[+2 dismissal]Clarify antagonists and conflict

[Scheveningen]

Spoiler

Forums are a little weird displaying images so just click the spoiler above to see the exact applicable context of what I'm referring to when I ask for clarification to these rules.

First off: Antagonists are not exempt from the rules - This is a rule that is clearly written in such a way that can't be misunderstood. In essence it's saying being an antag is not license to grief, but I would think it would also say it means that antagonists should follow certain rules regarding how characters are supposed to behave, antagonist status not-withstanding.

Granted, this counters another thing also mentioned, which is the caveat in Conflict is acceptable, even when you are an antag. The passage is:

"Keep in mind, the more drastic the action, the more motivated your character has to be to commit to it, and the consequences it brings. Unless you're an antagonist, this motivation has to be developed through roleplay on the server: backstory cannot legitimize drastic things, such as trying to assault security staff because of a bad childhood, for example. It is also very much encouraged that you roleplay out the consequences to such conflict where possible." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what this actually means, but basically there's an exception to escalating conflict if you're an antagonist. But I would assume this means that an antagonist, unlike other characters, has roundstart justification to outright go, "Hi, I'm an assassin and you are my objective. I am not killing you because it's opportunistic, but because I already motivated myself to plan this ahead of time, and I'm going to murder you to the best of my ability." I am absolutely okay with justification like that. Because pre-meditated murderers are safe in terms of the rules and also lead to very fun and engaging situations in trying to catch murderers like this later down the line. However, what I often see is that this caveat that "I am the antag" means it allows you to commit collateral or an opportunistic kill "just because". I do not think it means that it is license to gank just because an antagonist "has to do something" in the round. The hammer gets slammed down hard on someone who does this to an antagonist. Why don't they get the same level of scrutiny when they do it? I do not like murders of opportunism (i.e., a murder that was a random, heat of the moment thing and not pre-meditated. Note I am not against killing people in self-defense or because they deliberately tried to stand in an antagonist's way, that's different) because it's simply just one of those things that are guaranteed to get out of hand. For the sake of preserving roleplay integrity and in the interest of not deliberately putting people out of the round because the rules are unclear, I do want an actual consistent standard of enforcement regarding those two details. The only rule I think antagonists are exempt from is murdering in self-defense. I do think they should get a little lee-way regarding "escalating in a realistic manner", but not enough to permit them to basically murder someone because "opportunism."

[Kaed]

I'm not sure that this... suggestion thread... really suggests something?  

You're just kind of... commenting on the rules and saying how you interpret them.

What are you wanting changed?  You want a clarification on 'no opportunistic kills?'  What measure is an opportunistic kill?  How do you determine it, should someone ahelp claiming I was randomly killed by le antag.  If they were ganked, that already falls under the rules, and we don't need extra clarification.

[Scheveningen]

I'm asking my interpretation be considered for new policy.

[Kaed]

This feels like policing people's antag activity choices, which is sort of a no bueno.

If they opportunistically killing someone - without breaking the ganking rules - drives some kind of story, then it shouldn't be a problem.  I really don't see how this could reliably be policed, either, because it depends entirely on the intent of the person doing the killing, and people can lie about their intent.  It's not really a moderateable scenario like 'did they kill you randomly without any leadup' (ganking) is.

[LorenLuke]

You could make it as simple as 'If you are pre-planning someone's death (by name or by role), you must ahelp it and your intended manner(s) of death first.' And those that aren't in this way that fall into 'gank/no escalation/opportunity' territory, e.g. not sec interrupting or the disposal of a witness, would be worth looking into.

It may stink if you're the traitor target and feel you've been /TG/'d, but so far as you've not been the same person's target a majority of the time, it falls to 'that sucks, more rounds later'.

[Scheveningen]

I'm not so much a fan of being required through the rules to ahelp it first.

[LorenLuke]

4 hours ago, Scheveningen said:

I'm not so much a fan of being required through the rules to ahelp it first.

The idea is that this rules provide insurance/protection against claims of gank or lack of escalation. If I were to murder someone, the best bet is to do so immediately and suddenly without warning, ideally from very far away. Exposing yourself to your victim to satisfy a 'minimum RP threshold' is stupid in a sense of practicality, and inviting RNG to dick you over while your would-be victim fucks you with a switchblade and your name in his headset.

A real, salient objective of 'I'm going to kill this guy by bombing his office' from the get-go, and letting the admins know your motivations in so doing, should be a viable method to demonstrate a lack of wanton murder and protect yourself from something that clearly wasn't a random 'Imma kill just anyone' without escalation.

[Scheveningen]

I understand the thought process, don't get me wrong, it's just I dislike the idea of having to get an administrator's go-ahead to do something. There have been times where I felt I had greater confidence in my roleplaying ability to pull something off that might've been over the line. It would've been prevented entirely if I asked permission to do it and some admin told me no, which is usually how it turns out if I'm the antagonist. The only occasions where I do ask for permission is for situations where I'm a non-antagonist and I have no precedent in dealing with a particular problem to know what to do.

The forward communication process is nice but I never utilize it if I know there's an admin who will say no. I believe rather fervently in the "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" rule because I learn nothing if I'm essentially told not to escalate because a specific admin thinks I shouldn't.

[Alberyk]

The rules are already clear that antags are still meant to follow the rules, the difference is that they have their own reasoning, so they can start planning their own thing, instead of having to get something going with the crew due to interaction. I don't think there is much to change in the rules to reflect this.

 

Voting for dismissal.

[Flamingo]

I am in agreement with Alberyk. The rules already sufficiently reflect that antagonists have to follow rules, while also allowing them to have motivations outside of the current round. I am also against having to ask every time you want to plan a murder, as people just generally don’t ahelp these situations and thus they don’t happen. 
 

Voting for dismissal.