Rules Draft v2

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by WellingtonTheThird, Jan 10, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WellingtonTheThird

    WellingtonTheThird Well-Known Member

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________​
    If you have any questions about our rules adminhelp (press F1) and let an administrator know. We will do our best to insure that you understand the rules and can enjoy the game.​


    Rule 1.) Griefing is not allowed. Griefing is defined as the OOC intention to ruin someone's round without an admin approved IC/RP reason for their actions. Borderline grief will not be tolerated. If you're uncertain what borderline grief is adminhelp (press F1) and ask an admin.

    1.1.) If we believe your IC actions are negatively affecting the server and its players without directly breaking the rules, a term we’ve coined ‘borderline grief’, then administrators may step in and intervene, and bans may be issued based on a number of factors such a history, intention, and severity of actions.

    Rule 2.) This is a friendly game environment. You're allowed to be mean or negative IC as a non-antagonist, but we expect some degree of friendliness from you in our OOC channel. Do not flame/troll in OOC chat or Deadchat.


    Rule 3.) Players are to remain in-character at all times. Do not use OOC terms e.g., smilies, internet-speak, "admins", etc whilst IC. Similarly, do not report IC information, such as antagonists or the gamemode, over the OOC chat.


    Rule 4.) Do not randomly murder other people. Self-defence is allowed, but you must respond with appropriate force. If there are any questions press F1 and ask an admin for help.

    4.1.) The amount of force used should be in proportion to the threat to your life. IE. if someone throws a PDA at you and whacks you in the head you might push them or hit them a few times in retaliation, but you wouldn't murder someone for it. Do not use more force than what is needed to defend yourself or it will not be considered defending. You may respond to lethal force with lethal force. We understand that sometimes it is difficult to subdue someone through non-lethal means depending on the situation, and understand that sometimes responding with lethal force may be the only solution. Admin intervention in situations like this will be decided on a case-to-case basis.
    4.2.) Confirmed Antagonists are an exception. Killing an antagonist is not against server rules, but it does violate space law and may be dealt with ICly. Antagonists are able to be confirmed as antagonistic when there is no doubt that they are such. Finding a PDA with the syndicate panel open, releasing singularity, randomly assaulting and killing innocents, etc.

    Rule 5.) Metagaming is not tolerated. Metagaming is defined as using OOC knowledge whilst IC to gain an advantage. This generally applies primarily to using out-of-game communications to gain IC information or advantage.

    Rule 6.) Erotic Roleplay (ERP) is not allowed and never will be.

    Rule 7.) Keep your names appropriate. Do not use intentionally offensive names. Use proper capitalization. (Ace McSpace, Clyde Brink, Fat Phil, Mr. Muffin etc.) Clowns/Mimes/Borgs are exempt from the format, but their names must remain appropriate and non-offensive.

    Rule 8.) Roleplaying Malfunction/Insanity is not a valid excuse to break the server rules. This includes intentionally harmful interpretation of Asimov laws.


    Rule 9.) Nonantagonists are not allowed to aid antagonists unless there is a good IC/RP reason for them doing so. This is up to admin discretion. If you wish to know examples of when this may be acceptable adminhelp (press F1) and ask an administrator.

    Rule 10.) Security officers are not allowed to harm criminals (barring dangerous circumstances and lawful executions) or steal items (This does not include the confiscation of contraband or items used in a crime) from criminals while processing them. Security Officers, AI, and Head of Staff roles are important to the progress of the station, and as such, abusing these roles in any way may result in a jobban until we believe you are capable to act responsibly when playing as them.

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________​

    We've made changes according to the feedback we have received in the initial thread. We removed the stages of progression from the official rules for them to be used more as a general guideline for administration rather than a set-in-stone part of the rules.
  2. CannibalCrow

    CannibalCrow LS13 Admin Staff Member

    just posting a little bump because I don't think it shows up in the what's new tab as is because reasons
  3. Cody522

    Cody522 Well-Known Member

    Rule 10 should be reworded so people don't get the idea that security officer's can't confiscate illegal items and those used to commit the crime.
    QuantumWings likes this.
  4. WellingtonTheThird

    WellingtonTheThird Well-Known Member

    That isn't theft, though. It is confiscation of items.
    NoFaceMan, Flatoftheblade and Flavo like this.
  5. Cody522

    Cody522 Well-Known Member


    Have fun saying that over and over again when people try to quote the rules when a hacker gets his toolbelt taken from security.
    You know what those people who make the adminhelps say right? "SECURITY STOLE MY SHIT!"
    NoFaceMan and QuantumWings like this.


  6. It says "no" IC/RP reason. What about an extremely poor or contrived IC reason?

    Further, will this rule actually be enforced? Because a similar rule existed in the previous ruleset, it just was never enforced, ever.



    What about buddying up with the same people round after round, assisting them, using your job role to provide them with equipment and access that you do not provide to the general public, and taking sides with them in conflict over and over, regardless of the circumstances, without any out-of-game communication? This is a very significant issue on the server at this time, that these rules do not explicitly address. Note that I don't want people to be restricted from interacting with their friends, but I do have a problem with playing chemist every round and consistently handing your buddy space lube and a grenade you'll detonate when they call for help, etc.
    Infernus44 and QuantumWings like this.
  7. Flavo

    Flavo Well-Known Member

    1.1.) If we believe your IC actions are negatively affecting the server and its players without directly breaking the rules, a term we’ve coined ‘borderline grief’, then administrators may step in and intervene, and bans may be issued based on a number of factors.

    Yes.
  8. WellingtonTheThird

    WellingtonTheThird Well-Known Member

    I've had to deal with that regardless of what ruleset we've had. I can add "Security is allowed to confiscate contraband/items used in a crime" and it won't make a real difference. These types of people rarely ever read the rules.

    As always these reasons are up the administrative scrutiny. If they're using flimsy reasons as a thinly veiled attempt to grief someone we'll bust them.


    I agree that this is an issue and is essentially metagaming when you have no real reason to aid someone. Being friends in a meta-ish way isn't a big issue as much as constantly helping out one another when you really shouldn't be due to the establish metarelationship.

    EDIT: The rules have been updated with slight word tweaks to reflect the commentary.
    QuantumWings and Flatoftheblade like this.
  9. Cody522

    Cody522 Well-Known Member


    I see this problem for the whole draft. It's going to be the same rules and it will be enforced just the same. There's nothing fundamentally different here, or will stick in the minds of admins. If the rules haven't changed much, then there's nothing new to worry about or change.

    Isn't there supposed to be something new here? I would like to see greytiders be given stricter treatment. If you throw greytiding under "border line grief" then that's just a generalization to be forgotten eventually. Remember how the last change of rules had some kind of "idea" to it to make admins treat things differently? That idea was interpreted differently too from admin to admin. Except it was slowly forgotten over time since it was just an idea, and never written down for reference.
    We need some specifics here to put the exact idea you want into people's heads, that is shared and won't be skewed from person to person.

    Using "Borderline grief is bad" is just a catch all for when it's too late and a person already has done bad stuff. It should be specified what can be bad, what is not liked, and of course it wouldn't be a definitive list. Prevention is better than curing.

    Use this as something to start from to give people a better idea of what is bad.
    • Abusing security and handicapping them for poor or no IC reasons.
    • Acting as an antagonist to the station
    • Attempting to turn a minor scuffle into a round long antagonizing experience for another player
    edit:
    If clarifying isn't going to hurt, and will trim some people off of the list of adminhelps. Then all the better right? That's the difference I'm seeing, and it's not I'm asking you to give your first born child here by just making it more clear in what it means.
    QuantumWings likes this.
  10. CannibalCrow

    CannibalCrow LS13 Admin Staff Member

    If there's supposedly something completely wrong with this entire draft, then why didn't you mention it in the previous draft? Because it's pretty damn similar.
    NoFaceMan likes this.
  11. Cody522

    Cody522 Well-Known Member

    I did mention in the last draft the whole list is the same of what we have now. Although I didn't make a big noticeable issue over it. But in this second draft I expected some test rules to be put in. From what people have posted and ideas be taken from the numerous other discussions and complaints from the past few months. Things that haven't been said just in the last thread, but across the forums. This is sort of a shame to even look at if after all this time this is the result and nothing changed.

    The last thread didn't get as much discussion as it should have though. There should have been a lot more people commenting.
  12. CannibalCrow

    CannibalCrow LS13 Admin Staff Member

    I don't believe it was ever stated that the intent was ever to create a huge, revolutionary new rule set that would change the way we admin. Our intention was to create a rule list that was simpler and more easily understood than our previously unnecessarily verbose one, and to make it more easily understood, as well as a rule set that properly covers the bases we need them to cover. With what we have written up, we feel all the places that need to be are indeed covered.

    We weren't intending to, and still don't intend to write one that goes into minute detail of every specific situation that one could possibly encounter. It's unwieldy, it's awkward, and it's unnecessary. We created a rule set that should be easy to understand for our players, and allows us to properly administrate.

    Edit: Snip. Fixing
  13. Cody522

    Cody522 Well-Known Member

    Quotes from Taicho in his original post of the new rules declaration.

    "Unfortunately, some necessary elaboration resulted in [the rules] being slightly more lengthy than intended, but we've made sure it include some key points that prohibit some of the issues that irritate the majority of the community."

    "These are, of course, the rules that will be improving your playing experience, and naturally, I highly encourage any feedback or suggestions to tweak things around. With any luck we will swiftly have a finished product that improves the environment of the server substantially. Please note, whilst not -everything- might be covered here, further elaboration in what Administrators are encouraged to deal with and punish for will be present in the Code of Conduct that will be posted next."


    He did say he wanted to simplify them too but in the end these rules are to fix the things that irritate the community right now and hopefully make the game more enjoyable. That should obviously be the goal instead of slimming things down. If it were just rephrasing the rules into something shorter, then the community's input wouldn't really be needed in the first place. No need for these drafts at all.

    I would like any new rules aimed towards what people want by having less of these trouble making grey tiders and borderline griefers. Of course there may be other things people want as well.

    For the other stuff you said it can be made better without being unwieldy. Clarification doesn't mean you have to write a novel's length. Making something clear doesn't mean writing an autobiography of your entire life to this point. Don't make it harder than it has to be.
  14. WellingtonTheThird

    WellingtonTheThird Well-Known Member

    Crow has summed up a lot of my responses pretty well. We're not going to completely scrap these because you don't like the "Borderline Griefing" rule because far more players are happier about its introduction. We've been adminning off of basically no ruleset for the past several months as we've told our administrators they no longer really apply and to gauge intention over everything.

    If someone is getting caught up over the borderline griefing rule then they more than likely have malicious intentions. If the administrator is making a poor decision/judgement then it can always be appealed on our forums and we'll re-correct their behavior and eventually cut them loose if they're not a fit.

    This clause is essentially the very same as DZ's "Administrators are freethinking individuals." in function, but not wording. We thank you for your concerns, though.
  15. Cody522

    Cody522 Well-Known Member

    I didn't say I disliked the rule, it can be expanded and made better. I haven't even asked for a lot in my suggestions so far to improve this list.
    The only big thing is I stated is I'd like to see the rules more specified to grey tiders, mostly speaking for all the complaints and stuff I've seen over time on the forums. I'd like to see what others have to say on greytiders currently if they'll support a change in the rules towards that too.

    I'm not sure right now if the responses so far (representatives of big policy makers themselves) are defending basically having no change in rules after all this waiting, or if we ever needed rules written down in the first place. I'm getting the vibe there's no point in even bothering changing anything if there's just straight up denial after denial from admins.
  16. WellingtonTheThird

    WellingtonTheThird Well-Known Member

    Expanding on it will not make it better, though. We're getting away from these expanded rules when as it is players and admins understand the meaning of the rule and if there is an issue or misunderstanding we don't ban on initial offense, but take the time to explain them more clearly.

    We're okay with making the changes, but we're not completely overhauling everything because it isn't necessary for their function as it is. If anything there should be more emphasis on admin-to-player interactions, but that has already been addressed by Connor and DZ and administrators take their time to talk over the actions and their consequences with a player.

    In the past several months I havn't seen administrators referencing any rules, but discussing the player's actions, informing them the negative results of them, and gauging their reaction to these chats and if they even care or not.

    These rules are for the players to have a basic grasp of what is and is not okay on a server and the rest will only come in time. That is just the way this game works and that is why we do not have a ban-happy administrative force.
    Flavo likes this.
  17. daddysds1

    daddysds1 Well-Known Member

    ITS HERE. Im just gonna watch this thread now.

    Also.

    Cody they can put a rule in place but people are still gonna do it. I can name people that do one or all 3 of those things but im not a asshole like that.

    Also puting these in place to stop grey tiders still aint gonna work they will find another way to grey tide around the rules.
  18. Mindtrixx

    Mindtrixx Well-Known Member



    I liked the old rule wording a lot better. Y'know the one that said you should follow space law to the best of your abilities and not steal peoples stuff like some kind of loot whore.


    I thought people wanted more clear and defined lines with the rules? This makes it feel like a large portion of the rules are just left to admin interpretation with no real grounding idea, which is something I honestly don't feel safe with.
    Infernus44, Cody522 and NoFaceMan like this.
  19. Theodysseygamer

    Theodysseygamer Active Member



    Could we try to expand more on what these factors are so they are less up to interpretation, constant abuse during the round, constant stealing of items from someone/somewhere for no reason etc.
  20. WellingtonTheThird

    WellingtonTheThird Well-Known Member

    This is the same wording as Draft 1, just slightly tweaked a bit. It has the same meaning. We're not going to try to cover every possible scenario with a list of repercussions. It will just end up a mess like our old ruleset. The rules are a guideline to give players a feel for what is okay.

    The community reviews the administrative decisions and ultimately decides if something is okay so the players are the ones in power. Aside from that these scenarios being up to interpretation by the admins is the way LS13 has always worked and it isn't something that is broken. Again, we're not going to try to outline every scenario because when you started adding too much definition things get messy and you miss things that people feel should be added until the rules are a big convoluted mess.

    The players wanted us to have our rules more open to catch those who intend to ruin the game through borderline grief and this ruleset reflects that.


    This is going to be covered in the admin Code of Conduct, but I've taken the factors and placed them there because it fits well.


    Your input is appreciated whether it is added to the rules or not.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page