Judging from both reports i believe the escalation was done fine:
Trespassing: Trespassing is defined as being in any department you do not have appropriate permission to access (stolen access is not permission). Players who are trespassing are automatically the aggressor in any conflict that starts with someone who is assigned in the current department. As usual, the aggressor may not escalate beyond the level of force used against them. If you wish for a trespassing player to be removed from your department, contact security before taking matters into your own hands whenever possible. Normal escalation follows when a trespasser is immediately aggressive.
cath side: Antagonist escalation: Antagonists may kill their objective targets, players interfering with the completion objectives and witness to their crimes even if the other player does not initiate conflict. For any conflicts unrelated to objectives, antagonists follow Lavaland escalation - be careful who you mess with. Being intentionally obvious in order to chase down and kill “witnesses” will be classified as murderbone.
So no rules broken by cath at this point since antags can escalate to last step on a whim if you decide to attack them.
Having R1. in mind tho You shouldn’t tide a potential bad guy wielding a goddamn energy sword since it doesnt seem logical and immerisive. You could’ve saved your life just by running away from cargo the moment you saw her with desword.
This is all viable assuming you saw cath wielding a desword(im assuming they broke window with that) if its not the case then it might look like a baiting.
She states that she broke into cargo to steal their budget, which was NOT one of her objectives. That means it follows Lavaland Escalation Lavaland escalation: Means you can skip any conflict in which you are not the aggressor immediately to step 5
This would be fine if it wasn’t for the fact that she was trespassing.
Catherine is not allowed to escalate as an aggressor, even as an antag, in a scenario that is mostly unrelated to her actual objectives, of which she had one. Catherine did not NEED to break into Cargo to steal their budget, it was not related to any of her objectives. Sounds like a classic case of Catherine killing people unrelated to her mission because she wanted to do some random evil act that doesnt help her in anyway, but harms others. You could argue that “witness to their crimes” means any crime, but that would just make this a case of “making witnesses when you have no reason to as an excuse to kill people”.
Walking into Sec and murdering all of Security and Command because they attacked you first is still murdering all of Security and Command. No matter how much you sugar coat it. They honestly shouldn’t have all ganged up on you unless they had some RP reason to do you, but at the same time you shouldn’t have waited to try to kill 'em all.
Unless you have something relevant to add to the context of the report, please do not add to the amount of text the handling admin has to read through. Only post here if what you have to post adds context or clarity to the situation. This is not the place to argue what should or should not have been done, let an admin handle whether or not the actions were valid.
Went ahead and assigned myself to this report since I’m working on Ice types report/side of things and I’ve looked through the logs. Logs show that Ice broke into cargo, introduced herself, and announced that she was going to rob cargo. Immediately a cargo tech attacked Catherine and then everyone else followed suit.
Both cargo and Ice-type responded appropriately according to server escalation policies, but cargo did break rule 1. Cargo shouldn’t have immediately attacked Catherine, she has a very dangerous weapon that could (and did) wipe them all out quickly and it would’ve been safer to hand over credits to try to get Ice-type to go away and report it to sec. You can always get more credits easily, so you shouldn’t be very willing or compelled to toss yourself into a human woodchipper
Ice_type didn’t do anything wrong, but cargo techs shouldn’t be so willing to sacrifice themselves over something as renewable as credits