Feedback Request for Clarification on RP Rule 1.

[jan.antilles]

I'd like to ask you about one instance specifically that may toe the line of the rules. Imagine a lawyer sues security multiple times, and a member of security is now attending a trial, preventing them from performing their duties. If nobody involved is an antagonist is this rule breaking behavior? This scenario pulls away from other avenues of roleplay and attention that the antagonist could be having. Yet, it's almost exclusively how the lawyer role is used in practice.

Sec is not obligated to attend the trial: as in, people aren't going to die/the station isn't going to blow up if they don't go. The lawyer can yell over the radio and write strongly worded letters, but (unless they're an antag) they aren't going to start smashing windows and breaking people out of the brig if they don't get their way.

Or as a more summarized version, if your roleplay asks for a lot of attention of security and command, you should be an antagonist, a member of security/command, or easily ignorable. If a member of security or command asks you to stop your roleplay then you should stop it.

If your character's gimmmick demands that sec/command ignore the rest of the station to respond to you and is already not acting like you want to keep your job, then yes you'll get fussed at by the admins if you keep it going after your character has been asked to stop by their in-character boss and/or chain of command. 

You can keep roleplaying after your character has been asked to stop doing a particular thing. Other people/characters are not telling you to stop your roleplay. Your roleplay should fit within the setting/rules. 

Does that make sense?