Le0p01d

Finally some real opinion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 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.

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

@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.

@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?

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

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).