Executions: An Upcoming Policy Clarification

[MattAtlas]

Hello. As you all know, executions in round can often be problematic, and are a significant source of adminhelps - both because people are confused by when we allow them, and also because they leave the executee with a bad taste in their mouth. So, I've drafted up some new rules (reviewed by the rest of the staff teams) on when they're allowed. I would like your feedback on them.

Before we begin, what we define as an execution here is shooting someone while they're downed and helpless to kill them. An accidental execution may also count, e.g if you shoot someone to make sure they're downed, but you didn't mean to kill them and they die because of it - depending on context and staff decision, this might also be considered an execution.

Onto the rule itself.
 

Non-antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if they are an uncontainable or unrestrainable threat to life and limb or if they continue to be an active threat after being floored. You are also expected to give an antagonist a reasonable chance to type a response and/or surrender. An execution may also be justified depending on emotional context, such as a character's close friends being murdered by an antagonist: keep in mind that such an execution will come under more scrutiny than usual, so be careful with it.

• An example of a justified execution is a changeling that continues resurrecting and attempting to murder people. There is no hard-and-fast 'minimum' amount of resurrections needed for an execution - the rule of common sense prevails here. Don't rush into it and give the antagonist a chance.
• An example of an unjustified execution is a mercenary who is downed after killing a few people. If they do not stand up and resist, then they may not be executed. You must try to restrain them with whatever means you have available.

Antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if this is driving forward their narrative, or if leaving them alive would pose a risk to the antagonist's short-term safety. Executions are also allowed if an antagonist's orders are expressly ignored, such as a hostage being executed if security rushes into the room ignoring the antagonist's warnings, or if someone calls for help after being told not to. An execution can also be justified depending on emotional context, such as a downed security officer taunting the antagonist. With sufficient escalation in the round, antagonists may execute threats that would prove to be a threat to their long-term safety if left alive.

• An example of a justified execution is an antagonist executing someone that they have been appropriately roleplaying with. It is fine to kill someone for the sake of a narrative.
• Another example of a justified execution is an antagonist being shot at by two security officers. If the antagonist downs one of the officers, and said officer gets back up and attempts to shoot the antagonist, then they are allowed to execute them.
• An example of an unjustified execution is an antagonist indiscriminately executing all officers after a firefight very early in the round, despite them surrendering or attempting to crawl away.
• An example of a justified execution is a mercenary team executing a lone officer late in the round, after a firefight has already concluded with deaths on both parts.

 

These rules are a bit wordy, but they are meant to be catch-alls that leave little to the imagination. In short, I'd like to know what the community thinks.

[ARandoDude]

Seems Fair Enough. I Support.

[NerdyVampire]

I believe this clarification is both accurate and beneficial. If this helps to stop the "He's downed, shoot him some more!" mentality, then that'd be sweet.

[LordPwner]

I like this, makes sense, flows well. Sets expectations for what should happen.

[Yaku]

Sounds good!

[Susan]

I really believe this is a problem spawned by the medical system that is unique to brainmed, because on the old binary system when death came at a flat value, these sorts of circumstances were much far fewer in between.

I don't really know how to feel about these rules. On the one hand, I felt like this is what was expected beforehand, but on the other, if it has gotten to the point where sec and the antag are exchanging lethal gunfire, nobody - and I mean nobody is shooting their ballistic carbine or laser rifle with the intent to arrest anyone. That is not what they are - they are not non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons, they are designed to kill people, and it is only because brainmed and armor can let you survive 20 rounds of 5.56 to the chest that anyone is in a position to be arrested. And I think it is counter-productive to try and enforce an idea that lethal weapons are just another tool to arrest someone.

There are circumstances where I use them that I am not trying to arrest anyone. If I am catching 7.62 fire from a merc, I am not using my laser gun with the end desire to arrest them for trying to kill me. No, I am trying to kill them before they kill me, and if they survive 15 laser blasts I just find it kind of whacky that I'm supposed to drop everything to arrest the heavily armed merc despite the fact they were just trying to take off my head. TTK seems to be the issue, here, with the ability to survive getting magdumped.

[MattAtlas]

Just now, Susan said:

I really believe this is a problem spawned by the medical system that is unique to brainmed, because on the old binary system when death came at a flat value, these sorts of circumstances were much far fewer in between.

I don't really know how to feel about these rules. On the one hand, I felt like this is what was expected beforehand, but on the other, if it has gotten to the point where sec and the antag are exchanging lethal gunfire, nobody - and I mean nobody is shooting their ballistic carbine or laser rifle with the intent to arrest anyone. That is not what they are - they are not non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons, they are designed to kill people, and it is only because brainmed and armor can let you survive 20 rounds of 5.56 to the chest that anyone is in a position to be arrested. And I think it is counter-productive to try and enforce an idea that lethal weapons are just another tool to arrest someone.

There are circumstances where I use them that I am not trying to arrest anyone. If I am catching 7.62 fire from a merc, I am not using my laser gun with the end desire to arrest them for trying to kill me. No, I am trying to kill them before they kill me, and if they survive 15 laser blasts I just find it kind of whacky that I'm supposed to drop everything to arrest the heavily armed merc despite the fact they were just trying to take off my head. TTK seems to be the issue, here, with the ability to survive getting magdumped.

None of this is about TTK or about shooting people normally, it's about shooting them while they're downed and thus unconscious.

[Ublicto]

9 minutes ago, Susan said:

I really believe this is a problem spawned by the medical system that is unique to brainmed, because on the old binary system when death came at a flat value, these sorts of circumstances were much far fewer in between.

I don't really know how to feel about these rules. On the one hand, I felt like this is what was expected beforehand, but on the other, if it has gotten to the point where sec and the antag are exchanging lethal gunfire, nobody - and I mean nobody is shooting their ballistic carbine or laser rifle with the intent to arrest anyone. That is not what they are - they are not non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons, they are designed to kill people, and it is only because brainmed and armor can let you survive 20 rounds of 5.56 to the chest that anyone is in a position to be arrested. And I think it is counter-productive to try and enforce an idea that lethal weapons are just another tool to arrest someone.

There are circumstances where I use them that I am not trying to arrest anyone. If I am catching 7.62 fire from a merc, I am not using my laser gun with the end desire to arrest them for trying to kill me. No, I am trying to kill them before they kill me, and if they survive 15 laser blasts I just find it kind of whacky that I'm supposed to drop everything to arrest the heavily armed merc despite the fact they were just trying to take off my head. TTK seems to be the issue, here, with the ability to survive getting magdumped.

I have seen people claim a damage cap in addition to the brainmed system would be beneficial, do you think that would correct any of the problems you have?

[CampinKiller]

12 minutes ago, Susan said:

I don't really know how to feel about these rules. On the one hand, I felt like this is what was expected beforehand, but on the other, if it has gotten to the point where sec and the antag are exchanging lethal gunfire, nobody - and I mean nobody is shooting their ballistic carbine or laser rifle with the intent to arrest anyone. That is not what they are - they are not non-lethal or less-than-lethal weapons, they are designed to kill people, and it is only because brainmed and armor can let you survive 20 rounds of 5.56 to the chest that anyone is in a position to be arrested. And I think it is counter-productive to try and enforce an idea that lethal weapons are just another tool to arrest someone.

You're missing the point of the rule, I believe, which is that we don't want people waltzing up to the downed mercs and one-tapping them or headgibbing them when they're downed. If you're exchanging lethal fire, nobody is expecting your goal to be to arrest them, it's to neutralize the threat. But once they're no longer a threat and are downed, they should be arrested should the circumstances allow it, not given a summary field execution. To pull a real-world example, police do not go up to people they've just shot and put one more in them for good measure, they handcuff them and begin rendering aid.

[CampinKiller]

19 minutes ago, Susan said:

I just find it kind of whacky that I'm supposed to drop everything to arrest the heavily armed merc despite the fact they were just trying to take off my head.

This has also always been the case. With few exceptions (ie. orders from Command, ling revival, uncontainable threat, etc.) security has always been expected to arrest someone after the immediate threat has subsided, even if they have just been shot at by said person

[GeneralCamo]

Personally I believe all executions by non-antags should be disallowed. You are ship security following the laws of a state that bans capital punishment. You are not the judge, jury, and executioner. Any such case would likely fall under, at the very least, voluntary manslaughter. Possibly murder depending on the situation. Changelings can be excepted as non-human entities.

Antag execution guidelines are fair though. I like them.

[limette]

1 hour ago, CampinKiller said:

You're missing the point of the rule, I believe, which is that we don't want people waltzing up to the downed mercs and one-tapping them or headgibbing them when they're downed. If you're exchanging lethal fire, nobody is expecting your goal to be to arrest them, it's to neutralize the threat. But once they're no longer a threat and are downed, they should be arrested should the circumstances allow it, not given a summary field execution. To pull a real-world example, police do not go up to people they've just shot and put one more in them for good measure, they handcuff them and begin rendering aid.

I think the issue with this is that usually once you're downed you shouldn't go vertical several times and pick up your gun and keep fighting - which is why I got into the habit of tapping downed mercenaries to keep them down in the first place. It's not very fun to seemingly have ended a fight just for them to pick up their gun and full auto blast as fast as they can during the 0.2 seconds they are up while you're trying to pin and handcuff them.

Edited August 23, 2023 by limette

[Fluffy]

I have thought about the proposed formatting, and while I see some merits to it, I do not believe it would be beneficial as a whole.

 

Some wording-specific points and opinions in the spoiler:

Spoiler

From the wording itself:

2 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Non-antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if they are an uncontainable or unrestrainable threat to life and limb

What qualifies as uncontainable or unrestrainable threat to life and limb? A ling inside a room with engineers all around that keep repairing the wall is contained, technically any threat that cannot escape the ship itself is contained (in the ship), damn even zombies would be contained to the Horizon since they cannot fly off.

Unrestrainable, to what level? Someone with a freedom implant, without metagaming the knowledge of freedom implants, could be considered unrestrainable, the ling turning the arm into a sword, or the vampire phasing out of it, can be considered unrestrainable.

Lii'dra gimmicks, do they qualify? The lore says they are generally terminated on sight, not to mention the risk of a black kois infection if left alive, should you leave the zoombie alive just because you can place a pair of cuffs on it or lock him inside a room? I don't think it would make much sense

 

2 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

An execution may also be justified depending on emotional context, such as a character's close friends being murdered by an antagonist: keep in mind that such an execution will come under more scrutiny than usual, so be careful with it.

I do not believe this passage is sufficiently clear, it doesn't seem to explain much besides "your character can do it if we want, which you will only reasonably know in case we didn't"

 

3 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if this is driving forward their narrative

I am not sure if "narrative" here is supposed to include their goal, but if it's not, I think it should

 

3 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Before we begin, what we define as an execution here is shooting someone while they're downed and helpless to kill them. An accidental execution may also count, e.g if you shoot someone to make sure they're downed, but you didn't mean to kill them and they die because of it - depending on context and staff decision, this might also be considered an execution.

Shooting someone that is down has various reasons to be done, including trying to ensure that he doesn't stand back up and attack you while you're already almost miraculously still standing, and it is impossible to reasonably establish a causal link between an additional bullet or two while the person is down and its demise, separated from the prior engagement with the person.

The person could have otherwise died without it anyways, and there is no clear way to determine that this additional hits are the cause of that, even less for the player. This is a can of interpretation worm that should, in my opinion, remain closed.

 

But, I want to address the elephant in the room mainly:

 

This contrast to the HRP setting, other rules, and is in general antithetic to the character-driven environment that we keep saying we want to offer.

Character can, and should, be able to disregard IC regulations if the situation is in broad strokes sufficient for a non-insane/psychotic character to choose so.

We also allow criminal characters, per our rules.

Hanging over the player a threat of OOC retaliation, akin to the damocles sword, to constrain believable characters from doing what makes sense for them to do is shooting both our own HRP foot, and part of the fun, for no clear reason other than avoiding someone from being salty to have been tapped.

 

Eg, If your ex-pirate, DPRA character finds itself being taunted by someone from a merc group of PRA, PSIS agents, that starts trying to kill him, and somehow he manages to down the PSIS agent, then by all that is holy he has all the IC reason to, and should be able to, execute the enemy cat with a full magazine unloaded in his skull, and be confident that he won't get OOC punished for that.

If the event is canon, assuming someone sees and report him, or evidences are collected that frame him, then he will suffer the IC consequences of the IC choices that the character took due to the IC events, if not, new round new salt.

 

And that, in my view, is the nail in this policy's coffin, and the main reason why I don't support it.

[MattAtlas]

1 hour ago, Fluffy said:

Hanging over the player a threat of OOC retaliation, akin to the damocles sword, to constrain believable characters from doing what makes sense for them to do is shooting both our own HRP foot, and part of the fun, for no clear reason other than avoiding someone from being salty to have been tapped.

I am not sure how this rule (more of a clarification because everything I wrote bar 1/2 exceptions is currently enforced) changes anything here, you are allowed to canonically kill people with enough escalation as it is. Nothing here is changing in regards to that & there's always been a chance that you'll be bwoinked and asked to explain why you did it

[Fluffy]

6 minutes ago, MattAtlas said:

you are allowed to canonically kill people with enough escalation as it is

Not according to what is being proposed:

5 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Non-antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if they are an uncontainable or unrestrainable threat to life and limb or if they continue to be an active threat after being floored. [...]

5 hours ago, MattAtlas said:

Antagonists are allowed to execute someone only if this is driving forward their narrative, or if leaving them alive would pose a risk to the antagonist's short-term safety. [...]

 

Unless you mean "in a canon event", but no distinction is indicated, and what is being proposed mainly affects normal, non-canon-event rounds anyways, which is the vast majority of all the rounds too.

If you are allowed to kill people with enough escalation as you indicate, then what is the purpose of those two additions? Why would the accidental execution even matter?

 

Using the example above, the DPRA character would have enough reason to execute the PSIS merc, but by how I understand the proposed points, they would not allow that.

A sun sisters HoS could decide to have the cultists in a Raskara gimmick executed due to his ingrained core beliefs, the proposed points would not allow that.

A Dominian XO could order the execution of the Fishandur Freedom Force gimmick revs due to his loyalty towards Dominia, the proposed points would not allow that.

 

The proposed points would remove a deal of freedom and uncertainty that is fun and interesting to explore, the possibility that people would go "screw this" if given enough reason to, which would be negated via OOC means.

 

They also do not seem to have in consideration the state of the round, or the method, too:

John Trasen wordlessy walking between downed Varuca mercs at 00.50 tapping each of them is a glorified extended turn, uninteresting, unfun action that diminishes the overall enjoyment of the round for the next hour and half.

Chad Sol that, after an hour of hunting and three firefights, walk over to the downed Varuca merc at 1.55, emotes to lift the handgun out of the holster, says "Just like grandpa", let the merc talk and then plant a bullet between his mosquito-like eyes before collapsing on the floor is a fun, soulful, memorable and HRP moment, that enhances the overall enjoyment of the round. it's something to talk about afterwards, gives other people hooks to attach to in many different directions (brig/defend/indifference/scream at/hate/taunt [...]) which sets in motion its own chain of RP moments. It's a net positive.

 

The chief difference between the two? One is a meaningless execution, without much reason besides antag = kill, the other is a meaningful, roleplayed execution.

 

If we want to target executions, I believe our target should be the meaningless or premature ones. The meaningful, interesting, roleplayed, character-driven ones should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

[dessysalta]

9 hours ago, Fluffy said:

Not according to what is being proposed [...] If we want to target executions, I believe our target should be the meaningless or premature ones. The meaningful, interesting, roleplayed, character-driven ones should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

+1.

My own two cents:

Aboard a multi-million credit space ship that prides itself as being the flagship of the Chainlink, with security officers that are armed with ballistics, high-power laser weapons, and even an anti-materiel cannon alongside armor heavy enough to tank 8 shotgun slugs without so much as leaving a dent in you (this happened to me once), it feels unreasonable to say that those specifically employed on the ship, specifically military contractors among other things, are not allowed to execute someone unless they're a recurrent threat. If I was playing as a Tajara and a team of Front soldiers showed up, you can't expect me to provide "reasonable escalation" even if the Front people are roleplaying as though they're slightly less fanatical than the rest of their once-powerful fleet. Certain groups are and always will be so overly distasteful to the greater Horizon crew that executing them is only reasonable (if my character is an ex-Sol vet who fights for Biesel and encounters someone like a Leaguer or Frontist, they are going to blow their heads clean off 99 times out of 100).

Generally speaking, I think the proposed rules do a better job than any escalation policy had done before at determining what is or isn't a valid execution, but I still do think there's room for improvement. Paraphrasing what Fluffy said, there's going to be so many nuanced cases and circumstances between one player and another (or far more than that) that giving concrete "you must do this all the time" rules will only stifle creativity. That said, this change would introduce a much better "flow" into executions rather than barring them near-entirely, my only concern is how adrenaline or high-intensity situations will be affected and interpreted. Take these for example:

• A lone civilian with a gun they found being shot four times, nearly dying, and then standing up and emptying their entire magazine into the opponent, killing them
• A PMC that just took ten rounds to the chest, fell down, got up, then was overwhelmed by the presence of the rest of their squad turning up and barely offering aid, and in turn killed the perpetrator, who is part of a well-known terrorist group, for bruising and breaking their ribs
• A crew member with a bounty on their head is confronted by a group of bounty hunters and is forced to make the split-second decision to either execute the antagonists to prevent word of whatever horrible thing they did that lent them their bounty getting out

All of these are reasonable scenarios (the second one could be a little dodgy) in which an antagonist is executed. A civilian has no reason to stop firing considering they don't have years of experience in these kinds of situations, a contractor part of a militia or private military will be more prone to violence considering their regimen, someone with a bounty on their head isn't going to go quietly and is moreover going to seek to prevent any and all further conflict that arises, be that because of bounty hunters or corporate security. Hard OOC limits like escalation has the potential to be will more often than not stifle creativity, when the correct way to encourage it is to make it limited in some regard (like what is currently being proposed/what Fluffy said). 

This last paragraph in the spoiler is strictly my own thoughts and I think they should have no concrete place in escalation policy; these points I feel should only be considered when writing escalation or execution policy in the future, and shouldn't be taken as law (because that defeats the purpose of it).

Spoiler

As a parting thought, antagonists should not be the only ones to drive a story or narrative. They are subject to scrutiny and the reactions or decisions of the rest of the players for each and every gimmick they come up with. If they intentionally target someone, directly or indirectly, they are more than subject to the whims of that character and the community around them, and it's unfair to give antagonists rules against being killed when 90% of the time a mercenary gimmick is going to end with several people dead or injured. Antagonists should have more lenient rules for escalation in line with the story they're trying to tell (like what is proposed here) but the crew should not be punished for making reasonable decisions regarding whether or not to execute, injure, or otherwise maim/harm an antagonist. Most of the rules with escalation are imposed specifically so an incompetent or validhunting crew member or player doesn't make the choice to end someone's round early for no reason at all.

TL;DR I think the execution policy should include a bold disclaimer to the effect of "exceptions to this rule are fine and encouraged so long as you do not needlessly kill and ensure each decision is made with thought-provoking narratives or creativity in mind." Maybe even make it a "don't quote this at admins or you'll be laughed at" part of the policy depending on how hard you want to lean into it--I personally think that might be a bit much.

Edited August 24, 2023 by dessysalta
regarding antagonists; more on escalation

[MattAtlas]

1 hour ago, dessysalta said:

think the execution policy should include a bold disclaimer to the effect of "exceptions to this rule are fine and encouraged so long as you do not needlessly kill and ensure each decision is made with thought-provoking narratives or creativity in mind."

This is already addressed at the very top of the rules page

Note that these rules cannot cover the myriad of situations that will arise during gameplay. As such, the word of Moderators and Administrators ingame is final, and not up for debate past a certain point. 

and also by the "emotional state" part of the non-antag rules paragraph

The rules aren't meant to cover every single use case because it'd be impossible without writing a total novel

[OolongCow]

Make people who just stood up unable to pick up objects for ~1.5 seconds and a lot of peoples' complaints about people standing back up would disappear.

Also, add a surrender emote with floating text that force rests you and prevents actions for a short time (~20 seconds) to prevent people abusing it to fake surrender. If you shoot someone doing it you're very clearly trying to murder them as they're mechanically incapable of fighting back.