Murder rule

[Jovaniph]

 

The Self-Antag rule about murdering players is not completely understood for why I've been wrongfully banned for.

 

Apparently, murder is only reserved for Antagonist and that is understandable, but to murder someone to assume that they might be a antag that needs to be murder is not clear in the rules. There are admins saying that it's still against the rules, but how? It doesn't make sense unless you interpret the rules in your perspective.

 

If you are going to ban people for murder without purposely murdering a player just for the sake of that player wanting to kill for fun (murder boning), then what's the point of accusing someone of manslaughter? Might as well remove it from space law because murder is murder apparently.

 

Aside from my little rant. Here is my suggestion.

 

My Suggestion is this:

Original Rule

Self-Antagging

Murdering someone because of a minor transgression is considered Self-Antagging and will result in a ban.

 

Revisioned Rule

Self-Antagging

Murdering someone is considered Self-Antagging and will result in a ban.

 

Reason: Apparently, whether its a minor trangression or not. You get banned so I suggest removing that line.

 

Edit: Also do this...Because an admin banned me because I didn't have evidence so add this

 

- Murdering without evidence (regardless if you assume that player is an antag and needs to die) will result in a ban.

 

[Coldflame]

as a rule of thumb, unless one of the people involved in a situation is an antagonist, nobody should die

[Jovaniph]

 

as a rule of thumb, unless one of the people involved in a situation is an antagonist, nobody should die

 

Add this in the rules

 

[Taaketa]

 

Self Antaging: Antagonizing without being an Antag - Self Antaging refers to players who decide to do actions that normally only a Antagonist would do, i.e; Murdering other players, heavily damaging the station or causing chaos on a mass scale.

 

Self-Antagging

Murdering someone because of a minor transgression is considered Self-Antagging and will result in a ban.

 

The rules are pretty clear on the matter already.

 

[sdtwbaj]

 

as a rule of thumb, unless one of the people involved in a situation is an antagonist, nobody should die

I tend to kill anyone who causes serious injury, like severed limbs, mushed face, etc. because I am not robust enough to capture them usually, and just let medbay revive them.

 

[Jovaniph]

 

Self Antaging: Antagonizing without being an Antag - Self Antaging refers to players who decide to do actions that normally only a Antagonist would do, i.e; Murdering other players, heavily damaging the station or causing chaos on a mass scale.

 

You are interpreting that, this is a rule. Its an 'Abbreviation for common terms used on the server.'

 

[sdtwbaj]

 

Self Antaging: Antagonizing without being an Antag - Self Antaging refers to players who decide to do actions that normally only a Antagonist would do, i.e; Murdering other players, heavily damaging the station or causing chaos on a mass scale.

 

You are interpreting that, this is a rule. Its an 'Abbreviation for common terms used on the server.'

That's a definition of something, which is later forbidden in the rules.

 

[Psyentific]

 

it's pretty easy to *not* murder someone y'know. just make a pair of cablecuffs and land a knockdown or something. stunprod stuns for just barely longer than it takes to cablecuff, and if you pull the guy while you cuff he then he won't get away. if not that, then you can carry the fight on into crit, then scream for the paramedic or drag him to medical.

 

even actually dying is mostly an inconvenience unless you do it in an out of the way location (ex. ass end of maint, space), or someone hides the body. the first is situational and thus relatively easy to avoid, the second requires active effort on the part of someone else to keep you ripded, and that's no bueno. like, if someone hides your body you can definitely ahelp that shit and say mean words to him in looc.

 

rules are fine fam. even if you do wind up killing the guy, just fucking clone him or something.

 

[Jovaniph]

 

They may be fine but they are not without flaws...Hence why I suggest a change to make it more to the admins liking. You get ban for murder if you are not an antag...simple.

 

The rules are always interpreted so you can never win pretty much when an admin says you broke the rules, when in your interpretation, you didn't... I don't want to get started on double standards either.

 

The rules are guidelines for the server and should be interpreted to suit the situation at hand, not manipulated to suit your needs. As always, don't be a dick and you shouldn't have to worry about most of these.

 

This right here on rule 0 allows the admin to win every time. They are pretty much Gods. Pissed them off you get ban. They feel like banning someone, ban. Just because? ban.

 

edit: So regardless...When I murdered someone, I got banned for it. I murder someone thinking I made the RIGHT decision. It wasn't self antagonizing at all.

 

[Machofish]

 

 

The rules are guidelines for the server and should be interpreted to suit the situation at hand, not manipulated to suit your needs. As always, don't be a dick and you shouldn't have to worry about most of these.

 

This right here on rule 0 allows the admin to win every time. They are pretty much Gods. Pissed them off you get ban. They feel like banning someone, ban. Just because? ban.

 

As it stands, that is part of the agreement taken by choosing to join and play on any server. It is vital to trust the admins to interpret and enforce rules equitably, and in a way that benefits the overall community. If someone does not trust the admins to enforce the rules in a way that suits their own playstyle, then that is their individual problem. A mistake I see a lot of players make is to think that if an Admin PMs them, it's some quasi-ritualistic pretext that comes before a ban.

 

Speaking from personal experience, I have been admonished and scrutinized in PMs by the admins before, but I have never felt like an admin was unfairly issuing bans as a way of venting unrelated frustration or 'playing god' when it came down to it. I'm not sure what interactions you've had with Paradise's staff, but in my experience, the admins will always give you your 'day in court' - several in fact, judging from the histories of some people who wind up in the ban appeals section multiple times for breaching the same rules over and over again.

 

Even in the event that you feel a ban was not applied in a way that the general community or the administration would generally consider 'fair', there is the admin complaint section. The admin complaint section is publicly viewable, too, which is very interesting when you consider that player complaint threads are kept hidden for privacy, while staff behaviour is treated with a greater degree of seriousness and accountability.

 

 

 

Now, going to the topic at hand - I agree that the specific wording of the murder rules could be better. Personally, I feel that it should be worded to, "murdering someone in a situation where they do not present an immediate, tangible threat to you or the safety of others will result in a ban." But this is a tangent to the central point I'm trying to make:

 

No matter how heavily the rules are structured or defined, if a player wants to bend the rules to suit their behaviour, they will find a way to bend the rules no matter what; on the opposite end of the spectrum, if the rules were so heavily defined and structured to a point where they were absolutely not open to interpretation of any sort, the server experience would become very dull and overly authoritarian. In fact, I think it is important to note that you've very carefully abridged the most important part of Rule 0. in quoting it, which is: Practice common sense while consulting these rules. The general idea counts, not the exact wording.

 

[Doukan]

 

All you have to do is break their legs/feet/hands/choke them out and run away, there's really no excuse for murdering someone unless you really have to for whatever reason.

That said though whenever I get into non-antag related conflict it usually takes about 5 seconds before start flying about "y u beating him", it's rather annoying when it's a reasonable escalation.

 

I mean really with the ubiquitous presence of defibs and cloners "death" really shouldn't mean that much, unless it's blatant shittery I don't see what the big deal is, at worst someone loses 20 minutes because the CMO has no idea how to refill the biomass and genetics actually have to leave their lab.

 

[Dinarzad]

 

I mean really with the ubiquitous presence of defibs and cloners "death" really shouldn't mean that much, unless it's blatant shittery I don't see what the big deal is, at worst someone loses 20 minutes because the CMO has no idea how to refill the biomass and genetics actually have to leave their lab.

 

I'm of two minds on it.

Half of me agrees that Death is not a big deal an most the time people need to grow a set an deal with it. Death happens, and it's SUPER easy to fix if the body is found, and if someone is hiding a body as a non-antag then that's fairly blatant shittery.

 

The second half of me thinks that we're already so low on RP, that just letting people stab each other to death is the nail in the coffin. Then again, it might give Security legitimate major crimes to deal with that are not antagonist related. Detectives might get legit murder cases without having to assume someone is an EoC at the end of the day. Giving sec a chance to handle something before Admins step in with an A-help might be the middle ground.

 

[Jovaniph]

 

You are absolutely right. The rules shouldn't be heavily define, I agree.

 

Practice common sense while consulting these rules. The general idea counts, not the exact wording.

 

I didn't quote this part because it was a separate uh....entity? I've seen this in many server, but the second part of the sentence of 'interpretation' has nothing to do with common sense.

 

By definition

Common Sense: having a good sense of judgement (Which I have, I'm not a shitter and just kill people because its fun, its not)

Interpretation: the action of explaining the meaning of something. (Which can be changed from person to person if not set in stone)

 

I get the general idea, but if an Admin wants to ban me (and it already has) and say that I have broken the rules and not even explain to me why ans says "Broken the rules because he broke the rules", It just proves that the admin had no reason to ban you in the first place. A GOOD admin would explain your mistake, show you which part of the rules you broken in detail WITHOUT bullshitting to INTERPRET the rules in their favor. Which I know a bunch of other admins may back that admin up due to cliques (I've heard it in one of the podcast that this is a thing, an actual admin said this).

 

[Jovaniph]

 

The second half of me thinks that we're already so low on RP, that just letting people stab each other to death is the nail in the coffin. Then again, it might give Security legitimate major crimes to deal with that are not antagonist related. Detectives might get legit murder cases without having to assume someone is an EoC at the end of the day. Giving sec a chance to handle something before Admins step in with an A-help might be the middle ground.

 

Yeah well, this can't happen because murder is reserved for antags. Therefore the reason for the suggestion is to make it crystal clear to the player. If you are not an antag and murder someone, you get banned.

 

edit: It's a simply fix because no matter how you justify your case to an admin. You'll normally get banned, so making it clear to players that read the rules will prevent bans from happening.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Guest

[Dumbdumn5]

 

Much of what I would say has been said already, although I would like to add on to a bit of the over-defined bit of the fears. One major issue with overdefined rules is that in the event somebody skirts the rules, but doesn't necessarily break them, they can get away with a lot more with a fully explained and definite rule. It allows the type of people who like to inch their way around the hammer and still grief while not technically doing anything where we could do very much against them, even if they were well known for causing issues.

 

In terms of your suggestion, I believe the original wording is fairly accurate, as serious issues can often end up in murder, whereas the minor altercations should rarely if ever involve death of any kind.

 

In terms of your outlook on the staff playing God and banning out of anger or for fun, I'd actually really like to hear who you've dealt with, as I've not seen much truth to that. In your appeal, which is publicly visible as it entered the Accepted section, you go as far as to accuse an admin of metagaming by utilizing the check antagonist panel to determine whether or not you legitimately killed an antagonist, which is part of the job itself. The main reason as to why you had been banned was that you murdered somebody on suspicion of enthrallment, which is a bit of an issue when there's a lack of solid evidence. I only bring this up as you seem to believe that the rules were stretched unfairly against you in a case that was purely or at the very least somewhat for the admin's own benefit. There is no ban quota, there is no karma for applying bans, and bans are not a measure of the admin's worth. They could have a thousand bans or ten and still be a good admin depending on how they act in regard to and serve the community while representing it's best interests. If you do suspect an administrator of being powerhungry or out for themselves, admin complaints are meant to be handled by anybody but the min being complained about. They may make their case or defend themselves, but the final judgement call is based on evidence and the opinion of a higher ranking third party in the majority of cases.

 

I don't think that the rules need a change like this, as they've been more than serviceable throughout their time on the server, but I could understand a potentially expanded definition, though still as broad so as to keep things in leeway and fit more situations.

 

In response to the arguments of cliques, internal drama is, as it should be, kept internal. There are a variety of opinions in the staff, to the point where a number of us are far apart from viewing things how the other administrator would. Some may give a warning where others may give a perma, and plenty in between those two amounts. Again, the issue was explained by the admin handling your ban appeal, although in less than verbose and relatively simple vernacular staged as a rhetorical question.

 

I'm not sure that the ban was stacked in the admin's favor as, again, bans are an indicator of next to nothing when it comes to an admin's worth or proper judgement. They can be wrong, and that's why we have appeals and complaints.

 

In addition, as you post frequently and provide a number of arguments in your posts, murder is not only reserved for antagonists, it only becomes an issue if done for minor and often inconsequential reasons such as "X insulted my friend, so I took a bottle of whiskey to his head, lit him on fire, and shanked him until he bled out so as to be sure he wouldn't mess with my friend again."

 

[Jovaniph]

 

Then I shouldn't expect to get banned for murdering someone unless it was a 'minor' transgression as stated in the rules. I should be able to kill in good judgement even if I don't want to. If I do get banned however for this, I will make an admin complaint about it as you suggested. Thanks Dumdum.

 

If I do happen to get banned and I see It is unfair or unjust, then I suggest going back to my original suggestion.

 

edit: I won't murder for the sake of being a shitter (I don't like shitters and neither will I ever become one). I do it for the sake of RP which SS13 lacks.

 

[Jovaniph]

Then I shouldn't expect to get banned for murdering someone unless it was a 'minor' transgression as stated in the rules. I should be able to kill in good judgement even if I don't want to. If I do get banned however for this, I will make an admin complaint about it as you suggested. Thanks Dumdum.

 

If I do happen to get banned and I see It is unfair or unjust, then I suggest going back to my original suggestion.

 

edit: I won't murder for the sake of being a shitter (I don't like shitters and neither will I ever become one). I do it for the sake of RP which SS13 lacks, in some areas.

[necaladun]

 

In general, murder is not acceptable for non-antags.

 

The rule could use some revision, I agree. The "over a minor transgression" seems to imply that a "major transgression" would be acceptable. That's pretty damn subjective. For some people, that's stealing a toolbox. For other's it's kicking Ian. Or because they're race X. Or they said something mean once.

 

Even with cloning and defibs, it's rare that RP justifies that degree of damage to someone. Especially not hitting them in the head with an oxy tank 20+ times. Psychotic levels of rage generally fall under the "crazy lol" rule there.

 

This is why I really have to say - ahelp before murdering someone. It's rare actually killing someone is required to get your RP point across that strongly at the expense of another's game play. Consider breaking a kneecap, stealing their hat, or just punching them once in the jaw while yelling "You killed Ian, you bastard!".

 

[Shadeykins]

 

Y'know.

 

Once a person is in crit, they're not fighting anymore.

 

It takes a conscious effort, against a now non-retaliating person to murder anyone.

 

[necaladun]

 

It takes a conscious effort, against a now non-retaliating person to murder anyone.

 

Very much this, too. Then hitting them 20x in the head with a toolbox is not self defence, either.

 

[sdtwbaj]

 

My whole thought on murder is;

 

If they're about to kill or horribly maim you, I think it's justified.

 

If you're a comdom and are refusing to call shuttle during a station emergency and people are dying, deadly mutiny pls.

 

If you hurt he godly Ian, beheaded.

 

[davidchan]

Honestly I'd prefer tgs 'Act like an Antag get treated like an Antag' rule in which shitty players who intentionally start shit to try and banbait get their comeuppance. Honestly it seems that much of the bad behavior on paradise seems to stem from that 'You can't hurt me!' despite there being some pretty good justification to send someone to medbay or even the morgue if they repeatedly and constantly harass other players enough to provoke violence.

[Psyentific]

 

Honestly I'd prefer tgs 'Act like an Antag get treated like an Antag' rule in which shitty players who intentionally start shit to try and banbait get their comeuppance.

This is a wonderful little rule, it neatly deals with the whole meta-thing surrounding antag/EoC. If the guy acts like an antag, he gets valid'd or perma'd like one, regardless of whether or not he's actually an antag.

 

Mind, that implies that acting like an antag is kinda okay if you don't mind the consequences, which runs somewhat contrary to the whole "Self-antagging is v. bad" thing.

 

Another option would be an escalation clause, sort of a three-strikes rule. That is, establish a valid method for the escalation of conflict, starting with harsh words, progressing through severity of violence, and ending in a final solution. Wherein each encounter can be abstracted to have some force level (ex. unarmed, weapons, stuns, lethal), and persistent encounters between characters within rounds can be escalated one step up in each encounter. This is kinda an unspoken thing already - if you keep coming at someone, it's reasonable to expect that he's going to take more and more drastic solutions to discourage you.

 

So, guy comes at you, you exchange punches, someone fucks off. Later, guy comes at you, you welder at him, someone fucks off. Even later, he comes at you with a stunprod, you whip out your own and someone gets handed off to Security. Finally, someone winds up killing someone else.