Chasing after antags [MRP]

[ambrosia]

As part of MRP rules, validhunting is not allowed, if there is a sec team, and you are a crewmember. It doesn't matter how many people die, even if most of sec dies to the (same) antag, if they delam the SM threatening your life, nada.
However, you are indeed allowed to defend people near you, should they be attacked, and you can disarm an antag who is trying to break into your department (and defend yourself, should they try to kill you for taking their RCD)

Now comes the gray area policy part

Typically, defending a closeby ally, and then *chasing the antag, continuing that previous defensive fight* is allowed, under it being defending your fellow man...but does this truly make sense?
Realistically, you IC cannot validhunt as your character is not equipped or trained for it, and OOC performing security's job for them is bad for the game, and taking out antags easily/quickly makes things boring.
What is the difference, in this case? The defense of your ally stops when they leave. Similar to how home defense laws work IRL, chasing a thief you found in your home and continuing to fight them, of your own accord, outside of your property, is definitely no longer self defense.

TL:DR - Validhunting isn't allowed, unless your metafriend gets attacked next to you, then it's allowed until you lose line of sight, or crit the antag.

[Sylphet]

TL:DR - Validhunting isn't allowed, unless your metafriend gets attacked next to you, then it's allowed until you lose line of sight, or crit the antag.

Based - but the way that this is worded could use work, I can see some rules lawyer trying to say uwu validhunting is allowed in my workplace so it was okay to cremate them tbh.

[Stickymayhem]

What's the downside of allowing this kind of conflict to occur?

Why do we need to buff antags by imposing an OOC artificial aggro range?

You have not made any arguments for why this is good or bad for the game, you're just adding more ooc lines of text for everyone to be aware of so I think you need to justify it much better.

[cacogen]

If someone is disrupting work by endangering everyone why shouldn't random people be able to hunt them down, at least to capture them

[Skillywatt]

apologies in advance for rule lawyering but I don't think its possible to discuss this without doing so

if there is a sec team, and you are a crewmember. It doesn't matter how many people die, even if most of sec dies to the (same) antag, if they delam the SM threatening your life, nada.

a few parts of this seem false.

rule 4 of RP ruleset states

If you are not part of the security team (HoS, Sec officer, Warden, or Detective, sorry lawyers) you should not go out of your way to hunt for potential antagonists. You can defend yourself and others from violent antagonists, but you should not act like a vigilante if a security force is present.

according to this, in your scenario, you are fully within your right to chase antagonists if the entirety/most of SEC is dead, based off of

but you should not act like a vigilante if a security force is present

now for this part

Typically, defending a closeby ally, and then *chasing the antag, continuing that previous defensive fight* is allowed, under it being defending your fellow man...but does this truly make sense?
Realistically, you IC cannot validhunt as your character is not equipped or trained for it, and OOC performing security's job for them is bad for the game, and taking out antags easily/quickly makes things boring.
What is the difference, in this case?

the difference is this part of rule 4

you should not go out of your way to hunt for potential antagonists.

the operative phrases and terms being "out of your way" and "potential". If you are bee-bopping around the station with your metafriend lizard and someone comes up and empties a .357 into them, I'd argue they are no longer a "potential" antagonist, and the antag showing their hand to you by blowing your friend away is not "going out of your way" to hunt for them. you can RP "trying to find the guy who did this to your friend" in an interesting way. go to SEC and ask to participate in the investigation, become deputized, etc.

the rule is pretty much there to keep people from randomly running about the station with an explosive lance when you see ghosts at round start or wordlessly lurking around library with a stun spear as a botanist when you hear about a contractor grabbing people in the game room on common.

at least thats my interpretation. play your role and balance metaknowledge with things that make IC sense.

[mstachife]

This is too situational and we'd be here for years coming up with rules that work for every situation. It needs to be left up the admins to decide on a case-by-case basis. In general, if you have to think "Am I validhunting" for more than 5 seconds youre probably validhunting.

[Ayy Lemoh]

Why do we need to buff antags by imposing an OOC artificial aggro range?

it's gonna make it a lot easier to aoe farm as wizard, bro

But yeah, this shit is dumb.

[Cobby]

This would probably be more contextual than the rules would be able to cover. Ideally you wouldnt spend the entire round chasing a guy who doormagged into your apartment though because antag awooga.

[JusticeGoat]

If the antag does something to ic'ly anger you like blowing up something important to your work i would be ok if then the person hunted them down.

[ambrosia]

If the antag does something to ic'ly anger you like blowing up something important to your work i would be ok if then the person hunted them down.

This is exactly the point, this makes sense, and is what some/most admins would rule, but it isn't stated. The rules should be as clear cut as possible, and making distinction entirely off of something that "makes sense" IC, leaves vagueness.

Whether I think you should be allowed to hunt down someone for destroying your department, or shouldn't be allowed to, isn't the point here. My point is that this rule in particular seems to be vague, applies in almost every single round, and is ultimately a pain in the ass for both antag and nonantags, probably admins as well.

What's the downside of allowing this kind of conflict to occur?

Why do we need to buff antags by imposing an OOC artificial aggro range?

You have not made any arguments for why this is good or bad for the game, you're just adding more ooc lines of text for everyone to be aware of so I think you need to justify it much better.

It's not about buffing antags, or arguing it being good or bad, it's about the rules having a longtime issue of not being clearcut enough.
I don't care any which way the rules are edited, as long as the rules are clear.

[ambrosia]

TL:DR - Validhunting isn't allowed, unless your metafriend gets attacked next to you, then it's allowed until you lose line of sight, or crit the antag.

Based - but the way that this is worded could use work, I can see some rules lawyer trying to say uwu validhunting is allowed in my workplace so it was okay to cremate them tbh.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I'd certainly look askance at any admin who ruled that crew weren't allowed to help out against a station-interrupting threat like a mad bomber or guy-with-a-sword-going-room-to-room-executing-clueless-scientists due to the no-validhunting rule