Note Date (YYYY/MM/DD/):
“Created a hell-spray filled with CLF3, Phlog, and Napalm, for self defence after realising secuity where letting a known antag run free. Warned about the lethality of such an item and reminded about our powergaming rules, but mentioned that if they where attacked or one of their co-workers have been attacked, a non-lethal alternative for self defence may be more acceptable.”
Summary of the round:
This round was lowpop, I was playing chemist and there was a detective on station as the only security. I saw someone getting kidnapped and we got a NT announcement that a rival organisation has kidnapped a crewmember, I snitched to the detective and went back to work while more kidnappings were being reported. I later saw the captain in medbay lobby telling the kidnapper that they had removed the arrest status and were letting them go free and giving them a second chance, despite knowing this was an actual enemy agent who captured people for ransom. I was an easy target for kidnapping and the kidnapper is now free on the station roaming around medbay. That’s a very good reason to worry, so I prepared a firespray.
That’s when I got bwoinked, admin checked on what I was doing, I explained, and they agreed that the situation warranted something to defend myself with, but also said that the firespray was too much and asked that I dispose of it and use alternatives in the future.
During our talk, the traitor and an accomplice had started openly attacking people on the station, including me in the lab, and I ran away, eventually hiding in a locker listening to radio chatter until it was safe.
Considering it was established that the conditions warranted some form of protection and I didn’t do anything with it or even leave the lab, I don’t understand how a chemist choosing a firespray can be forbidden under the powergaming rule. IC, it is extremely easy to make, unique to the role, very obvious to a chemist, and very appropriate for self defence. It’s essentially like having a can of deodorant and a lighter.
Firespray is a great RP-friendly self defence option for chemists. It’s a great deterrent: when the attacker sees fire, they understand instantly what they are dealing with, and will usually keep their distance. If they get hit, they still have the ability to drop and roll (and rethink attacking), letting you escape.
I don’t want to fight attackers (I play sec if I want action), but I want them to not fight me, and unlike alternatives such as stun chems which will just completely down the attacker if hit without giving them a chance to back off or even give them a warning, fire keeps them at a distance. That makes the cases where killing with it is needed and justifiable very rare. In addition, it is a terrible option for chasing, as you’ll just walk into the fire. It’s only really usable when standing still or running away.
There’s always syringe gun or smoke with pax, but if you have the time to prepare that, there probably isn’t enough of a threat to require it in the first place.
I understand that there must be solid IC reasons to have a firespray, and if used irresponsibly it could become powergaming/validhunting, but considering there are legitimate reasons to use it and it makes sense from an IC standpoint, I don’t think it should be forbidden entirely, unlike powerful explosives that a non-antag never has a reason to use for self defence.
In short I believe the note misrepresents what happened, not even mentioning that I was playing chemist, and that what I did wasn’t powergaming or rulebreaking at all, setting a strange precedent for rule 2.
This isn’t at all a complaint about the admin who warned me, it was a very cordial bwoink, they checked the situation without prejudice or assumptions, and I get that their intentions were fair.