[Change rules regarding to violence]

On 11/9/2017 at 11:21 PM, Nayser said:

Many times i have seen 2 players get into a fight, naturally fights rarely end with both players being in good condition, because both will want to "win" aka render some one incapable of hitting back and i've seen many times it end with them both being admin stunned. Why? I mean, both wanted to fight, non ahelped, so why intervene with the admin stuns? If there is no intervention it will just end with them both going to medbay and moving on with their life. Surely if one kills another then thats over board. But i don't think i saw it happen once.

In my opinion if two non-antag players fight each other and they are cool with it, there shouldn't be anything done against that.

Or if one player is clearly letting other player know that his actions are provoking him into a fight and he can easily avoid it, if fight starts, no need for intervention.

I feel like this is how it should be.

 

On 11/10/2017 at 12:10 AM, Bxil said:

I must agree. I see no reason for admins to interfere in cases like this, but they obviously do (experienced it).

It was actually pretty hilarious, we both went to crit. Got brought into medbay, had surgery... And right after I left OR1 my enemy left OR2, fresh and new. Needless to say we went on again.

If all participants consent then there should be no issue. If one of them doesn't then it is obviously a big one, and that needs to be enforced. This is not the case here however.

Finally some real opinion.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, Vargh said:

Why would we add that to the rules when Rule 7 is really clear?

"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;"

 

 

Well I didn't find anything about what am I able to do if someone robbed me (not hurt/kill attempt so I even didn't categorized it as self-defence). Now I know that maximum I could do was a stun and a fist punch. But before, I couldn't make a proportion for that. I thought, like... what can I do against that... robbing him won't help and can't be done without disabling him. So it is even now unclear for me that "responding with disproportionate" stuff applies only for self-defence topic. Like... that's not defending myself. That's defending my items... idk.

[Fatties need better treatment in-game.]

Just now, Trubus said:

Lets put the fatties in the meat grinder

I would agree with that only if it would be a fat meat grinder

[Fatties need better treatment in-game.]

Yeah! Let's make secways for fatties which can't be stolen by clowns, donutbelts and give fat people ability to slow time so they can catch criminals. I can create fat humour for fat people. And it's 146% heart-attack free.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, Birdtalon said:

Allowing everyone people to beat each other to a pulp over minor things is a terrible idea. You can stand up for yourself without resorting to extreme violence. There's nothing wrong with the rule.

 

Just now, DrunkDwarf said:

If you put someone in hospital with serious injuries because they slighted you somehow, you have broken the law and should be punished accordingly. That is disproportional use of force, if they use a high level of force against you, you can use a similar level of force to defend yourself, but if you react with excessive force, you are in the wrong.

Revenge is never a reasonable excuse.

 

Well... Ok. Thank you, @DrunkDwarf. Your explanation about levels of force got me thinking. I now see how I could make this better. I could get something to stun clown without biting him to crit. That was possible. That should've been my action in that case. Stunning him and getting my PDA back. I could lose him and so I've ran up to fight in which I had no chance to get my PDA except for critting him. That was my fault. You know, every situation really has an answer. Now I suggest to place what @DrunkDwarf said into rules as a clarification.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, Trubus said:

Do you know which rules you've broke to earn your ban? The GAs don't pick favorites here. Not proud of it but I've been banned a few times because of my disregard of the server rules. As I said, they have covered all scenerios that would deem a ban in server rules. However if you leave while in the middle of talking to them you will get banned. You or anyone can walk away dilemmas. Bans are placed so the problems can be resolved. Mate.

Yes, I know. Rule 7. I'm not pretending to be favorite. It's a suggestion to improve rules so they won't advocate what is called "small crimes". If that clown knew he could be bitten if he took my PDA, he, at least, would've thought about it. So as you can see, I'm trying to resolve the problem which, as I think, lies in unclear rules, friend.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, Trubus said:

You're barking up the wrong tree mate. There is a strict no IC in OOC. And we have a rule for the name calling too. Did you even bother reading the server rules? It literally covers all of this.

Well, I didn't bark caus I'm not a doggy, mate. I said nothing about IC in OOC. When I told @necaladun about OOC harassment I meant rule 4 as an example which really describes what is meant by "slurs". I meant that administrators do have guidelines for OOC harassment (not containing everything that might be considered as violation of this rule, but enough to consider what is right and what is not) and they're not just banning people without a reference to rules. So I did suggest to create such rule and guideline for situations like what I've described in this topic. I don't know why you thought that I'm arguing with other rules. This all is about clarifying rule 7. I want to play characters that can stand up for themselves, but currently I'm allowed only to cry when some "literally" clown "fucks" (literally) with my character.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, necaladun said:

That's pretty much why. I don't want to have to constantly determine whether or not a "real reason" is sufficient each time. Especially without any guidelines as to what that constitutes.

Let's make a guideline. Why not? How do you ban people for "OOC harassment" then? Or is it a case based scenario? Like I don't like him so I'll ban him? You have terms like "faggot" and "nigger", right? Why not to make rules like if characters gets harrased it allowed for biting harasser up to some degree? Like if someone punched you and didn't said or other ways informed you that it was an accident, or doing it many times and that has a low probability of being an accident, you can punch him too. If someone has stolen your ID and don't willing to return it to you after you ask... well you know. It's not always a part of character to go call security (especially if it's not a real security). My fault I didn't ask admin how to make it better, but my bet I would get an answer like: "Wait when someone comes to station as HoP or just wait and cry". But let's make calling security and ahelping first things to do in such situations. That would make it clearer for admins. But let's still make a change. I want to play characters that can stand up for themselves.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, necaladun said:

This won't be happening. Allowing players to determine a "real reason" to bash someone into crit is a terrible idea. I simply do not trust the playerbase as a whole to do that.

Do you trust your fellow administration? Every case can be checked - you have logs. Maybe it's just because you don't want to deal with all of this?
 

Just now, necaladun said:

Of all the workplaces I've been in, I've never seen anyone bash someone to death over something like stealing a PDA. That's just insane. Even school children don't generally engage in that degree of psychotic violence, despite the numerous thefts and pranks and the like.

That's where you've been. Accidents and not accidents do happen however. Especially if we're talking about mockery that can lead to really shitty situations. And school children are not exception. Maybe we just live in different countries... or worlds, I don't know. But if a head admin says it won't be happening, it seems like a sufficient sign to me. Still I don't get it... like... how critting a bastard in such situation is bad if he stays alive afterwards and can continue roleplaying but will have a reason to stop fucking with your character. You're suggesting every civilian to be only a victim (not really a person) which calls ahelp for every situation like that and therefore encourage such bastards to continue.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

Just now, Trubus said:

I don't know why you would ahelp for a stolen ID when you can get a new one at the employement office. Like you would in real life.

@Trubus There were no HoP or someone who could do that.
 

Just now, Shadeykins said:

Given the bleeding and organ mechanics in this game, if you've crit someone you've broken bones, damaged organs, and caused the person to bleed.

You've also left them in a state where they're immobile, may fall over (due to pain crit), and then asphyxiate (due to oxygen damage).

Even if they don't, they have a high likelihood of bleeding out before they get assistance, or bleeding out while getting assistance.

They then have to spend the next 10-15 minutes waiting for, and then getting surgery in most instances.

I have to agree with Trubus in this scenario, we don't go around lynching people for being dicks or for "harming" people. If we're going by "real life", if someone runs up and swipes your ID card, the majority of people who chase after that person are going to attempt to subdue them (or not even chase them and just report it). They're not going to beat the ever-living snot out of them, break all their ribs, fracture their skull, and then walk off and leave them in a bloody pool to die.

That's called second degree murder.

In the context of the game, under Space Law it would be manslaughter, attempted murder, or aggravated assault. Non-antagonists have no business committing any of these unless it's an extreme case of self-defense or it's against a valid antagonist. Allowing for civilians to crit people "just because" will just turn the game into little more than a poorly mediated deathmatch.

Have to agree. It's a risky situation. I said already that murder in such situation should be followed by a ban. I'm totally agree with that. So if person dies after crit - there should be no excuse.
About harming IRL, we have no situation where you can't fight and chat in the same time. And there were no security assistance for that matter in game, so report did nothing. That was the first thing I've done.
About poorly mediated deathmatch. It's not like that. I don't ask to allow crit in every situation. Only if personal reason given and it's actual harm combined by shitcurity and no other ways to get this except waiting or leaving crying.
And you misunderstood me: I don't ask to allow civilians crit people "just because". What I described is not "just because".

[Change rules regarding to violence]

@Trubus Or let me ask what are you roleplaying? Human roleplaying is defined by real world humans. Not someones imagination. Humans can act differently upon some situations. If rat that fears to act with force is what you call a human, then I'll disagree and call it a cause of what's happening in real world right now. I don't want to keep players that grief or do harm without a reason unpunished by admins and I also don't want everyone to be in crit as much as I don't want to be restricted by rules to lynch such players that do harm to my character when there's no authority and special institutes to make that. Cause that is what I would do in real world situation. Am I not a human? Well, yeah, my master hacked ReCaptcha and I am bot.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

@Trubus How does my suggestion leads to that? It's just about not roleplaying a human as a robot without feelings or smth. IRL you have no ahelp. Why should you just ahelp if someone stole your ID and not try to take it back and take revenge? Why is this bad if it doesn't lead to death?

[Change rules regarding to violence]

That was created following my ban appeal. It's just my point.

[Change rules regarding to violence]

I suggest to change rules regarding violence. I think critting characters with a real reason as not-antag should be fine as long as it doesn't lead to death and following disabilty of player to continue playing his character. It happens that security can't or willingly don't take a shit on relations between it's crew (acting only as punishers which is a case of shitcurity). When that happens I can't agree with bans following lynching of characters that deserve that by all means (as long as that has a reason (which is based on actions of that character that are harmful personally to your character) and don't lead to death).