Rule 4 needs expansion

[XivilaiAnaxes]

Currently there are a number of bad bans on appeal for "um you didn't give this guy that just straight self antagged the 1% chance to come back into the round?? what's up with that??".

Rule 4 should be expanded or at least have the wording updated to create clear policy that you aren't obliged to react in good faith and act to keep someone in the round who as a non-antagonist (or just a regular antagonist) acts in bad faith attempting to round remove other players (actual confirmed antags are pretty much open to this anyway so it's not like there's any chance with regards to antags acting as they're intended to).

Escalation already exists for coworkers clubbing each other over the head and has a specific phrasing indicating if you started it you have to throw them in the medbay (although not vice versa). Rule 4 exists specifically so that you aren't obliged to 'keep in the round' some guy that has clearly shown they're creating a negative effect on the round by attempting to remove other players from said round.

[oranges]

I don't like this rule therefore it should be expanded so I can more effectively rules lawyer around it.

[XivilaiAnaxes]

I don't like this rule therefore it should be expanded so I can more effectively rules lawyer around it.

???

Admins ban because "oh I'm finding an excuse for why the rule doesn't apply in this instance and am digging up irrelevant precedent". It's the admins going around it and as a result it needs tuning.

Why do straight shitters get the benefit of "no you need to keep him in the round!" "It doesn't matter that as a roundstart sec officer (nonantag) he decided to get hulked and start round removing borgs, you can't exclude little timmy from the game because he's a fuckwit"

[confused rock]

yeah oranges look at this idiot he thinks a rule is bad so he's asking for it to change, in policy discussion, the section of the forums for discussing rules. He didn't even get a cited source from a research paper to prove his opinion is correct, what an idiot.

[Istoprocent1]

Rules should be black and white. Only rules that can be "lawyered" are vague ones.

[teepeepee]

I don't like this rule therefore it should be expanded so I can more effectively rules lawyer around it.

let's keep it as it is and let admins do the lawyering instead, good idea oranges
let's do the same with the peanut policy you asked to change too, since leaving it to the admins works, as you acknowledge

[deedubya]

I don't like this rule therefore it should be expanded so I can more effectively rules lawyer around it.

oranges: admins can't be trusted to arbitrate on issues properly, so I'll call them out publicly and solve admin issues with code solutions whenever I can
also oranges: vague rules should stay because it means nobody can argue with the admins when they get banned for violating one of them

[Tarchonvaagh]

Rules should be black and white. Only rules that can be "lawyered" are vague ones.

but not too black eh?

[XivilaiAnaxes]

Oranges' opinion is based off of how smarmy he can look while spouting it leave him alone he doesn't really believe in anything he says.

[Coconutwarrior97]

We have no desire to expand on rule four currently, it does its job well enough as is. We have taken steps to discuss proper enforcement with administrators when issues regarding enforcement of it have come up.
Headmin Votes:
Coconutwarrior97: Yes.
Phuzzylodgik: Yes.
TWATICUS Yes.