Self-Defense/Validhunting Rules and Space Law

[Aligote]

   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

Spoiler

Rules for Self-Defense and Valid Hunting state that:

Spoiler

Assault and Self-Defense
   Murder is not acceptable for non-antags. Killing should only be done in extreme self-defense, during an authorized execution, or in any situation Security can employ lethal force. If you wish to murder, or at least seriously injure, someone, Administrator permission is required;
   Violence capable of inflicting serious damage to someone, especially anything that places them into a critical state, is reserved for Antagonists. Outside Self-Defense, this kind of violence is not permitted;
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;
   Minor assault and fistfights are acceptable, assuming that both players have a reasonable justification as to why the fight started. Assault without any provocation or warning is strictly disallowed under a majority of circumstances.

Spoiler

Rule 8: Validhunting
   It is only the job of Security to stop Antagonists. If you are not a member of Security, then hunting Antagonists is not something you should be doing. You may not drop your job, or go out of your way, to hunt Antagonists. You may, however, defend yourself or others from Antagonist attack if you happen to witness it;
   Xenobiology/Sentient Animals: any form of non-antagonist Sentient Animals must both AHELP and Acquire Permission from the Head of Security and Captain before assisting with Security matters. You are allowed to defend yourself if either your master or yourself are attacked, but all validhunting Rules still apply unless you have been given express permission by both IC Command and online Admins.
   Antagonists that seek to destroy the station itself (Blob, Nuclear Operatives, Malfunctioning AI or Swarmers), or exterminate the whole crew (Xenomorphs or Wizards) are exempt from this Rule. However, players in jobs such as Medical, or Cargo, are expected to do those jobs if they are better suited to help the station;
   Evidence of Antagonist activity is required before you take steps to treat anyone as an Antagonist. For example, you may not force random people to drink holy water or randomly drag people into the Chapel

Advanced Rules also elaborate further:

Spoiler

Rule 8: Validhunting
   Intent: This Rule was specifically added when there was a pattern of people in Science arming to the teeth, then patrolling maint and looking for antags. Chaplains and Shaft Miners have also been a major problem here, but any role can be guilty of this.
   If you want to hunt antags, then there is an entire Department for that: Security. We attempt to balance things around Security and their Rules of Engagement and equipment. If everyone lynches antags as soon as discovered (especially with the tools available to Science, Engineering, Robotics, Lavaland loot/tools, etc), then the game is incredibly difficult for antags.
   This doesn't count against Blobs, Slaughter Demons, Nuclear Operatives, Sizards, Terror Spiders, Xenos, and Cultists summoning their god. It's expected the whole crew fights these!
We don't want a mentality where people are looking to "win" against the antags.
The Captain or the Head of Personnel cannot create a 'special role' that supersedes this Rule. An example being a Vampire Hunter job and it being filled by individuals who aren't members of Security. Command also cannot encourage the crew to validhunt in violation of this rule and members of Command who do may find themselves jobbanned from the role. If someone wants to act as a Security member, they should join Security.

Rule 8 Clarification: Self Defense

   This doesn't mean people shouldn’t defend against, or even not interfere with antags. The key words here are "hunting" and "valid". Non-Security should not be hunting for antags. Nor should people be looking specifically for situations where it is "valid" to kill someone.
   A good rule of thumb is that you can defend yourself and co-workers, but if the antag runs away, you shouldn’t be chasing them down - once they run you've succeeded in defending them. If you're not Security, you should be more concerned with the victim than the antag - don't give chase to them after they've been saved. If someone is kidnapped, chasing them should be with a goal of rescue. Once you've rescued the person, Security can apprehend the criminal, not a vigilante.

Rule 8 Precedents

   If an antag has previously assaulted/killed/etc you, there is some leeway to get revenge. Ahelping first is highly, highly, recommended.

   The point of interest here for this thread, is the topic of defending co-workers from antagonists. At face value, this should seem fairly simple, you can defend coworkers to the extent of trying to save them, and if the antagonist runs, you stop chasing as you intend to save, not valid-hunt. However, there is more to this general assumption.

   In Space Law's Modifiers and Special Situations, there is a situation called self-defense that states:

Spoiler

Self Defence:
   Acting to protect one's self, coworkers, or workplace.
   Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence. Self-defence typically involves attempts to disarm or disengage, beating someone while they're down should be considered Assault unless the defender's life was in danger.

   This DOES influence admin responses to valid hunting/self defense, as I believe it's how they interpret reasonable levels of force. To back up this claim, it was brought up in a Admin Complaint by me about a warning for validhunting, hitting a contractor with a meat cleaver to save the captain. However, there was more to that complaint and it mainly focused on my intention to validhunt and other actions I took that insinuated my valid-hunting intentions.

   That's why I'm also bringing up my second Admin Complaint. There was lost context in that there was a QM I was closely affiliated with, who was being fatally attacked by the contractor before I hit the antagonist with a cleaver, along with other actions such as avoiding the contractor and helping the Captain/QM up afterwords. Ultimately, the final decision was fairly cut and dry, the parameters set by Self Defense' description in Space Law determined what I did as valid-hunting/vigilantism.

   Again, this isn't an extentuation of my gripes with a warning I got months ago, it's my current understanding of rulings on Self-Defense when I play. Of course, trying to understand this subject with only admin complaints might not be the best way to... understand. I also discussed with head staff on this.

   From what got out of my discussions, there are several important details:

Spoiler

• Nonlethal means are allowed to defend coworkers, presumable considered reasonable force. I believe punching would be allowed.
• This might be splitting hairs, but it was stated to me that it's allowed to use lethal force to slow antagonists immune to shoves, like hulks or antistuns, presumable reasonable force.
• Most important for me, I was informed by a head staff that they don't want players using nonlethal intervention as an excuse to use lethal force when an antagonist responds to their interventions, i.e., not lethally attacking when an antagonist lethally attacks you for nonlethally intervening.

 

Contradictions (For ME)

Spoiler

   I don't think restricting someone's escalation levels improves anything RP wise or mechanics wise. I believe the majority of people don't even know this influences their in-game conduct. For instance, I know #helpchat on discord can have misleading answers but it's still telling that none of the answerers understood the connection between Space Law and the Valid-hunting/Self-defense rules when I asked the question. The one admin answer I received, I would be told was mistaken by a head of staff. 
   I understand the reasoning behind these provisions, I just have trouble accepting that I can't do much for player's I'm roleplaying and trying to have a decent RP experience with, more than shove; this is compounded with not being able to escalate when I'm lethally attacked for trying to save them. I don't believe it's sound judgement to object against players responding lethally to an antagonist killing them, becuase the defender was initally helping someone else. It's also hard thinking about being the one attacked, and knowing that my potential saviors are limited to such an extent. Where's my chance to have an enjoyable RP experience in any case? I understand and accept the doctrine that you will have to lose in this game sometimes, I just believe this goes farther than that, I don't have a chance at all when there could definitely be one.
   I hope readers understand this isn't about just playing security, I don't ever want to play that, I just want to have some sort of "dignity" when I play. This isn't something you can really just avoid the consequences of, antagonists are an integral part of the game, playing will mean being in situations where you're saving or being saved by others, I think this thread's "issue" should be addressed. 
   There is always the solution of just, "if you don't like it, leave." Although that's true, I like this server enough to atleast try and offer my thoughts and words to, I believe, improve it.

Proposed Solutions

Spoiler

   In my complaints, I had brought up making additions to Rules to clarify the relationship with Space Law. Thankfully, that hasn't happened yet because I don't like the current set up either way. Although I do believe the Rules should reference Space Law if they're going to use it to enforce statements from it, I'd much prefer alternatives to their current interpretation altogether.
   For instance, reasonable force would be interpreted as a matter of intention and what's already being stated in Rules, while Space Law's Self-Defense section would pertain to how security deals with those situations in game. Essentially, the main assumptions I referenced at face value in "My Understanding", not chasing and all that. This might mean circumstance like what I did with a cleaver would be fine.
   Another alternative would be to make the clarifications on how only nonlethal attempts are considered reasonable in most circumstance, accept the exceptions described in my discussions. BUT, allow for the ability to escalate back when lethally escalated against for intervention. I believe objecting to players responding in kind to being lethally attacked for intervening to save a coworker, is a very contentious point that I and I believe others disagree with.
   I also encourage readers to give their own thoughts and suggestions, clarifications too if staff are kind enough and I got something wrong or whatnot. I was advised to make this thread with regards to suggesting changes so please, do offer your thoughts. I'm glad I was able to get all of this off my chest and into this thread and hope it goes somewhere...good.

Edited April 14 by Aligote

[Aligote]

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

Edited April 15 by Aligote

[Daeodon]

"I don't believe it's sound judgement to object against players responding lethally to an antagonist killing them, becuase the defender was initally helping someone else."

^ Main issue here is that applied to everyone, people would just take this as an excuse to validhunt, just with the added step of "spam-shove them until they retaliate first". It'd be really easy to attempt to press an antag into attacking you and then just stab them to death when they give you a warning shot.

[Aligote]

2 hours ago, Daeodon said:

"I don't believe it's sound judgement to object against players responding lethally to an antagonist killing them, becuase the defender was initally helping someone else."

^ Main issue here is that applied to everyone, people would just take this as an excuse to validhunt, just with the added step of "spam-shove them until they retaliate first". It'd be really easy to attempt to press an antag into attacking you and then just stab them to death when they give you a warning shot.

   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.

Edited April 16 by Aligote

[Pckables]

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.

[Aligote]

13 hours ago, Pckables said:

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.

It's good that you said that because after all, the first sentence of Space Law's Self Defense note is:

Quote

Persons intentionally getting involved in fights which occur in a department that isn't theirs is an act of vigilantism, not self-defence.

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.

Edited April 17 by Aligote

[Pckables]

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.

[Aligote]

3 hours ago, Pckables said:

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 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.

On 4/13/2024 at 9:43 PM, Aligote said:

Rule 8 Clarification: Self Defense

   This doesn't mean people shouldn’t defend against, or even not interfere with antags. The key words here are "hunting" and "valid". Non-Security should not be hunting for antags. Nor should people be looking specifically for situations where it is "valid" to kill someone.
   A good rule of thumb is that you can defend yourself and co-workers, but if the antag runs away, you shouldn’t be chasing them down - once they run you've succeeded in defending them. If you're not Security, you should be more concerned with the victim than the antag - don't give chase to them after they've been saved. If someone is kidnapped, chasing them should be with a goal of rescue. Once you've rescued the person, Security can apprehend the criminal, not a vigilante.

   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.

Edited April 18 by Aligote

[Teebonesnek]

Hi, I like your post but I think there are a few issues with your proposals. While para's validhunting rules could maybe be made clearer they're generally in a good place right now. There are a couple of problems with allowing the use of lethal force against antagonists as a non-security crew member:

1. You're just some random NanoTrasen employee, for most characters and situations it makes very little sense that you would be prepared to lay down your life to protect a coworker instead of fleeing and calling for the team of jackbooted thugs that do this for a living like you're trained to do. Additionally, if you kill someone without being able to provably demonstrate that your life or your coworker's life was in serious danger it's clearly murder, and demonstrating this beyond reasonable doubt is difficult to do.

2. There is a fundamental problem with being able to use lethal force as a crew member for the defence of someone else - if any coworker is attacked you could usually just lethal the antagonist since if you try to interfere with an antagonist where you shouldn't, they're just going to attempt to execute you and continue their task, as well they should. This provides justification for you to attempt to kill them and would lead to antagonist gameplay feeling a lot more crew vs antagonist instead of security vs antagonist, in my opinion.

Overall I think your suggestions are reasonable and well considered, but I feel that the current system of lethal force only to save your own life and only when there's no other option provides the healthiest gameplay for both crew members and antagonists. The antagonists aren't swamped by crew members rushing to stop them in defence of their friends since the crew members understand the high risk of unceremonious death and the crew members will be treated more easily by antagonists when they interfere less, and escape with minimal injuries more often. This also allows for stronger rules against collateral damage with antags, since bystanders represent less of a threat to the antagonist when they're not going to attempt to murder them.