Encapsulating Conflict
Setting conditions in advance

I agree completely, and I'm happy to say that it's been rare for me to fall into situations where "mission accomplished" conditions don't appear to be on the table. This also comes down to character capacity, as with greater power comes greater responsibility. Certain flavors of character may have their propensity for grudges be their greatest weakness, but really? A fixation on overkill for perceived slights or minor wrongdoings is just that: a weakness. Only finding the positives in overkill may indicate a sort of gaminess in playstyle.

I spent a few minutes going over some help files to try and pinpoint where this idea is best laid out and "help expectations" has a portion on game fairness and consequence:

The staff do not pull punches and neither will other players. If you piss off a badass ganger, syndicate member, or Corporation, you very well might get shit stomped into oblivion. This isn't a tabletop game where some deus ex machina is going to take place at the last minute thanks to your friendly DM/GM. The theme is the theme, the game is the game, your actions are your actions and you have to accept responsibility for the consequences.

There is nothing wrong with making bad decisions for the sake of telling a wonderful and exciting story. The 'wrong' comes in when you expect bad things won't happen as a result of your characters actions. This game is about risk, plotting, betrayal, and the long game.

Sometimes good story stems from being too heavy-handed with punishment and sometimes good story stems from the opposite. Fluidity and adjustment are in constant need and people need to ask themselves, "am I providing more than a dead-end to my opposition? Am I providing conflict themely enough that I'm encouraging others to stay involved?"

I admire that so much of SD takes the time to think about this already. Without the game culture of restraint, I don't think there would be much of a sustainable game culture at all.