I had brought up making additions to Rules to clarify the relationship with Space Law. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet because I don't like the current set up either way. Although I do believe the Rules should reference Space Law if they're going to use it to enforce statements from it, I'd much prefer alternatives to their current interpretation altogether.
   For instance, reasonable force would be interpreted as a matter of intention and what's already being stated in Rules, while Space Law's Self-Defense section would pertain to how security deals with those situations in game. Essentially, the main assumptions I referenced at face value in "My Understanding", not chasing and all that. This might mean circumstance like what I did with a cleaver would be fine.
   Another alternative would be to make the clarifications on how only nonlethal attempts are considered reasonable in most circumstance, accept the exceptions described in my discussions. BUT, allow for the ability to escalate back when lethally escalated against for intervention. I believe objecting to players responding in kind to being lethally attacked for intervening to save a coworker, is a very contentious point that I and I believe others disagree with.
   I also encourage readers to give their own thoughts and suggestions, clarifications too if staff are kind enough and I got something wrong or whatnot. I was advised to make this thread with regards to suggesting changes so please, do offer your thoughts. I'm glad I was able to get all of this off my chest and into this thread and hope it goes somewhere...good.

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

Alright, and will there be discussion with Matttheficus on how to approach situations like this in the future? 

On 12/8/2023 at 1:38 AM, Aligote said:

Later in the round, MattTheFicus admin messaged on why I chased an antag with a butcher cleaver as assistant. I explained that I was trying to save a coworker, the captain, from a visibly dangerous contractor who in the past, had abducted me a little beforehand. He then told me to explain how that wasn't the literal definition of validhunting. I elaborated that I only hit the contractor once, spent most of the time trying to save the QM afterward, and I apologized. Finally, he warned me to never do "it" again and to sign up for security if I want to fight antagonists.

Just to make sure, this was how they responded to the situation. Again, I had to find the relevant information by chance, skimming through Space Law because of the confusion this interaction left me. Do you think feedback can be given to improve their approach?

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

Hey, thanks for replying still.
I only referenced my connection to the QM in response to staff claims of my intentions to valid-hunt rather than save coworkers in need. Since my intentions are now beside the point, correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume the main reason for the current decision is breaking the rules for Self Defense and Vigilantism as described in Space Law's notes.

On 3/16/2024 at 1:21 PM, Qwertytoforty said:

I'll see if we can mention the self deference vs vigilantism in the advanced rules.

So, all I can say is besides my own opinions on Space Law's interpretations of Self-Defense (I don't like it), if it's going to be enforced like it is in my situation, I think it's fairly important to take action so other players don't have to deal with what I had to.

Now for questions, I didn't put feedback as one of the natures of this complaint but is there a chance Matttheficus (and others) can be informed to consider the current situation with Self Defense and Space Law when dealing with situations like mine?

On another note, can my note be edited to better fit with the present understanding of the situation if it's outdated in any way?

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

Hi, I am grateful that despite resolving the previous complaint, you all did take the time to address my new points.

For the placement of that clause in space law, my main concern wasn't just that it was at the bottom of Space Law, it's that it isn't properly addressed in the Rules either. It's fine to want people to read space law as a whole, but in the rules, only Captain and Security are encouraged to read Space Law to do their jobs better. There is a self-defense section in Advanced Rules for all players and it deeply concerns me that the precedents set in Space Law aren't present in that section, a link could even suffice. I think my concern is important because the faults you state I made with that clause is because I didn't know that clause existed and I'm not encouraged to know it.

Another important thing to consider is the final judgment of the previous complaint. I believe it stated that the main issue was because of my valid hunting intentions, that my use of a cleaver wasn't reasonable and that shoving in the bridge would've been acceptable. Defending the Quartermaster was not considered in the last complaint, although I wasn't in danger directly, I had a strong connection to the QM and he was being fatally attacked when I hit the contractor with the cleaver. 

Finally, I understand what I said and the actions I took before the incident. However, during the incident, I believe my actions should align with my understanding of self-defense at the time and should be addressed further. I was talking to the QM outside of Bridge, I ran into the Bridge when I saw the contractor Emaging in, I hit them once when they were fatally attacking the QM, I stayed back and helped the Captain/QM while the contractor was trying to retreat, and I brought the QM to Medbay afterward.

Again, I am grateful for you addressing my new complaint and hope this discussion is resolved.

[Thoughts on if Lore Team Applications were opened.]

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?

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

Admin(s) Key: @MattTheFicus 
Your ckey (Byond username):Aligote
Your Discord name (if applicable):Aligote

Date(s) of incident (GMT preferred): 7/31/23-12/6/23

ROUND ID:#36751

Nature of complaint: clarification required, misapplication of rules
Links to all relevant ban appeals for any bans related to this complaint: Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus

Brief description (tl;dr here. Just the critical elements):

I and a QM spotted a contractor emagging into the bridge with a vulnerable captain with no sec around. We ran into the Bridge and tried to save the captain and in doing so, I hit the contractor once with a butcher's cleaver while the contractor attacked the QM and aided the QM while the contractor was beating him up.  Later in the round, MattTheFicus admin messaged on why I chased an antag with a butcher cleaver as assistant. I explained that I was trying to save a coworker, the captain, from a visibly dangerous contractor who in the past, had abducted me a little beforehand. He then told me to explain how that wasn't the literal definition of validhunting. I elaborated that I only hit the contractor once, spent most of the time trying to save the QM afterward, and I apologized. Finally, he warned me to never do "it" again and to sign up for security if I want to fight antagonists.

I thought attempting to save a coworker from an antagonist isn't validhunting. I don't wish to rules lawyer because doing that would be to ignore the essence of the rules in favor of a minuscule technicality. But I thought the essence of validhunting is that it actively intrudes and obstructs antagonist's and security's abilities to function, where here, the antagonist was going loud on the captain in Bridge and security wasn't there. I acted with restraint and still got warned to not do "it" again. I wanted some clarification on these warnings and perhaps about their potential misapplication.

I made an admin complaint that handled the case's specifics and brought up the role of Space Law's Self-Defence notes in valid hunting judgments. A final ruling was made but important details were left out.

Full description of events:

The final ruling stated that the warning by Matt was regarding the use of a cleaver, how it was an unneeded use of force, and that the warning was justified. The ruling elaborated that my actions running from the bar to check on cargo solidified an intention for validhunting rather than the defense of a coworker. A major factor that wasn't addressed in the final judgment, was that I hit the contractor in an attempt to break up a lethal altercation they were having with the QM, who I was acquainted with. After which I spent I spent the rest of the altercation helping the captain/QM up. I don't believe how I handled the altercation itself was properly addressed in the resolution. It was a major point when interacting with Matt and throughout the complaint. It's also a major indicator of what my intentions really were rather than just the fact that I smacked the contractor with a cleaver.

Another major point of the resolution stated that the Self Defense notes in Space Law are to differentiate self-defense and vigilantism generally. A major concern throughout the complaint was the visibility of this seemingly important "clause", it is located at the bottom of the Space Law page in the Modifiers section, I didn't know of it until months after I made the complaint.

Quote

I will not be explaining exactly what examples we are going to put forward as they will be reinforcing what already exists in both space law and more importantly within the rules specifically under the valid hunting section.

I hope this statement from the resolution is addressing that concern.

Anyway, I want this to be resolved as quickly as possible as well. I don't want this to take up any unnecessary time. I understand a resolution was made but there were important factors that I believe should be addressed before doing so.

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

I think it's important that before you consider this resolved, one of the natures of this complaint is clarification. Clarification based on what is considered self-defense or valid hunting/vigilantism is exactly what I want as well. One last thing to address for this complaint is the extent to which you will clarify the valid hunting rules. Will the notes mentioned in Space Law's Self-Defense modifier and used here, be addressed in the valid hunting examples added in the future? Because these precedents are directly related to this incident and how Matt addressed it at the time.

[2023 TOOLBOX TOURNAMENT TEAM]

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

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

I appreciate and hope this action is followed through on. I hope the examples will address and clarify the precedents seemingly set by Space Law's self-defense notes. Although I know admins have freedom in judging valid hunting, players shouldn't be given misconceptions that are only adjusted after a warning or several. I thought I practiced self-defense as the contractor was running toward the Captain and putting him in danger, mainly focusing on the Captain/ QM as well. This situation has many implications that still confuse me and I look forward to the changes. This will be an appropriate time to clarify what sizards are as well.

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

My main concern is just that it seems the Space Law clause is the main reference to the other rulings. Using a meat cleaver instead of disarming is mentioned in it and following into the Bridge seems to be what the quote is referring to. Not to rules lawyer but if this ruling is final, I think there is a discrepancy between stating that this ruling is based on the Rules and not Space Law. I believe you should deeply reconsider and clarify the visibility of that self-defense clause in Space Law because I did not know of it before or after I was warned.

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

I see, what concerns me is if this is the final ruling, that what I did was valid hunting because it seemed like a premeditated attack, I'd still like clarification on the initial admin interaction and the previous ruling which both mainly focused on following the antag into Bridge. If it's not directly because I followed them into Bridge, I believe the self-defense clause of Space Law's Modifiers & Special Situations should be discussed and what its role in valid hunting judgments are.

In regards to trying to get involved with the antag, I had a strong connection to cargo and wanting their safety when I approached them. Besides that, getting involved instead of calling security can be because that was the better option to defend the captain during that situation. The antagonist had proved to be very successful and quick, while during the altercation, I still mainly regulated myself to helping the captain and QM. I believed my intentions were to defend a coworker, if the final ruling is because of my intention to valid hunt, I'd like clarification on the initial admin interaction, the previous ruling, and whether the warning/note I was given is appropriate.

 

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

I appreciate the response. In regard to the complaint, I'd still like clarification on the AI callout, how Mattheficus did his warning, and the clause on space law that seemed to be used in the past ruling. If this is a new ruling, I don't know if it was more about defending myself rather than defending the captain as a coworker. During the altercation, I hit the attacker once and spent most of the time trying to get the Captain/QM up or taking the QM to Medbay. When I told Mattheficus about these details, I wasn't informed of what I did wrong, not that I expected that, but even now I'm confused. I saw the contractor directly begin breaking into Bridge and didn't know the AI made a callout for Sec, I'd like specifics on that along with the previous ruling seemingly based on Space law.

[Shit People on Discord Says]

[Aligote's Ort]

Loss in Space

[Aligote's Ort]

Space Rights

[Aligote's Ort]

The Modern Comedian

[Aligote's Ort]

The End Goal

[Admin Complaint-MattTheFicus]

To better articulate myself. I'd still like further clarification if there may have been a misapplication of rules or perhaps something less serious. I know that admins have freedom in what they can do in the better interest of the server, but I still have concerns about the entire interaction. The entire interaction seemed like a banworthy offense if I hadn't explained myself further from what I thought to be an understandable first response. I stated that I thought I was defending someone, and instead of clarifying how it wasn't, I had to explain how it wasn't valid hunting. That's a hard question to answer if you think you just answered how it wasn't, more confusing when you're just warned to not do it again after you explained yourself further. The fact that the rule break also seems to center around a clause of space law just compounds that uncertainty.

[Assistant Raps]

Almost forgot about this. New song on wiki

Tide This Out

Don't want to write this down
I wanna say it while it's like this now so let me grab the tide
Don't want to write this down
I wanna say it while it's like this now so let me have the tide

♫I'm getting older and no longer the young pro♫
♫So ain't no new kid going to tell me I'm done for♫
♫And you ain't even worth it to tide to♫
♫Just thought I'd go and leave a little note to remind you♫
♫In case you wanna-♫
♫stir the pot up♫
♫Cause a little drama♫
♫You don't really want to battle♫
♫I'll do things you never thought of♫
♫And have never seen♫
♫You caught a line and became a fiend♫
♫My moves rhyme like amphetamine♫
♫You had a dream♫
♫The type to make you think you'd pull through♫
♫Who you think you are?♫
♫You ain't too big to sock two♫
♫I kick one, I grab the tide and I ride son♫
♫Try to share the soul laying low in my system♫
♫And say whatever it just don't-♫
♫matter anymore I know my future is destined♫
♫To carry on♫
♫There's no backpacks too heavy on♫
♫My shoulders are very strong♫
♫Ya know...♫

Spoiler

Source :)

 

 

[Make Drying Racks Not Rely On Power.]

1 hour ago, DGamerL said:

There should be a variable on `/obj/machinery` that's called `requires_power`. You should set this to `FALSE` on the drying rack, and then remove any code on the drying rack that checks for it needing power, and after that, making sure it will always work!

Swapped for this solution.

[Make Drying Racks Not Rely On Power.]

I couldn't find that solution referenced from the previous PR, unfortunately.