Forums

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.

Here, you can find the Lore Style Guide. You will be expected to follow the guidelines inside if you wish to contribute to paradise lore, and this will be referenced by the Lore team when reviewing community-made writing. If you have any questions, please direct them to me, the lore team, or the Heads of Staff! Google Docs Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vUwVb11GUmzCruA4AUvBCEG5c2g0cMJuEev_O7zm8s0/edit?usp=sharing Paradise Lore Style Guide.pdf

Darwin has a competitor out to take their headpats it seems

basically everything is plastered with Nanotrasen imagery, newscasters, PDA, crew monitors, most TGUI elements have the NT symbol in the background, it would work without changing those but also muh immersion