Forums

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 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 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 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.

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.