Doomberg Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Gank is defined as the act of attacking or killing another player with no interaction or roleplay leading up to it. This definition unfortunately leaves a lot to the imagination, thus creating many gray areas and resulting in numerous player complaints. Following our last staff meeting on the 18th of April, we tried to shed some light on what is and is not considered gank. Neutralizing another character without roleplay is allowed /only/ under the following circumstances: The character in question is a physical threat to you (he is armed or can be reasonably expected to be armed) and catches you in an illegal or otherwise compromising act. The character in question fails to comply with your demands (for example, he yells for security over his headset despite being aimed at and told to remain silent). Characters that do not fall under the above parameters are to be interacted and roleplayed with until they fail to comply or become threats. Players found to be constantly over-escalating force will see disciplinary action taken against them, adjusted according to the severity of the offense. The main point of debate in this thread is in regards to hostages, or, more specifically, resisting in a hostage situation. Should a player who is in possession of a weapon and not restrained be allowed to attempt to take down his captor if the opportunity arises, or should he be OOCly constrained to comply outside of exceptional circumstances? Let's consider some examples. Example situation one: You are a security officer who gets held up by an antagonist. You are armed, you have a tazer on your belt. You think you may have a chance to take down the antagonist. You go for your tazer and engage the antagonist. Obviously, the antagonist, at this point, can kill you without any further emotes or say's involved. Whoever wins, wins (the main argument being, if the antagonist was truly in control of you and the situation, you'd die. Horribly). Example situation two: Same setup, you're a sec officer, armed, you walk up to an antagonist and you have a weapon on your person, easily accessible. However, the rules now dictate that you must comply with the orders, at least, on the count of not being able to directly retaliate. You can try and run, but going for your weapon is off limits. If the targeted crew member is in a non-combat role, has no combat training, but happens to be armed and/or attempts to outrobust the antag, they will be investigated under the clause of powergaming. Which of these examples do you find ideal, and why? Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.