Removal of Staff Ruling regarding Rule 4.03

[Cade Valentine]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Prevention of D-Class from having the ability to very easily bait sits against players, as well as stopping them from having more staff protections than a significant portion of the server which can very easily disrupt RP during scenarios.

When situations like Code 1 or 5s are active and every combative has got their finger on the trigger, having to stop and deal with a D-Class and forcing them to surrender only to possibly get baited by them will be extremely frustrating to the player involved.

Whilst I understand that D-Class escaping all the way from D-Block to HCZ or EZ is no easy feat, giving them this protection means that they are automatically at an OOC advantage against whoever catches them and it becomes more of a mind game than an RP situation for the combatant player to not make a very easy to make mistake if they are in the heat of a Code 1/5 or engaged in other tasks already.

It is also important to note that the Foundation Legal Codex already has a codex entry on this matter, which means this ruling now invalidates it as it cannot both be an IC and OOC issue at the same time as staff would always take priority to resolve it. It only makes sense to have one or the other and UK has handled dealing with it via tribunal or citation very well for months.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
As this ruling was only posted today, I do not believe any other suggestions have been posted on it yet.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Maintains clear guidelines to all combatants on how to handle D-Class outside of D-Block.
Ensures minimal interruption to combatants who may be pre-occupied with Code 1s and 5s and reduces disruption to the raid gameplay loop.
Keeps the issue of people not following this guidance to IC as it would be a protocol violation, allows for more RP to be generated and meaningful IC consequences to happen if someone is caught.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Makes process of escape more difficult for D-Class.
Some minor edge cases where a combatant kills the D-Class and is then not caught and punished will occur.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
UK has proven that this issue can be handled completely IC and adding this ruling is going to remove that process entirely. It is undeniable that some edge cases occur where people aren't caught for just mowing down a D-Class, but I believe this is outweighed by the amount of player interactions generated from providing IC punishment like demotions or strikes.

Whilst it makes escaping remain difficult for D-Class, it is important to remember that they are about as important to the Foundation as literal dirt outside of testing. If they managed to escape, they would not have such protections on them.

 

[Eizaas]

+support

 

[Wonka]

+support

Nobody is gonna follow this rule anyway.

 

[Silent_]

+support

 

[Second]

+support

This has got to be the dumbest change since the naming con rules or not KoSing D-Class with keycards. SSL, please.

To start off and address something for UK players, this was made because of an IC policy on US called the "Work Program" which resulted in many D-Class participating getting killed because proper safety precautions were not followed or they failed to show documentation of being associated in time.

Secondly, there are no "innocent D-Class". They are Death Row Inmates who are there for a reason. In RP, any form of escape would be punishable by death due to the risk to the veil of secrecy a singular D-Class can cause.

Also, as someone who has played this server and enjoys D-Class gameplay as it was prior to the ruling, I saw no problem with getting KoSed when I'm in fucking LCZ because I was an active threat to the Foundation. I could pick up a gun off of a dead combative and go on a killing spree, pick up a card and use 914 or breach SCPs, or find an everywhere phone from the hole in the wall and infobreach to civs (to name a few things). This rule just removes the need for the Ethics Committee, Omega-1, and Internal Affairs as most of their gameplay comes from D-Block violations and it also draws a fine line between what is and is not complacent. A lot of false RDM warns will be given out as a result of this because a D-Class can just say "I'm compliant" while they are actively getting shot and oops it's RDM now!

John, I love you, but please revert this mistake and do it fast man...

 

[Benji]

+HUGE SUPPORT
D-class will take too much advantage of this rule making it a headache for GSD and other combatives.

And also during Code 5 and broken D-block doors, this rule would just be super annoying.

 

[Canoon]

Whilst this is not out outcome post for the suggestion, I wish to clarify something from the SL position.

The ruling doesn't change alot of what is currently in place. D Class that are escaping, or engaging in hostile are still killable.

As the ruling states "D-class who is not providing any resistance and is obeying command should not be killed without reason"

Going through airlock to try and escape - can be killed.
Attempting to run away from guards - can be killed.
Attempting to break SCPs out - can be killed.
Validly issued KOS orders - can be killed.

Standing in D block kitchen cooking food and not providing any resistance - can't be killed.
Being handcuffed and against the wall awaiting to be returned into D-block - can't be killed.
Getting medical treatment in med bay and obeying commands - can't be killed.
Following orders from foundation staff and not providing any resistance - can't be killed.

 

[SLASH from SCP]

+Support

 

[Second]

Whilst this is not out outcome post for the suggestion, I wish to clarify something from the SL position.

The ruling doesn't change alot of what is currently in place. D Class that are escaping, or engaging in hostile are still killable.

As the ruling states "D-class who is not providing any resistance and is obeying command should not be killed without reason"

Going through airlock to try and escape - can be killed.
Attempting to run away from guards - can be killed.
Attempting to break SCPs out - can be killed.
Validly issued KOS orders - can be killed.

Standing in D block kitchen cooking food and not providing any resistance - can't be killed.
Being handcuffed and against the wall awaiting to be returned into D-block - can't be killed.
Getting medical treatment in med bay and obeying commands - can't be killed.
Following orders from foundation staff and not providing any resistance - can't be killed.

I understand this, but like former rulings staff will take this out of context and give false warnings or try to stretch what is or is not "valid kills". The amount of rdm warns and complaints will be insane.

 

[Cade Valentine]

Whilst this is not out outcome post for the suggestion, I wish to clarify something from the SL position.

The ruling doesn't change alot of what is currently in place. D Class that are escaping, or engaging in hostile are still killable.

As the ruling states "D-class who is not providing any resistance and is obeying command should not be killed without reason"

Going through airlock to try and escape - can be killed.
Attempting to run away from guards - can be killed.
Attempting to break SCPs out - can be killed.
Validly issued KOS orders - can be killed.

Standing in D block kitchen cooking food and not providing any resistance - can't be killed.
Being handcuffed and against the wall awaiting to be returned into D-block - can't be killed.
Getting medical treatment in med bay and obeying commands - can't be killed.
Following orders from foundation staff and not providing any resistance - can't be killed.

I appreciate your clarification. I imagine a lot of people are +supporting this suggestion for a lot of different reasons, but my main concern is actually your very last line; "Following orders from foundation staff and not providing any resistance - can't be killed."

I believe in situations around Site, such as mid Code 1 or 5 as I listed in my original post, this could become untenable for staff to enforce. The average combatant is NOT going to have time to focus on approaching a D-Class, negotiating their surrender and holding them in place until GENSEC can retrieve them back to D-Block. The IC deterrent already worked because it did actually threaten peoples ranks and places within regiments, so if they just recklessly shot on sight they would later be punished, but now that it is taken one step further to staff, its easy for D-Class to bait people into making mistaken kills or screw them over in various ways to get people warned and removes the RP element that Ethics/IA are meant to provide for these situations.

I appreciate what the ruling tries to do, but I think in the interests of keeping the flow of the server and promoting these situations to be played out IC, allowing the Legal Codex to handle this problem over Staff Ruling is better.

 

[Canoon]

I understand this, but like former rulings staff will take this out of context and give false warnings or try to stretch what is or is not "valid kills". The amount of rdm warns and complaints will be insane.

The current rulings page is the most up to date guidance in relation to the rules.

When you look at the current rules page, this is what it says about RDM

1.1 Don’t RDM - You need a valid RP reason to kill someone. Reasons for shooting/attacking someone are:

• You or someone else is in a life-threatening situation, e.g. you are shot at or held at gunpoint and threatened.
• You see someone hacking a door or a hostile is trespassing.
• Giving someone verbal commands to stop what they are doing and continue their actions.
• You are a D-class starting a riot with a weapon. It is FailRP to start a riot (e.g. punching security guards) unless you have found a weapon (knife, gun) that you can use.
• You have committed a major offence such as Murder or Treason and are about to be arrested, however this doesn’t give you permission to start mass killing people

You've always required to have a valid RP reason to kill someone. Existing on a role is not enough to kill someone (as the argument was put "but they a death row inmates, so they should be able to be killed regardless") .

Alot of the current issues being pointed out here are covered in 4.01 of the staff ruling.

4.01 D-Class Termination - D-Class may be terminated past the main airlock door without warning if D-Class are non-compliant, however, the attacker may be subject to arrest for violating Foundation policies, players should ensure they are attempting to roleplay with D-Class.

The key word in that sentence is non-compliant.

 

[Rosalyn 'Vrda']

+ Support

Way too abusable. Especially to new players or ones not active on the discord

 

[Chad]

+support It is in fact way to easy to abuse for example just act like you aren't a threat and when they go up to cuff you spray them down

 

[Canoon]

I appreciate your clarification. I imagine a lot of people are +supporting this suggestion for a lot of different reasons, but my main concern is actually your very last line; "Following orders from foundation staff and not providing any resistance - can't be killed."

I believe in situations around Site, such as mid Code 1 or 5 as I listed in my original post, this could become untenable for staff to enforce. The average combatant is NOT going to have time to focus on approaching a D-Class, negotiating their surrender and holding them in place until GENSEC can retrieve them back to D-Block. The IC deterrent already worked because it did actually threaten peoples ranks and places within regiments, so if they just recklessly shot on sight they would later be punished, but now that it is taken one step further to staff, its easy for D-Class to bait people into making mistaken kills or screw them over in various ways to get people warned and removes the RP element that Ethics/IA are meant to provide for these situations.

I appreciate what the ruling tries to do, but I think in the interests of keeping the flow of the server and promoting these situations to be played out IC, allowing the Legal Codex to handle this problem over Staff Ruling is better.

It has always been the rule that you can't just kill D class because its inconvenient to return them, particularly if they had been fully co-operative prior. I've given a number of warnings to players for RDM for that specific point (Some of the more recent ones was that the gensec didn't want to return the d class after a test, killing them rather then getting them medical aid after they have been injured).

The ruling doesn't change anything in relation to the legal codex, but provides guidance on specifically what is not acceptable. We are an RP server at the end of the day, killing people because its inconvenient to do the role your RPing as is just shitRP.

Are people going to try and loophole it, people already do that. There is a lot that is already 'up for the interpretation of staff". What this ruling does is to clarify that simple being outside D block is not enough. There needs to be active actions to cover off rule 1.1

 

[Alpharius30k]

+support too easy to abuse and causes issues

 

[socalphunk]

+support

 

[Cade Valentine]

It has always been the rule that you can't just kill D class because its inconvenient to return them, particularly if they had been fully co-operative prior. I've given a number of warnings to players for RDM for that specific point (Some of the more recent ones was that the gensec didn't want to return the d class after a test, killing them rather then getting them medical aid after they have been injured).

The ruling doesn't change anything in relation to the legal codex, but provides guidance on specifically what is not acceptable. We are an RP server at the end of the day, killing people because its inconvenient to do the role your RPing as is just shitRP.

Are people going to try and loophole it, people already do that. There is a lot that is already 'up for the interpretation of staff". What this ruling does is to clarify that simple being outside D block is not enough. There needs to be active actions to cover off rule 1.1

It is important to ensure people aren't just seeing a Class-D and shooting them immediately, that is just RDM. However, D-Class are supposed to have no protections whatsoever and this staff ruling is very blanket in that it protects.

This offers the same level of protection to a D-Class in a janitors closet when no site problems are occurring vs a mid Code Black where they are near a hostile area. In one of these, it is almost impossible to spare the time to focus on this situation in the same way that you would the other.

My belief is the ruling needs to go into further specifics of a situation where this would be acceptable vs unacceptable. I.E unacceptable to just find a D-Class with no codes active and shoot them immediately, whereas some leniency should realistically be afforded mid Code 1/5/Black. Using a chaotic situation on the site to try and escape should make it harder, not easier because of this ruling and 4.01 protecting them. I believe that it's addition has made the playerbase question the treatment of D-Class in these situations and that is why people are unhappy.

Thanks again for response.

 

[Speff]

Just want to say something really quick (I know others have said the same but wanted to add to it):

I understand the ruling, and I understand that you don't want D-class that are, for example cooking in kitchen and non-hostile, to be killed. This makes sense and I agree of course. However, as others have said, this would get abused very easily by D-class mains complaining that "they were only near 914 for a tour" or something like that. I personally have gotten warned for the simplest things (such as killing a D-class while they were shooting me) but I never bothered to make a complaint because I didn't feel it was necessary. I don't want this to change, and I don't want to have to start making complaints because an admin warned me after I killed a D-class that running to HCZ.

Another problem is that, if there is a D-class running in Delta wing, the chances of them trying to escape are very high. If they are in a location where a keycard is needed to enter (i.e. HCZ, EZ, PW, etc.) they either slipped after somebody opened it, or opened it themselves. Either way, this is a plain example of escaping, and they should be able to be killed. I definitely see this ruling doing good, as I don't want to see a D-class medical receptionist being killed instantly for just standing there, although I feel there needs to be more information added to it to protect D-class from bending the rule towards them.

 

[Nomad]

+ support

 

[Derek White]

Hello @Serrt,

The RDM rule is currently under review by the rest of the SL team. All rulings are to remain in effect intll changes to said rulings are put into effect. If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me.

Kind regards,
Derek/Grover White