RPR4 second precedent

[Roadto3k]

An appeal for the RPR4 I was reading was accepted with this as wording

on MRP, there's nothing that requires you to be charitable, proportionate, or less than lethal in going back after the people who've already done as good as murder you. IC issue.

which is sensible, but the second precedent says

The dead dog litmus test: Players may hunt specific threats or antagonists who have identifiably done something to wrong that particular player, the Ur-example being that players may seek revenge against those who harm their departmental pets. Players who choose this path are empowered to act as security in regard to that specific threat, but as per the main rule must also follow related restrictions on security play. This can also be applied to an assault of a character you've had significant interactions with, in the current round, and it does not apply to cross-round or OOC friendships.

It sounds fine the first time I read it but reading again there are some parts which are confusing to me. I think it maybe overlaps with other rules and doesn't help understand what is expected of a player.

It says "Players who choose this path are empowered to act as security in regard to that specific threat," but players are already allowed to retaliate for things that have happened to them, as part of normal escalation. Seeking revenge seems like something which is a sufficient reason IC as long as it is not petty and the retaliation is proportional. Obviously it does not mean you are entitled to security access and equipment, so "empowered to act as security" must mean something more, but as it is it doesn't look like you are given any special rights when something happens to you, because you would already be permitted to seek out the person who wronged you.

It says "but as per the main rule must also follow related restrictions on security play." I think this refers to security policy, but it is not clear. I am not sure what the difference from standard escalation is here either, since RPR 6 applies to everyone, not only security, and security policy itself does not seem to say anything that would be relevant to a player seeking revenge, especially if they have already considered the other rules. The sixth part of security policy says that security metaprotections rely on adherence to space law, but for a player seeking revenge, adherence to space law may not be possible, and it is not clear if a player "acting as security" is to be given security metaprotections anyway.

There doesn't seem to be a situation where this precedent would apply, without other rules about escalation, proportional punishment, and IC motivation already covering it. Maybe I am missing something with this, because as I read it I am not really learning anything about how you are supposed to play, and I think that a rule should help to understand how you are supposed to play and not confuse it. If I am only misunderstanding then I would like to know what it is, otherwise I think this precedent should be removed.

[Higgin]

It says "Players who choose this path are empowered to act as security in regard to that specific threat," but players are already allowed to retaliate for things that have happened to them, as part of normal escalation. Seeking revenge seems like something which is a sufficient reason IC as long as it is not petty and the retaliation is proportional. Obviously it does not mean you are entitled to security access and equipment, so "empowered to act as security" must mean something more, but as it is it doesn't look like you are given any special rights when something happens to you, because you would already be permitted to seek out the person who wronged you.

It says "but as per the main rule must also follow related restrictions on security play." I think this refers to security policy, but it is not clear. I am not sure what the difference from standard escalation is here either, since RPR 6 applies to everyone, not only security, and security policy itself does not seem to say anything that would be relevant to a player seeking revenge, especially if they have already considered the other rules. The sixth part of security policy says that security metaprotections rely on adherence to space law, but for a player seeking revenge, adherence to space law may not be possible, and it is not clear if a player "acting as security" is to be given security metaprotections anyway.

It is a bit redundant, but that's part of the point.

Two things:

1. "Players who choose this path are empowered to act as security in regard to that specific threat, but as per the main rule must also follow related restrictions on security play. " refers to RPR6 as a reminder of the necessity of proportionality. Even if it's revenge and valid, it needs to be proportionate. Somebody who tried to kill you can be met with death in turn. Somebody who stole your ID can be chased down and arrested or beaten up to get it back; but it's not allowed for them to be killed and left dead bar extenuating circumstances or escalation. It's a reminder to be proportionate even when you are actively hunting outside of your normal play area with reason. RPR6 applies to everyone but has special relevance to security as the people usually applying sanctions within the bounds of Space Law - basically, this is to say, don't do to them worse than what security would be allowed to do, even if you lack the tools security has.

2. Restrictions =/= protections. Players "acting as security" for the purposes of going after someone in revenge are seeking justice themselves rather than handing it off to sec. They don't have the metaprotections of sec around arrests or even in the valid application of Space Law - you can tell a clown that walks up and tries to arrest you for littering to fuck off and toolbox them down for coming with a baton - but (also redundant) they do have the expectations of not being dicks if they act as security by hunting and arresting criminals along with the expectation that what they do will be broadly proportionate and IC (RPR6.) This most applies to players that are helping security or deputized.

The language could be made clearer, but it covers the instance in which somebody does a citizen's arrest vs. throwing hands in the hall over a previous incident. Somebody stealing your ID is not grounds for perma, either, even if you've stunned and cuffed them rather than kicking their teeth in and throwing them into medbay after recovering your ID.

[Higgin]

A way to think about this might be that there are two paths:
-get revenge, follow normal escalation
-act as security, follow security restrictions

The issue we're trying to prevent is people getting revenge that might be more than what normal escalation and RPR6 would allow by acting as security, brigging, perma'ing, executing. They are empowered to act as security in response to a direct wrong but it is not their only avenue to satisfaction.

[Roadto3k]

The issue we're trying to prevent is people getting revenge that might be more than what normal escalation and RPR6 would allow by acting as security, brigging, perma'ing, executing.

From what I see there is not anything that implies this would be allowed, whether you are round start security, deputized, or otherwise "acting as," RPR4 says you are held to the same standard.

A way to think about this might be that there are two paths:
-get revenge, follow normal escalation
-act as security, follow security restrictions

My problem is that I don't see any difference in how rules apply depending on which path with this. In both you must be proportional in the force you use and also the punishment. It does not seem right that you would be exempt from or held to any rule because of the chosen approach. For example if a doctor sedates a thief and straitjackets them, they would not be allowed to hold them longer than 10 minutes, it does not matter if they are not formally working with security, and the HOP would be expected to use disablers first on a trespasser, they are not entitled to lethal by way of not being security. "Restrictions on security play" don't seem to extend past restrictions that would apply to anyone else in any situation.

The part of the sentence "but as per the main rule must also follow related restrictions on security play." Is what worries me because it suggests there is some additional restriction that you are only subject to when you cross over into "security play," but it does not tell what that is. I think that a precedent is a decision that is previously made, which the reasoning for can be referenced to in a later case. But unlike headmin rulings there is not any appeal that it refers to.

[Higgin]

[snip]

[snip]

My problem is that I don't see any difference in how rules apply depending on which path with this. In both you must be proportional in the force you use and also the punishment. It does not seem right that you would be exempt from or held to any rule because of the chosen approach. For example if a doctor sedates a thief and straitjackets them, they would not be allowed to hold them longer than 10 minutes, it does not matter if they are not formally working with security, and the HOP would be expected to use disablers first on a trespasser, they are not entitled to lethal by way of not being security. "Restrictions on security play" don't seem to extend past restrictions that would apply to anyone else in any situation.

The part of the sentence "but as per the main rule must also follow related restrictions on security play." Is what worries me because it suggests there is some additional restriction that you are only subject to when you cross over into "security play," but it does not tell what that is. I think that a precedent is a decision that is previously made, which the reasoning for can be referenced to in a later case. But unlike headmin rulings there is not any appeal that it refers to.

I think you're right to point out the redundancy, and that the redundancy is part of the point here.

The restrictions on security are both global to security and people acting as security. The requirements of escalation are global to all players.

The restriction specific to security play is that you don't apply disproportionate sanctions under cover of acting as security even when you can act as security - even when you don't have to be "acting as security" in order to pursue revenge for specific harms under normal escalation, if you do like in your example with the doctor, you're still bound by the main rule.

Would it help to clarify for Precedent 2 that it has to do with the application of proportionate security-related sanctions (RPR6,) being a dick as sec, and use of force (sec policy?)

[Roadto3k]

If it is for redundancy, then it is my mistake. The page says "Precedents & exceptions: Examples and exceptions to the main rules." I thought of precedent in a narrow way, but they can be examples that show how a rule is applied.
On the security policy the first two are reminders also. Things like this make the rules easier to understand. So, do you think it is right to say that if the rules are followed correctly there is not a need to worry about precedents? It looks like they follow from the rules naturally, and they are not extensions of them, but only clarifications and some exceptions, for specific times. (I don't think it should be rewritten if this is true.)

[Higgin]

If it is for redundancy, then it is my mistake. The page says "Precedents & exceptions: Examples and exceptions to the main rules." I thought of precedent in a narrow way, but they can be examples that show how a rule is applied.
On the security policy the first two are reminders also. Things like this make the rules easier to understand. So, do you think it is right to say that if the rules are followed correctly there is not a need to worry about precedents? It looks like they follow from the rules naturally, and they are not extensions of them, but only clarifications and some exceptions, for specific times. (I don't think it should be rewritten if this is true.)

Generally yes - that's a very reasonable way to understand them.

The precedents extend from the rules. If you're following the rules to the spirit that they're written (which is hopefully immediately accessible - we want them to be short enough to read and capture the principle in bold for people,) you shouldn't end up needing the precedents.

The precedents become useful to elaborate the rules with examples and exceptions where they might not be immediately intuitive but still have general relevance.

Headmin Rulings come into the picture often as a result of very specific issues which don't fit within the general relevance of any given rule or its precedents.


You can think of it as following a sort of inverted pyramid where the rules, generally speaking, cover the universe of standards we agree to for people being able to have fun playing the game. They're at the top.

The precedents fall below the rules and offer a place to hone in on if you have questions or clarifications about the rule or situations which merit exceptions; but they don't introduce new things to the rules.

Headmin Rulings are the much more particular and domain-specific calls that, while under the scope of the rules still, deal with very particular questions. For instance, if we were to get a call in this thread on isolation cells that security can only use them for longer than 10m in cases where they can't do anything else or the person inside could legitimately be executed otherwise, it might be so niche that it wouldn't bear including alongside Security Policy; it would extend from the "any timed sentence shorter than 10m is an IC issue" Security Rule 3; and it might equally end up either as a Ruling or a Precedent (given that Security Policy is already basically a set of precedents, in large part, to a particular area of play.)

[Roadto3k]

This is explained well, I have always mistakenly understood the meaning of some words, which has made me confused. It seems like there not anything here which I should worry about. I am thankful for your reply and patience, I don't have any other questions about it.

[kieth4]

Seems like everything was cleared up. Closing this.