Escalation Policy/Rules Vagueness Woes

[KingKuma]

So, before i go on a full wall of text here: This following is my opinion, and this post is more just to ask for clarification than demand change (though change would be nice.)

As a player, if someone asked me what TG's biggest problem is, I'd say the rules are both verbose, but also too vague. I'm making this post to ask a few questions about it to clear stuff up for myself. I'm mainly going to focus on probably my biggest source of paranoia: escalation policy, notably as non-antag.
According to the wiki, Escalation Policy is defined as:
You may begin IC conflicts with another player if it does not excessively interfere with their ability to do their job. While you are allowed to escalate conflicts, if it leads to violence and you have poor IC reasoning for inciting it, you may face administrative action.
Killing a crewmate is a severe response, and requires severe justification to do, such as those in Rule 1's precedents, or Rule 4.
Critically wounded characters must be treated or taken to the medbay by the standing party where reasonable, and taking unnecessary action against a downed player opens you up to reprisal. If you are incapacitated in a fight and treated, or the conflict is otherwise meaningfully broken, you are expected to require an IC reason beyond 'bruised ego' to re-initiate it.

• Question One: What defines "IC reasoning"?

This is very, very vague, and basically comes down to the admin's own views on IC motivations. Because of this, as non-antag, I'm very, very reluctant to fight back beyond shovestunning unless theyre waving an esword in my face, because for all I know, my IC reasoning might not align, and I'd get in trouble. Same goes for starting a conflict: I don't know if my personal reasons are counted as legitamate by the admins online. On the other hand, this vagueness makes it easy to take advantage of by bad actors wanting to just troll, since if they win hey free stuff, and if they lose they have a chance to get someone in trouble. As a result, for me, fighting back against anyone as non antag that might not be an antag themselves is something I'll rarely do.

• Question Two: Why does it feel like the rules arent followed half the time? Do I think the rules are much stricter than they are, or do half the people don't follow the rules at all and they aren't really enforced?

Below is an example of what I mean that demonstrates this, and is one we have all seen happen.
Someone is waiting somewhere for something. Maybe they're at the hopline, or at the bar, etc. Someone else shoves them against the wall/table, takes their ID, and runs.

In my opinion, this breaks Escalation Policy as I would argue losing your ID "excessively interferes with their ability to do their job." ...but it happens all the time. Also note the term "excessive" in the ruling. Who defines what counts as excessive? The admin who answers your ticket? Some admins might argue it's no big deal, as the head of personel can replace it. So the question remains: Am I wrong in thinking being shoved and robbed isn't breaking escalation policy, or are bad actors just taking advantage of lax rule enforcement to grief?

• Question Three: How can I be sure I'm retaliating with a weapon in a situation that warrants it, and not be in danger of the other person ahelping me?

A good example of this was a few rounds back, some janitor kept wordlessly stunning people with the shock mutation with no provocation, which, in addition to a hardstun, does 5 burn to each bodypart. I had a sword, but was afraid to use it, as I was afraid I would be improperly escalating, and that I was one janitor salty about losing a fight away from getting permanently noted on my account. To put it simply, I reflexively treat anyone starting conflict with me as escalation baiting, because even if they aren't, why take the risk?

• Question Four: Is arguing your case in an ahelp seen as bad, just as being cooperative is seen as good?

I myself avoided a ban by cooperating in a ticket, but i don't know if this means "just accepted the punishment and didn't try and argue their case", or "didnt start insulting the admin's mother." Because of this vagueness (again), I'm scared trying to say "No you're wrong, this is what happened" in an ahelp will make the resulting punishment worse, so I usually just eat the note, even if I disagree with it.

To wrap things up: I enjoy playing this game. However, I have a sense of anxiety about breaking a vague rule when an admin having a bad day and me getting a permaban. And because of that, I basically only play as a job sim 90% of the time, and actually only fight people as antag. A good analogy for my paranoia of administrative action would be how a peasant in the 1300s sees god; Something to be feared, and a boring life is the only way of avoiding a lightning bolt from above. I know admins aren't looking to screw me over, of course, but it's an irrational fear. And that's why I made this thread - not to beg rules to be changed, but just so I can hopefully at least ease my genuine anxiety about causing conflict in rounds.

Simply put, I want to take part in the chaotic space game, and not have every time I trespass into an area or punch someone have the intrusive thought of "YOU MIGHT GET BANNED FOR THIS" in my head.

P.S. I've heard even when notes get deleted, they're just deleted from public view and admins can still see them. Is this true? It hasn't helped, especially given the rumors of "X amount of notes is grounds alone for a QC ban."

[Cobby]

> I'd say the rules are both verbose, but also too vague.

This is 100% intentional, there are so many intricacies and social "valves" that we simply cant place in the rules to satiate the RAW types and even moreso expect people to know every rule written. We have policy discussion for that very reason, and even then all policies are somewhat subject to the caveat that its true by and large, but there may be external factors that change what would be appropriate especially when we start talking about big ticket items like escalation and rule1.

1. Again this is intentional, and if the rules are stunning you its a bit hard to help outside of just saying yolo. Imagine you are not playing a game and you are the character youre playing as, would it be ok to start throwing punches? If yes, its ok to start wailing on someone with whatever is available. The gamey part I guess is if you do 2nd degree murder you have to leave their body out for revive, intentionally opening yourself up for security and round ruining.

You WILL eventually have an admin talk to you, this is ok. Even if its not ok, you have the appeal process. If that fails, then adjust your mindset to compensate. You shouldnt ever see a ban if you can reasonably explain why you did things in the context of the game, and notes mean nothing if you arent accruing them consistently. It is a roleplaying game where the DM isnt over your shoulder, so you need to get into the mindset of the admins being DMs and will occassionally check in to make sure you're still good.

I dont think this is a failing of the rules, because the alternative is an unwieldy mess (for more people since it seems unwieldy for you now).

2. I do not mean this to be ugly but you sound like a RAW hard-a. That's just how you find enjoyment from games and that is fine. However, the game works best with a RAI mindset and rulelist because of all the various knobs that could affect a scenario, and really we only want to punish bad actors, so I think you are just being a bit overtly cautious. Alternatively, the people ARE misbehaving and it isnt getting reported.

3. the amount of damage on the item does not matter, what matters is can you legally kill them or not. There is no rule that you have to be particularly slow at killing them with punches over a sword.

4. No, but continuing to argue *****INGAME***** after a ruling has been made is pointless and you can be muted for it if you keep it up. There is even a rule explicitly called out for this that gives admins the ability to tell you to shut up. Take it to the forums if you disagree or just take the note which implies you agree with the ruling.

We simply cannot provide anything rationale except information with how the system works to placate an irrational fear. Yes, you will get bwoinked even if you are 100% in the right because the aDMin is trying to understand what happened. Yes, you may get noted about things if you are in the wrong. If you are not consistently doing that to accrue notes you shouldnt have a problem.

5. Notes deleted can be both, deleted from normal viewing and deleted from the database. The former is more likely but it also requires the admin to go out of their way (specifically going to the database versus looking at the list provided ingame) to see those notes. If you are acting in good faith, which means you are trying to be considerate of how you play even if youre playing a bit of a stinker, you should never see the amount of notes that the people who get banned for QC will see. If you start to accrue notes THEN worry and ask how you can fix it, but its not helpful to be preemptively stunned by the idea when youre nowhere close to the mark.

[KingKuma]

2. I do not mean this to be ugly but you sound like a RAW hard-a.

I've never been so relieved to be called a hardass. It's definitely over-cautiousness, when I was new I had no idea ic law and ooc rules were different and I played that way for years.

[massa]

just hit them with the toolbox if they make you mad enough bro it's that easy

[Justice12354]

I'm not gonna reply to the escalation policy stuff bc it's 3am. But my TL;DR is: If someone is being a shitter, a beating is always deserved. If you can give us a reasoning (like, literally any reason that you find plausible yourself), I'm nearly certain we'll accept it, unless you're a fucking idiot, in which case I can't do much. Overall, I'd say that, if you have all these concerns, you're in the reasonable part of the community and your decisions ICly will be sensible, as long as you're able to justify them. We obviously cannot give you a rule that solves every single IC encounter, because there are just way too much possibilities and we'll just look at them individually.

• Question Four: Is arguing your case in an ahelp seen as bad, just as being cooperative is seen as good?

I myself avoided a ban by cooperating in a ticket, but i don't know if this means "just accepted the punishment and didn't try and argue their case", or "didnt start insulting the admin's mother." Because of this vagueness (again), I'm scared trying to say "No you're wrong, this is what happened" in an ahelp will make the resulting punishment worse, so I usually just eat the note, even if I disagree with it.

Arguing in an ahelp is only bad if you're calling us a racial slur and telling us to kill yourselves (actually happens sometimes, believe it or not). If we get something wrong, you SHOULD tell us, so we get a better image of the situation. I'm pretty sure that no admin will be upset at being corrected, else they wouldn't be adminned to begin with.

I have a sense of anxiety about breaking a vague rule when an admin having a bad day and me getting a permaban.

That is what appeals are for and why we have a set of three Headmins in place. If you believe a ban is improperly placed, appeal it and we'll be glad to look into it

P.S. I've heard even when notes get deleted, they're just deleted from public view and admins can still see them. Is this true? It hasn't helped, especially given the rumors of "X amount of notes is grounds alone for a QC ban."

The rumors are false. Maybe you can see the deleted notes in the statbus somehow, but that's not relevant for your day-to-day life bc we see the notes in-game, not on statbus. As for the QC ban deal, it's not true; It's purely based on vibes.

[Maxipat]

Question One: What defines "IC reasoning"?

This is very, very vague, and basically comes down to the admin's own views on IC motivations. Because of this, as non-antag, I'm very, very reluctant to fight back beyond shovestunning unless theyre waving an esword in my face, because for all I know, my IC reasoning might not align, and I'd get in trouble. Same goes for starting a conflict: I don't know if my personal reasons are counted as legitamate by the admins online. On the other hand, this vagueness makes it easy to take advantage of by bad actors wanting to just troll, since if they win hey free stuff, and if they lose they have a chance to get someone in trouble. As a result, for me, fighting back against anyone as non antag that might not be an antag themselves is something I'll rarely do.

You're always in right to fight back, since escalation pace depends on the defending party, so whether fight turns lethal or not depends on you, if you only fight back with shoves the attacker can't (shouldn't) escalate to lethals themselves - for you starting fights, basically (i can speak for LRP since i mostly admin there) as long as you have better reason than "im bored" or "i wanted to have a fight" you're good.

Question Two: Why does it feel like the rules arent followed half the time? Do I think the rules are much stricter than they are, or do half the people don't follow the rules at all and they aren't really enforced?

Below is an example of what I mean that demonstrates this, and is one we have all seen happen.
Someone is waiting somewhere for something. Maybe they're at the hopline, or at the bar, etc. Someone else shoves them against the wall/table, takes their ID, and runs.

In my opinion, this breaks Escalation Policy as I would argue losing your ID "excessively interferes with their ability to do their job." ...but it happens all the time. Also note the term "excessive" in the ruling. Who defines what counts as excessive? The admin who answers your ticket? Some admins might argue it's no big deal, as the head of personel can replace it. So the question remains: Am I wrong in thinking being shoved and robbed isn't breaking escalation policy, or are bad actors just taking advantage of lax rule enforcement to grief?

It's mostly a combo of admins not seeing everything and people not ahelping - i'd say if someone runs up to you and randomly steals your ID they should be at least bwoinked.

Question Three: How can I be sure I'm retaliating with a weapon in a situation that warrants it, and not be in danger of the other person ahelping me?

A good example of this was a few rounds back, some janitor kept wordlessly stunning people with the shock mutation with no provocation, which, in addition to a hardstun, does 5 burn to each bodypart. I had a sword, but was afraid to use it, as I was afraid I would be improperly escalating, and that I was one janitor salty about losing a fight away from getting permanently noted on my account. To put it simply, I reflexively treat anyone starting conflict with me as escalation baiting, because even if they aren't, why take the risk?

Rules don't really mention type of "appropriate" weapon, only distinction if lethal vs non-lethal. In your example i'd say you're fully in right to fight back lethally, because 1. the janitor started the fight and so whether it turns lethal or not depends on you, 2. the fight is already lethal (even if it didn't deal 5dmg to all bodyparts, in such situation just the stun could be considered "lethal", since getting randomly stunned leaves you at the whims of the attacker) (don't quote me on that, it's really contextual - i'd personally say starting a fight with stun is way harsher (almost lethal level) than someone defending themselves with a baton and running away) and finally 3. if they're escalation baiting it's against the rules, so hopefully an admin would figure that it's the case in that situation.

Question Four: Is arguing your case in an ahelp seen as bad, just as being cooperative is seen as good?

I myself avoided a ban by cooperating in a ticket, but i don't know if this means "just accepted the punishment and didn't try and argue their case", or "didnt start insulting the admin's mother." Because of this vagueness (again), I'm scared trying to say "No you're wrong, this is what happened" in an ahelp will make the resulting punishment worse, so I usually just eat the note, even if I disagree with it.

I don't think you can put arguing your case vs being cooperative as a binary opposition, since they're not mutually exclusive - as long as you're arguing with meritoric arguments and not "FUCK YOU ADMIN IM GONNA R*PE YOUR MOTHER" you're ultra fine. Cooperativeness in ticket is basically truthfully answering whatever admin asks you, not just silently accepting the punishment. I personally, whenever someone just goes "ok" "ok" "ok" in the ticket not trying to refute anything or clear anything up, feel like they don't really care about breaking rules (and probably will do it again).

P.S. I've heard even when notes get deleted, they're just deleted from public view and admins can still see them. Is this true? It hasn't helped, especially given the rumors of "X amount of notes is grounds alone for a QC ban."

If note gets deleted, it disappears from your record as a whole - admins can't see it. There are also expiring notes, which get gray'ed out and have big "EXPIRED" text written over them, they're still readable and show on record but admins are disallowed to use them, as if they were deleted. Third way a note can "disappear" is that notes after some time get gray'ed out and only appear after an admin "expands" the note list (note that not all ways to view notes account for this), basically very old notes shouldn't be used to escalate punishments or taken into account. (But we also look at difference in playtime hours between now and then, so just disappearing for 2 years and coming back won't fool anyone)

E: i'll elaborate more on QCs, just having a big amount of notes is not ground for QC ban - QC bans are usually for players that keep racking up notes for the same behavior but for some reason still aren't banned for it OR if entire admin team (heads required in both cases) think you're a net negative for the whole server's health and you ruin the game for others just by your usual playstyle (usually you also fall into first category if you do), but no particular rule makes your behavior against them on technicality of not being explicitly written. (It often just falls under rule 1, but it's severely underenforced). As an example of # of notes != QC ban, we have players with over 100 notes that still play here and are around.