[Dismissed] Determine what the actual policy is on joint-breaking or stunlocking

[Scheveningen]

There are generally two consensuses I've seen on joint-locking/breaking. Which presently is the last form of stunlock, but unlike other methods of stunlocking that have been eliminated from the codebase in the past, this requires substantial effort and several failed grab-resist rolls to execute properly. Although, not entirely true, as you can knock someone unconscious and then use joint-locking to shut them down without a chance for counterplay.

 

1. Joint-locking is incredibly powerful shit and is more effective than cuffs, provided you can get a decent grab off and maintain it, you can effectively end someone's round by rendering them unable to fix any of their joints being broken due to how presently effective it is. It's effectively powergaming because it shuts down someone's ability to play, not just roleplay. It doesn't matter what degree of escalation has happened, you literally stop someone from playing once they have their joints broken and there is nobody present to assist them. I.e. when taking prisoners and want to be sure they're unable to escape at all. It's not fair that I got unlucky and my resists failed. When it works, it's incredibly overpowering.

 

2. Joint-locking is okay because there are certain situations where joint-locking is required to shut down a particularly powerful individual that will resist any step of the way but it's also not appropriate to use lethal force to put them down. This applies especially to crewmember antagonists, as execution of crewmembers is illegal (and heavily debatable in self-defense), but killing pirates/mercenaries in self-defense is not. Joint-locking is especially necessary to shut down greytiders that haven't quite broken the server rules yet or for certain antagonistic types that simply do not relent to other forms of non-lethal force aside from joint-breaking. It is fair because I've failed to joint-lock people and got robusted since RNG was on the opposing side to retaliate, it is not always reliable. When it fails, it feels like wasted effort.

 

One reader may think that I may be the contrarian moderate-thinker but the fact of the matter is that I agree with both of the above statements concurrently, I don't belong in any particular camp. I think both of these camps' opinions should be considered and also combined into a singular policy on what to do against joint-locking and where it is situationally okay to do ICly and OOCly.

 

I am aware of some of the potential inconsistencies/problems that could arise regardless of the policy being meshed into one here. If I knew how to address those in particular, I would have already addressed them with my solutions, of which I do not have.

 

tl;dr! Joint-breaking needs to be looked at in terms of the following questions that all need to be answered with Yes, or else it becomes an increasingly unlawful use of joint-locking in-character and thus an extension of metagaming and powergaming (because it's using a very drastic measure of force, which itself needs to be met against a drastic threat to be justified, or else its just a preemptive shutdown which is metagaming.):

1.) Did prior forms of escalation already get tried against this particular individual?

2.) Did you try to restrain this character before and did they escape it at least once?

3.) Did this character present themselves as a threat that required this degree of force to completely disable their ability to act?

4.) Does this character belong in the camp of an internal antagonist threat, or an external one?

5.) Was this method of joint-lock shutdown appropriate in the given context of the round's story progression? Is it necessary to disable them fully in order to fulfill your character's goals?

[BurgerBB]

I wish this could apply to raiders but currently and realistically be applied to only security. In reality, dislocating a limb is incredibly dangerous for your longterm and shortterm health and security, in very little circumstances, should be using it.

[Asheram]

I'd just rather they removed the whole joint dislocating/breaking as a thing.

If you have to make a concious choice whether to ghost or not just to stay "active" in the round and see what is happening instead of waiting two hours for someone maybe to find you then something is wrong.

Note, I don't mind if it's an active thing like being held. I just really want to avoid being left effectively helpless for the entirety of the round.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

If you can't dislocate someone's arm the only alternative is to break the leg unfortunately. Before we had the dislocation mechanic we had a lot of beating people's legs so they could not stand.

[Alberyk]

I feel this already falls into the escalation rule, voting for dismissal.

[Flamingo]

I am in agreement with Alb. If you jump to jointlocking someone immediately, you will get bwoinked. It's already covered in the escalation rules. If all else fails and you are forced to jointlock them, then you are fine. 

Voting for dismissal.