Rule Suggestion Adopting In-Character rulings for 4.4 Non-Combative Personnel

[Dusk]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Changing rule 4.4 Non-Combative Personnel from the server ruling of; The day to day duties of the person's job doesn’t require them to involve themselves in combat, these roles and/or departments may not engage in combat unless there are no options available, such as escape or hiding.
​

---

To a In-Character ruling that is punishable in-character instead of by staff members. Using these as an example.








​

---

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No, nothing like this has been suggested before.
​

---

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
This removes redundancies and loop holing. Allows in-game changes to adopt and mold the way non-combative's function on the server instead of them just being Non-Player Characters who either end up breaking the rule anyway, lucky enough to not have broken the rule or individuals who have read the rule and follow it to a T and or try to find ways to loophole around the ruling for their own benefit. Staff have said previously they would like to reduce the amount of rules on the server to ensure the ease of access to reading and remembering the rules. This ruling enables departments to further moderate their subordinates, as well as the ease of enforcing codes on the server more stringently. If personnel are not where they are supposed to be they cannot retaliate, if it isn't supplemental to the force perceived they can receive punishments. These rulings are fleshed out enough that more can be added to them to streamline the process further to cover a wider array of options.
​

---

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Literally none. This ruling is exactly the same as the server rule already in place but in-character features added to ensure when it is switched over non-combative's are not just allowed to shoot whoever they want.
​

---

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The current ruling is quite frankly stupid, if you want serious-rp you remove the rules that restrict this in favor of moderation. Non-Combative's have rights to their own safety and it should not just be up to GOD to decide whether or not I can defend myself from impending death or injury.​

 

[Emilia Foddg]

Hm. I agree in principle - This would need discussion with RP leadership across both servers to determine a working implementation (Those examples feel very US server, in the way that it's worded, too.);

However, there's a few issues - The first being that the concept of what is and isn't a combative job is a cross-faction thing: There are combatives and non-combatives in each faction.

For GOC of course, you could argue for like, IC punishments for too-combative behaviour on Ambassador/Attaché, that makes sense. I forget which CI jobs are non-combative and to be honest, with CI everything's made up and the points don't matter. Johnson J. Marauder's word is law, regardless of who you are and if he says you're not active, despite the fact that you have literally been regularly on in the past week and you literally raided with him that prior night, then you're not active.

How do you reconcile civilian combatives with this? Obviously it's still FailRP to raid as jobs that can't raid or situations where you can't raid. But with this still carries issues with certain civ jobs.

---

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
No, nothing like this has been suggested before.

I mean... If you want to be thorough about this, there is this,

Rule Suggestion - Changes to 4.1 & 4.2 Regarding Chain of Command (Change Control of CoC)

What does this suggestion change/add/remove: Rewrite server rules 4.1 & 4.2 such that the explicit global base hierarchy and/or departmental hierarchy are not decided by staff as part of a server rule, but rather decided by IC roles - For example, it could be something along the lines of Site...

www.civilgamers.com

Which is just the same thing, but for different rules in the same section. Interestingly, since 4.3 and 4.4 are basically intertwined ("These are the combative roles, these are the non-combative roles," would also suggest factoring 4.3 into your suggestion - Unless I'm interpreting your entire suggestion wrong, not as a "What roles are combative/non-combative are decided IC" and more "The rules for non-combatives should be decided IC." But it's weird because... Again, they're very hand-in-hand rules you can't touch one without intersecting the other.), these combined would essentially mean that the entirety of Section 4 could be decided IC. Which, when I think about it, I agree with in concept. Unsure about the implementation - But that entire section is... Just basically useless,. tautological; Only says "these are these things and in what capacity they are regarded as." Doesn't particularly make sense for them to be server rules.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Literally none. This ruling is exactly the same as the server rule already in place but in-character features added to ensure when it is switched over non-combative's are not just allowed to shoot whoever they want.

This is not true (I would say "This is never true, but the possibility of a suggestion having zero downside is, while minimal, never zero." It may be close to functionally never, though.): Same negatives from the active suggestion I linked apply here, too.

You move who is trusted with deciding and maintaining these things from staff, to people in RP leadership positions. They would be responsible for it and would also need to ensure that the information remains accessible. And it's also more documents Ventz needs to own.

+Support

 

[Niox]

-Support
-No action would be taken to arrest these people. It’s happened with SCU, where they are meant to be arrested when fighting in a C1 but aren’t. Why? Because why would you arrest someone helping you. This is taking that and applying it to egeryobe
-It’s also just…. Unrealistic for a RSD to go out guns blazing, that’s just something they wouldn’t do realistically.
-Then you have the mess of civilians, MC&D, CI and GOC non combatives.
-God bless, 0 negatives, isn’t that fun.
-I don’t see why this should be changed other than to shoot CI/D Class at your convenience, whenever someone isn’t watching/wont snitch.

Bad suggestion, no point in this.

 

[Dusk]

However, there's a few issues - The first being that the concept of what is and isn't a combative job is a cross-faction thing: There are combatives and non-combatives in each faction.

Neither CI or GOC follow the CoC or CoE. They essentially only follow the server rules as neither of them have a need for combative or non-combative rulings, so in a way they would just continue to follow the rulings on who is considered to be non-combative or combative not what those groups should be doing when they are labeled as such.

---

"How do you reconcile civilian combatives with this? Obviously it's still FailRP to raid as jobs that can't raid or situations where you can't raid. But with this still carries issues with certain civ jobs."

This is actually a very good question, the major issue with anything on the surface is the lack of engageable content those parties have to involve themselves with. Essentially, they are extra's in the server and are placed in a spectrum of only following server rules because there is nothing in place that would put them on something different. Now, if there were rules the Mayor could govern, which for all things considered would make sense, having a discussion about stuff like this would be moot. Considering this ruling should/would only effect patrons/individuals in the Foundation/Facility I don't see a reason why they wouldn't just continue to follow the same path they have been just as CI and GOC are doing. There's no "written in stone" rulings for any of these parties to follow and are left to their own devices/IC policies if need be, which could be changed in a future suggestion.

---

This is not true (I would say "This is never true, but the possibility of a suggestion having zero downside is, while minimal, never zero." It may be close to functionally never, though.): Same negatives from the active suggestion I linked apply here, too.

I would say in any other situation as open ended as this, this is true. However, the change isn't changing much other than letting those that moderate the facility with their own regulated rules take over the reigns of what staff is currently doing. So the negatives would be the negligence of those in charge of governing and enforcing this. I would partially see that as a negative, but those parties have been having the same issues included in the negatives for this suggestion as if this wasn't implemented or not, so I personally didn't see that as an overall negative.

---

Which is just the same thing, but for different rules in the same section. Interestingly, since 4.3 and 4.4 are basically intertwined ("These are the combative roles, these are the non-combative roles," would also suggest factoring 4.3 into your suggestion - Unless I'm interpreting your entire suggestion wrong, not as a "What roles are combative/non-combative are decided IC" and more "The rules for non-combatives should be decided IC." But it's weird because... Again, they're very hand-in-hand rules you can't touch one without intersecting the other.), these combined would essentially mean that the entirety of Section 4 could be decided IC. Which, when I think about it, I agree with in concept. Unsure about the implementation - But that entire section is... Just basically useless,. tautological; Only says "these are these things and in what capacity they are regarded as." Doesn't particularly make sense for them to be server rules.

Combative's do have their own set of rules they follow, be it through licenses and or protocols when on the job. They are punished through punitive forces just as non-combative's would be punished through their punitive force. The takeaway for this is as such; non-combative's are literally just a grey area, and their protections are about them following procedures during situations they need to exclude themselves from but not situations where they are unable to follow those protocols, while they do have the option for self defense in the ruling given extremely rare situations up to the discretion of staff members its too far and few between to be actually called a ruling, more just a rule to make it easier to moderate that grey area. From my personal perspective nobody really understands the ruling because non-combative's aren't moderated to the extent they should be as its up to the facility leadership to dictate as such. This ruling would only enable non-combative's to defend themselves in lawful situations where an option to 'run' and or 'hide' is realistically impossible given the situation, now that ruling can be fine tuned to meet those standards its not necessarily a blanket change to let them shoot someone wherever they see fit in a lawful situation.

---

I was also unaware of that suggestion due to my own negligence, so my apologizes to the staff members overlooking this suggestion.

 

[Dusk]

-Support
-No action would be taken to arrest these people. It’s happened with SCU, where they are meant to be arrested when fighting in a C1 but aren’t. Why? Because why would you arrest someone helping you. This is taking that and applying it to egeryobe

This has nothing to do with the suggestion. This is negligence from IC groups not doing their job which will continue to be a problem across all rulings regardless if this is added or not.

---

-It’s also just…. Unrealistic for a RSD to go out guns blazing, that’s just something they wouldn’t do realistically.
-Then you have the mess of civilians, MC&D, CI and GOC non combatives.
-God bless, 0 negatives, isn’t that fun.
-I don’t see why this should be changed other than to shoot CI/D Class at your convenience, whenever someone isn’t watching/wont snitch.

None of this has any cohesion to what is being suggested as their are exceptions to the ruling that would prevent those in areas they are not allowed to be in still be punished by staff members. If non-combative's are supposed to just sit and take any action against them up front it just makes CI's jobs easier which is your factions problem for not formulating plans to execute operations better, which in my personal opinion is a bias against this suggestion. Civilian life would still be treated through the already existing rulings and are essentially excluded from this as the ruling is specifically tailored to foundation personnel as stated in the rulings if you read them thoroughly.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

-No action would be taken to arrest these people. It’s happened with SCU, where they are meant to be arrested when fighting in a C1 but aren’t. Why? Because why would you arrest someone helping you
-It’s also just…. Unrealistic for a RSD to go out guns blazing, that’s just something they wouldn’t do realistically.

IIRC SCU are allowed to assist in a C1 in a defensive capacity, ala E-11. I do otherwise agree, actually - I think these considerations for like... RsD actively going out and engaging CI should still be considered like, FailRP under the rules.

 

[Niox]

This has nothing to do with the suggestion. This is negligence from IC groups not doing their job which will continue to be a problem across all rulings regardless if this is added or not.

Yes this is negligence IC, it’ll still be a problem but allowing the same problem to manifest in different ways won’t help.

---

None of this has any cohesion to what is being suggested as their are exceptions to the ruling that would prevent those in areas they are not allowed to be in still be punished by staff members.

Ah, because foundation should get special treatment.
Why would it suddenly be Realistic for a RSD to go out and shoot some CI, but unrealistic for a CI Chemist to go blasting some SOP?

If non-combative's are supposed to just sit and take any action against them up front it just makes CI's jobs easier

Escorts. Cyanide. Even the god damn Non-combative ruling says you can do it if there is no escape. Thing is that in the ruling it’s only if there is no escape.

which is your factions problem for not formulating plans to execute operations better

I’m a UK player my guy. Whatever experiences you got on the US are different to UK CI.
Also - if US CI is not “formulating plans to execute operations better”, and it’s working, isn’t that just a HUGE skill issue?

which in my personal opinion is a bias against this suggestion.

Well in my personal opinion, this suggestion is stupid and in my opinion I am not bias.
Just because I’m CI doesn’t mean my whole argument is discredited for “bias”, every point I made still stands.

Civilian life would still be treated through the already existing rulings and are essentially excluded from this as the ruling is specifically tailored to foundation personnel as stated in the rulings if you read them thoroughly.

ok

 

[Niox]

IIRC SCU are allowed to assist in a C1 in a defensive capacity, ala E-11. I do otherwise agree, actually - I think these considerations for like... RsD actively going out and engaging CI should still be considered like, FailRP under the rules.

SCU are allowed to assist in C1’s when it involves HCZ I believe (im not IA so idk) but I’m referring to more or less a SCU going to F2 to shoot CI (which does happen and they don’t get arrested)

 

[Painter]

I walk into Ethics Wing from my bunks, there is a Thaumatologist standing there. I order him out of Ethics Wing with my gun pointed at him unless he has a reason to be there. Bro pulls a fast one, head pops me and says “oh well, he was threatening my life.”

Staff : IC issue bozo get trolled

Me : what the hell man

 

[Emilia Foddg]

SCU are allowed to assist in C1’s when it involves HCZ I believe (im not IA so idk) but I’m referring to more or less a SCU going to F2 to shoot CI (which does happen and they don’t get arrested)

yeah i agree that that should result in arrest and understand what you say about it not. i think that should be moved to a FRP warning so that CI get it fair

I walk into Ethics Wing from my bunks, there is a Thaumatologist standing there. I order him out of Ethics Wing with my gun pointed at him unless he has a reason to be there. Bro pulls a fast one, head pops me and says “oh well, he was threatening my life.”

Staff : IC issue bozo get trolled

Me : what the hell man

i don't know if this is the case; but basically you should use an SRA first and then gunpoint - if they resist or anything at that point then you take it to a fearRP sit (since SRA should negate thauma funny fearRP immunity)

 

[Skittles]

-Support

 

[Bohemia]

CASTLE DOCTRINE ON CIVIL!
+support

 

[Zen]

@Niox you don't seem to understand that FailRP and other rules would still apply. All of your responses seem to be based around the assumption that somehow this rule being made an IC thing means that all other related rules just disappear with it. Others here also seem to be doing the same thing.

-Support
-No action would be taken to arrest these people. It’s happened with SCU, where they are meant to be arrested when fighting in a C1 but aren’t. Why? Because why would you arrest someone helping you. This is taking that and applying it to egeryobe
-It’s also just…. Unrealistic for a RSD to go out guns blazing, that’s just something they wouldn’t do realistically.
-Then you have the mess of civilians, MC&D, CI and GOC non combatives.
-God bless, 0 negatives, isn’t that fun.
-I don’t see why this should be changed other than to shoot CI/D Class at your convenience, whenever someone isn’t watching/wont snitch.

Bad suggestion, no point in this.

In order of your list here:

• No action might be being taken during the combat, as it would be disruptive to RP and be basically impossible (do you want/expect IA to wander into the middle of SCU vs. CI combat to arrest the SCU? How do you expect this to work?) - but I've seen plenty of SCUs get job banned and/or arrested for this sort of thing.
• This suggestion literally doesn't suggest somebody should do this. And they shouldn't. And do you know what we call people doing unrealistic actions that don't make sense in RP? FailRP. Which this would still fall under in most cases. A researcher who has barely touched a gun before wouldn't go to fight CI one day "just because", and they would still be subject to a FailRP sit being called for that sort of thing.
• "the mess" - then zero attempt to actually address it. So let me address it (though others already have somewhat):
  • Civilians - still subject to FailRP and RDM rules. They wouldn't just randomly decide to raid a military base for no reason, and they wouldn't kill someone without an RP reason. Both of those are FailRP and/or RDM, and still would be. They also wouldn't fight people on surface, for the same reasons.
    • Changing this rule has no negatives here, then, and only opens opportunities for surface RP. People can do RP that involves combat, even actively, as long as they have an RP reason to - they couldn't currently do that, even if it was roleplayed out well.
  • MC&D - already aren't addressed under the existing rules. They are not listed under either of the combative or non-combative sections. They have RP reason to be combative in some circumstances, but the rules don't clarify if they're even allowed or not as it is.
  • CI and GOC non-combatives - literally... the same as Foundation? Those GoIs can/should simply implement rules on them IC, and other rules would still apply OOC. If you have no rules within your faction because you expect the OOC server rules to take care of everything for you, that's not a good sign of the RP state of your faction.
• This is a non-point, so no point in addressing.
• You have fundamentally failed to understand the points of this suggestion. It's not on the person writing the suggestion to read and comprehend things for you. They literally didn't ask for that, and they laid out reasons why it would be wanted that are entirely valid.

How do you reconcile civilian combatives with this? Obviously it's still FailRP to raid as jobs that can't raid or situations where you can't raid. But with this still carries issues with certain civ jobs.

Like with Niox's post, other rules would still RP. A civilian can't just RDM with this rule removed - RDM would still be a rule. They can't raid Foundation base, that's a separate rule anyway, and they'd need an RP reason to do it because a random civilian wouldn't raid a military base without a reason for it.

Ah, because foundation should get special treatment.
Why would it suddenly be Realistic for a RSD to go out and shoot some CI, but unrealistic for a CI Chemist to go blasting some SOP?

Literally nobody said anything of the sort, you are still making things up and then arguing against them. This is known as a "Strawman Argument". Read the argument first and then reply to it.

I walk into Ethics Wing from my bunks, there is a Thaumatologist standing there. I order him out of Ethics Wing with my gun pointed at him unless he has a reason to be there. Bro pulls a fast one, head pops me and says “oh well, he was threatening my life.”

Staff : IC issue bozo get trolled

Me : what the hell man

That's just RDM, with or without this rule change.


In case you couldn't tell, I +Support this suggestion. I feel it would give a lot more flexibility to roles, and would also mean that anything that is within the bounds of RP is dealt with in RP. Other rules like FailRP, FearRP, and RDM would all still apply and catch anyone that tried to use this change to fuck around, and anything else is just RP stuff and should be dealt with IC.

If a (legitimately) treasonous RsD kills someone that discovers them, that's an RP thing and should stay in RP; if a Tech Expert guns down 10 CI as they enter, good for them, but they aren't trained for that and shouldn't have been carrying the gun in the first place, so they get put in jail as long as they didn't FailRP; if a CI chemist goes out of the front of the base and kills someone in a way that wasn't RDM, CI leadership can decide on their fate.

To be honest, I feel like the entirety of section 4 of the rules should be removed. It's pretty much just restricting RP stuff using OOC rules. If RP leadership want to change their overall chain of command in a way that makes sense for them, that shouldn't be prevented. Combative and non-combative personnel is mostly just an extra thing over RDM, FailRP, etc. rules that just additionally restricts RP more than necessary.

When it comes to the flexibility I mentioned earlier, I feel like it could open opportunities for certain things to be decided in RP. For example, people keep asking for combat engineers, and it keeps being rejected by CT - what if, instead, RP leadership implements this themselves, maybe via some kind of division, or license system; without this rule change, it can't happen, but it can with the rule change. What if the Medical Department implements some kind of biohazard squadron that deals with e.g. 008, etc. - they'd need to be able to fight 008-2 instances, but that's not allowed under the current rules unless they're Combat Medics. Medical again - they want a Combat Medic Lead (CL4 CM)? Just have a Consultant fill that role. This opens up a decent amount of opportunity for new, player-led RP and gameplay.

 

[Dusk]

I walk into Ethics Wing from my bunks, there is a Thaumatologist standing there. I order him out of Ethics Wing with my gun pointed at him unless he has a reason to be there. Bro pulls a fast one, head pops me and says “oh well, he was threatening my life.”

Staff : IC issue bozo get trolled

Me : what the hell man

He doesn't have permission to be there? Person would receive a failrp warning. Just as they would normally?
The change effects nothing other than non-combatives defending themselves in a lawful way. Just as they were allowed to previously.

 

[Niox]

@Niox you don't seem to understand that FailRP and other rules would still apply. All of your responses seem to be based around the assumption that somehow this rule being made an IC thing means that all other related rules just disappear with it. Others here also seem to be doing the same thing.

In order of your list here:

• No action might be being taken during the combat, as it would be disruptive to RP and be basically impossible (do you want/expect IA to wander into the middle of SCU vs. CI combat to arrest the SCU? How do you expect this to work?) - but I've seen plenty of SCUs get job banned and/or arrested for this sort of thing.
• This suggestion literally doesn't suggest somebody should do this. And they shouldn't. And do you know what we call people doing unrealistic actions that don't make sense in RP? FailRP. Which this would still fall under in most cases. A researcher who has barely touched a gun before wouldn't go to fight CI one day "just because", and they would still be subject to a FailRP sit being called for that sort of thing.
• "the mess" - then zero attempt to actually address it. So let me address it (though others already have somewhat):
  • Civilians - still subject to FailRP and RDM rules. They wouldn't just randomly decide to raid a military base for no reason, and they wouldn't kill someone without an RP reason. Both of those are FailRP and/or RDM, and still would be. They also wouldn't fight people on surface, for the same reasons.
    • Changing this rule has no negatives here, then, and only opens opportunities for surface RP. People can do RP that involves combat, even actively, as long as they have an RP reason to - they couldn't currently do that, even if it was roleplayed out well.
  • MC&D - already aren't addressed under the existing rules. They are not listed under either of the combative or non-combative sections. They have RP reason to be combative in some circumstances, but the rules don't clarify if they're even allowed or not as it is.
  • CI and GOC non-combatives - literally... the same as Foundation? Those GoIs can/should simply implement rules on them IC, and other rules would still apply OOC. If you have no rules within your faction because you expect the OOC server rules to take care of everything for you, that's not a good sign of the RP state of your faction.
• This is a non-point, so no point in addressing.
• You have fundamentally failed to understand the points of this suggestion. It's not on the person writing the suggestion to read and comprehend things for you. They literally didn't ask for that, and they laid out reasons why it would be wanted that are entirely valid.

Like with Niox's post, other rules would still RP. A civilian can't just RDM with this rule removed - RDM would still be a rule. They can't raid Foundation base, that's a separate rule anyway, and they'd need an RP reason to do it because a random civilian wouldn't raid a military base without a reason for it.


Literally nobody said anything of the sort, you are still making things up and then arguing against them. This is known as a "Strawman Argument". Read the argument first and then reply to it.


That's just RDM, with or without this rule change.


In case you couldn't tell, I +Support this suggestion. I feel it would give a lot more flexibility to roles, and would also mean that anything that is within the bounds of RP is dealt with in RP. Other rules like FailRP, FearRP, and RDM would all still apply and catch anyone that tried to use this change to fuck around, and anything else is just RP stuff and should be dealt with IC.

If a (legitimately) treasonous RsD kills someone that discovers them, that's an RP thing and should stay in RP; if a Tech Expert guns down 10 CI as they enter, good for them, but they aren't trained for that and shouldn't have been carrying the gun in the first place, so they get put in jail as long as they didn't FailRP; if a CI chemist goes out of the front of the base and kills someone in a way that wasn't RDM, CI leadership can decide on their fate.

To be honest, I feel like the entirety of section 4 of the rules should be removed. It's pretty much just restricting RP stuff using OOC rules. If RP leadership want to change their overall chain of command in a way that makes sense for them, that shouldn't be prevented. Combative and non-combative personnel is mostly just an extra thing over RDM, FailRP, etc. rules that just additionally restricts RP more than necessary.

When it comes to the flexibility I mentioned earlier, I feel like it could open opportunities for certain things to be decided in RP. For example, people keep asking for combat engineers, and it keeps being rejected by CT - what if, instead, RP leadership implements this themselves, maybe via some kind of division, or license system; without this rule change, it can't happen, but it can with the rule change. What if the Medical Department implements some kind of biohazard squadron that deals with e.g. 008, etc. - they'd need to be able to fight 008-2 instances, but that's not allowed under the current rules unless they're Combat Medics. Medical again - they want a Combat Medic Lead (CL4 CM)? Just have a Consultant fill that role. This opens up a decent amount of opportunity for new, player-led RP and gameplay.

I am in the A&E so I don’t have access to chatGPT

in other words I ain’t reading allat you’re correct change whatever I said to be wrong idk

 

[KingViper115]

-support

I ain't reading all of that

 

[Jimmy Wrecking]

CI cope -supporting.

The server is pretty much MTF vs GOI vs SCP at this point, might as well go in full and allow people to defend themselves.
This would create RP for IA, make it so CI have to be tactical, instead of just running through the area with most non-combatives (PW).

The downsides? CI have it harder to raid.

While the rule should be adjusted so that non-combatives cannot LOOK for combat (Running INTO the fight etc), non-combatives should be allowed to take out CI who get lost (skill issue) or CI who decide to storm an area by themselves (another skill issue).

+ Support from me.

 

[Dusk]

CI cope -supporting.

The server is pretty much MTF vs GOI vs SCP at this point, might as well go in full and allow people to defend themselves.
This would create RP for IA, make it so CI have to be tactical, instead of just running through the area with most non-combatives (PW).

The downsides? CI have it harder to raid.

While the rule should be adjusted so that non-combatives cannot LOOK for combat (Running INTO the fight etc), non-combatives should be allowed to take out CI who get lost (skill issue) or CI who decide to storm an area by themselves (another skill issue).

+ Support from me.

The ruling would already prevent them from doing that.
Non-combative's, any of them at all would not be lawfully present in a combative situation unless it broke out in front of them.
If IA or researchers or any NC are running to combative locations during a C1/C5 etc.. they would be unlawfully present and could be warned for FailRP, just as the current ruling is now.

 

[Glazzing]

-support
thaums would be crazy

 

[Dusk]

-support
thaums would be crazy

That would still be a failrp warning.
Thaum's are still unable to use their powers for combative reasons, this rule or not.