Aligote

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

The End Goal

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...♫

Swapped for this solution.

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

This has been discussed before and I am primarily motivated for the same reason. I'd like ashwalkers to be able to make leather for things like goliath cloaks. I was able to make drying racks work on lavaland by changing to just along with changing the power consumptions to 0. I dont know which change is the primary reason it works, but it works. There was the implied assumption that the PR would be looked into, and I guess it just never was. But now the work is mostly done, we can have a drying rack that doesnt need power and allow ashwalker to produce leather as a result. I'd love to see the drip :)

Bridge hobos are a blessing and a cure for the game.

Both of these aren't one way windows.