Does the 'no spawn camping' rules apply to non-antags attacking people spawning in (say, on the shuttle)

[NecromancerAnne]

I thought this wouldn't be a thread I have to make, because I assumed this would be well understood, but supposedly not.

Our Rule 4 states the following

4. Lone antagonists are unbound by (most) rules.

With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish. Crewmembers are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder, or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable cause to do so. Otherwise, they may handle antagonists in any way they wish, provided they understand that their actions may be punished by Space Law if given IC cause. Team antagonists can do as they wish as per lone antagonists, but their actions should neither harm their teams efforts, nor intentionally harm it through inaction. Emulating an antagonist by action or outfit puts you at risk of being treated as one.

As this mentions that antagonists are NOT exempt from this rule, one must assume that spawn-camping at arrivals is against the rules in general, applicable to antags and non-antags and not an IC issue. If there doesn't exist a spawn-camping rule, what exemption is being made?

Presumably, spawn-camping, or any attack on another player immediately following them spawning into the game at arrivals, is in violation of Rule 1. It is the most obvious candidate; it is just an immensely dickish move to be assaulted the moment the game loads in by someone else already playing the game. It serves no purpose other than to be a dick. And generally, spawn-camping is regarded as a form of poor sportsmanship if not outright cheating.

Antagonists wouldn't be held to a specific standard if that standard wasn't so important as to hold them accountable. More than just antagonists can spawn-camp.

[Timberpoes]

Non antags cannot kill or attack or grief FNR, so there's no need for an additional rule disallowing spawn camping as a non antag. It's already against all the other rules. It's not that the shuttle is specially protected from non antags but that nobody on the shuttle will have done anything to warrant a non antag showing any hostility to them at all.

If there was somehow a situation where a player had just spawned in on the shuttle and somehow instantly made themselves valid to a non-antag, then that's a them skill issue.

Antags can kill FNR, so the shuttle has a special protection against it just regarding antags so people can at least join the shift with a chance of not being spawn camped.

This is probably more restrictive than non antags because I recall revs being asked not to spawn camp late joining heads in the past and at least let them get into a main hallway before ganking them, which is one of the rare times an antag would be compelled to instantly kill a new joiner.

[NecromancerAnne]

This is absolutely how I already interpreted the matter, but to highlight the exact exchange that prompted this, there is no actual explicit explanation in the rules beyond what I highlighted to suggest this. Could you provide what rules it falls under?

[Roadto3k]

4. Lone antagonists are unbound by (most) rules.

This sentence is over and separate from

With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish.

The second sentence isnt referencing rules, its a list of exceptions to the predicate they can do anything they wish. Theres rules for everything else but spawn camping is special.
Non antag can escalate against someone on the shuttle, maybe you will call it a rule 1 issue and someone else won't.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

It depends, spawn camping usually means someone who already spawned in and is waiting at the shuttle to kill a fresh start with no chance. If they all spawn in together it isn't really spawn camping, it could just be bad escalation or being a dick depending on what happened. If they had a reason to say, shove or attack an individual or group because of circumstances it would also be okay, the context and nuance matters too much. Best left to admin discretion and then brought up in some official way to head admins if there is a problem with it so it can be checked in on

[NecromancerAnne]

Let's play out a mild hypothetical so it's an easy example to draw from. Two assistants spawn on the arrival shuttle together. Assistant 1 initiates a totally random, unprompted attack on assistant 2, gets them into a stun loop of some kind and steals their ID and then sprints off. This attack is literally within the first few seconds of their arrival into a round with absolutely no interaction at all from assistant 1 or 2 prior to 1's attack. 2 spawned against a wall and was in the best position to be shoved over and stunned.

How would you view that?

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Are you asking me this hypothetical in a way that you think draws a parallel to the situation that happened to you?

[britgrenadier1]

Are you asking me this hypothetical in a way that you think draws a parallel to the situation that happened to you?

They’re asking you if you think the no spawn camping rule extends to things other than killing, like ID theft. Just spawn in, off the rip fight someone as a non antag on the shuttle. Yay or nay

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Are you asking me this hypothetical in a way that you think draws a parallel to the situation that happened to you?

They’re asking you if you think the no spawn camping rule extends to things other than killing, like ID theft. Just spawn in, off the rip fight someone as a non antag on the shuttle. Yay or nay

"With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish"

Probably not from the wording of this rule it seems to only cover antagonists and I don't see a mention of non-antagonists anywhere, doesn't really matter how correct this interpretation is because there are probably other rules like just rule 1 in general to protect people in these scenarios, or escalation. each case should probably be judged on its merit.

[NecromancerAnne]

Are you asking me this hypothetical in a way that you think draws a parallel to the situation that happened to you?

No, actually, this is something I made up. It's just a thought experiment.

"With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish"

Probably not from the wording of this rule it seems to only cover antagonists and I don't see a mention of non-antagonists anywhere, doesn't really matter how correct this interpretation is because there are probably other rules like just rule 1 in general to protect people in these scenarios, or escalation. each case should probably be judged on its merit.

I feel you are neglecting the aspect of that ruling as an expectation that antagonists are not exceptions to these rules, rather than being specific rules that apply to antagonists. I don't think it is consistent to assume that only antagonists are somehow unable to mess with people on the arrival shuttle in these circumstances. If we follow that logic, In the given scenario I just mentioned, since they're both non-antags, they somehow do not fall under these rules and have greater freedoms than our antagonists? That seems exceptionally backwards. Why would we need an explicit rule for non-antags separate to the antagonists explicit rule not to do that when the antagonist rule suggests that the non-atnag rule exists or is implicit to, say, rule 1?

[Vekter]

I feel you are neglecting the aspect of that ruling as an expectation that antagonists are not exceptions to these rules, rather than being specific rules that apply to antagonists. I don't think it is consistent to assume that only antagonists are somehow unable to mess with people on the arrival shuttle in these circumstances. If we follow that logic, In the given scenario I just mentioned, since they're both non-antags, they somehow do not fall under these rules and have greater freedoms than our antagonists? That seems exceptionally backwards. Why would we need an explicit rule for non-antags separate to the antagonists explicit rule not to do that when the antagonist rule suggests that the non-atnag rule exists or is implicit to, say, rule 1?

So I think the logic shakes out like this:

For non-antags, we would normally cover attacking someone fresh off the shuttle for literally no reason as a rule 1 issue. There's no explicit rule that says you can't do it, but it's covered under rule 1 just like any other instance of attacking someone for no reason. If the person you're fighting on the shuttle gives you a reason to do so, per literally any acceptable escalation, then it stops being a rule 1 issue. We don't need a separate rule or ruling for situations where a non-antag kills someone on the arrivals shuttle for no reason - that's very clearly a rule 1 issue.

Antags are not normally bound by rule 1 due to rule 4, so an exception is necessary to keep them from just merking anyone the moment the arrivals shuttle lands. That's why rule 4 includes "spawn camping arrivals". It's trying to prevent the specific behavior of players waiting at arrivals for someone to spawn in and then murdering and round removing them. Typically, (at least in my experience) this does not include situations where the person spawning in has done something to cause regular escalation to happen. I've seen situations where an antag was near arrivals by happenstance, a player saw them and jumped them and then was killed. This would not be spawn camping - that player took an action that would reasonably lead to anyone being okay to retaliate.

In short, someone doesn't get magical protection from retaliation just because they're on the arrivals shuttle. If they do something that could result in them getting their ass kicked, they can get their ass kicked. The spawn camping rule is there to prevent antags from just standing in arrivals and gibbing anyone who signs up to play in the next hour or so.

[GamerAndYeahMick]

Are you asking me this hypothetical in a way that you think draws a parallel to the situation that happened to you?

No, actually, this is something I made up. It's just a thought experiment.

"With the exception of metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, or spawn-camping arrivals, solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish"

Probably not from the wording of this rule it seems to only cover antagonists and I don't see a mention of non-antagonists anywhere, doesn't really matter how correct this interpretation is because there are probably other rules like just rule 1 in general to protect people in these scenarios, or escalation. each case should probably be judged on its merit.

I feel you are neglecting the aspect of that ruling as an expectation that antagonists are not exceptions to these rules, rather than being specific rules that apply to antagonists. I don't think it is consistent to assume that only antagonists are somehow unable to mess with people on the arrival shuttle in these circumstances. If we follow that logic, In the given scenario I just mentioned, since they're both non-antags, they somehow do not fall under these rules and have greater freedoms than our antagonists? That seems exceptionally backwards. Why would we need an explicit rule for non-antags separate to the antagonists explicit rule not to do that when the antagonist rule suggests that the non-atnag rule exists or is implicit to, say, rule 1?

If something happened near the spawn/in spawn that made the antagonist do something it is different than spawn camping

[NecromancerAnne]

So we can at least establish that something similar to the hypothetical is covered by a Rule 1, right? Barring context, as usual, for general situations, something like my specific hypothetical may not be a spawn camp ruling but would be a Rule 1 for bad escalation and generally poor play?

Obviously, just to reaffirm my point, this isn't asking whether Rule 4 itself is preventing this, this is more asking where does that rule exist for other players. How is it defined. If not 'spawn camping'. That's what I'm getting at.

[DrAmazing343]

I believe that under any circumstance of attacking a player fresh on the shuttle it falls under Rule 1, really. Rule 4 is only a modifier to allow freedom if there’s an escalating move at all, but if it comes down to brass tacks, I’d note or ban off of Rule 1 here. I’m not quite sure I understand the rest of the questions, if there are any? I’ll check back later, but that’s my piece.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Rule 4 is only a modifier to allow freedom if there’s an escalating move at all

It isn't

[NecromancerAnne]

I believe that under any circumstance of attacking a player fresh on the shuttle it falls under Rule 1, really. Rule 4 is only a modifier to allow freedom if there’s an escalating move at all, but if it comes down to brass tacks, I’d note or ban off of Rule 1 here. I’m not quite sure I understand the rest of the questions, if there are any? I’ll check back later, but that’s my piece.

I was just a bit confused a bit by other peoples input. It felt a bit like things were getting a little too vague for me to parse whether or not there were circumstances where it was actionable.

Rule 4 is only a modifier to allow freedom if there’s an escalating move at all

It isn't

Then what is it?

[Itseasytosee2me]

Rule 4 is only a modifier to allow freedom if there’s an escalating move at all

It isn't

Then what is it?

It empowers antagonists to act as they please to suit their character and their place in the story. It has no qualifiers.

[DrAmazing343]

I did mis-speak! It's a rule on it's own, but in this context, would only be a modifier at most, since basically any escalating interactions against the shuttle-stepoff person would already be invalid unless the shuttle-stepper escalated against you first.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

Jumping someone who's just gotten off/ is on the shuttle is being a complete dick and shouldnt be done

Antags are allowed to be dicks, but we dont want them spawncamping so they have a specific exemption from their rule 4 freedoms

Seems simple

[TheLoLSwat]

Jumping someone who's just gotten off/ is on the shuttle is being a complete dick and shouldnt be done

Antags are allowed to be dicks, but we dont want them spawncamping so they have a specific exemption from their rule 4 freedoms

Seems simple

[Vekter]

So we can at least establish that something similar to the hypothetical is covered by a Rule 1, right? Barring context, as usual, for general situations, something like my specific hypothetical may not be a spawn camp ruling but would be a Rule 1 for bad escalation and generally poor play?

Obviously, just to reaffirm my point, this isn't asking whether Rule 4 itself is preventing this, this is more asking where does that rule exist for other players. How is it defined. If not 'spawn camping'. That's what I'm getting at.

If we're talking about this hypothetical:

Let's play out a mild hypothetical so it's an easy example to draw from. Two assistants spawn on the arrival shuttle together. Assistant 1 initiates a totally random, unprompted attack on assistant 2, gets them into a stun loop of some kind and steals their ID and then sprints off. This attack is literally within the first few seconds of their arrival into a round with absolutely no interaction at all from assistant 1 or 2 prior to 1's attack. 2 spawned against a wall and was in the best position to be shoved over and stunned.

Then yes, it would be covered under rule 1. Wordless shoving/stealing something is generally an IC issue but it happening within moments of spawning and for no reason other than "I wanted their access" or "I thought it was funny" would be enough for me to step in and ask them not to in the future.

Rule 4 only has the explicit exception because antags are not typically bound by rule 1, so we have to specify a line in the sand to prevent them from abusing folks who just spawned in.

[conrad]

I don't like ruling on hypotheticals 'cos the only real rule is rule 1, and every other rule is a mere clarification of rule 1. If we begin drafting rules on hypotheticals the grand lexicons of /tg/ legislature will reach the brazilions.

Attacking on spawn as an antag is already against the rules.

Attacking on spawn as a non-antag doesn't sound like something that would have a reason to happen. That's just griefing.

If two assistants fight in arrivals that's not camping. It's just two freshly spawned spessmen punching each other. Facing each other. But they're one.

If neither are antags, escalation rules apply. It might spawn an ahelp, followed by "why did you start a fight there?", followed by "lmao greytide" which might spawn a note, and rule 7 applies.

If the one that started the conflict kills the other and refuses medical help, that's a breach in escalation.

I feel like I'm parroting Timber but this is something that I feel is already covered in the rules.

[Timberpoes]

In practice this doesn't matter. There is no "no-spawn-camping" rule for non-antags because non-antags can't kill FNR. Antags can, and may even have justification for spawn camping the shuttle (like Revs spawnkilling an incoming head). So Rule 4 doesn't allow them to do it cuz it sucks.

Burger: +1
DrAmazing: +1