Bring back the old rule 3

[MrStonedOne]

Bottom post of the previous page:

This used to be rule 3 on all servers back when I first took over as webhost (but not game host)

3. This is a roleplaying game. The purpose of the game is to have fun roleplaying. Being an asshole, who ruins other player's roleplay experience, just to win, is considered a 'play-to-win' style of playing. You can and will be banned for this playstyle. Be considerate of other players' experience.

This didn't make it thru a rewrite.

Anti-play2win enforcement used to hold back the tide that is this fucking game when unleashed.

Bring it back.

The way this used to be enforced on antags to counter this being enforced on security, was that admins had free roam to do some tasteful button presses to make the antag's round more challenging. If you're gonna play to win as tator, so will the gods. Then hijack came out and that become frowned upon because it was already generally frowned upon to make it harder for antags to honestly achieve their objectives.

(I could have just asked the headmins about doing this, but i'm too high to be disrupting their official discord channel with highdeas, so you get to hear an old man yelling at a cloud a policy thread instead)

edit:

(For the record, pandarsenic in this thread has a better grasp on what this rule originally meant then even I did. They were one of the admin trainers at the time I was a candidate.)

edit2:

Let me break this rule down for you.

This is a roleplaying game. The purpose of the game is to have fun roleplaying. - preamble establishing intent and reasoning

Being an asshole, who ruins other player’s roleplay experience, - piece 1

just to win, - piece 2

is considered a ‘play-to-win’ style of playing. You can and will be banned for this playstyle. - tie everything together

Be considerate of other players’ experience. - finish off strong with a call to action.


It's important to note that piece 2 is a condition on piece 1.

[Cobby]

It's such a strawman you literally displayed the point of it.

If you cant understand "I want to win" by nature goes against every other non-primarily winning playstyle (at least in SS13) I dont know what to tell you considering the obvious example completely blew past you. You had to devolve the post into preemptively gearing up which is not the point of my post or rule 3.

[YBS]

Y'all should buy a corn field for all of those strawmen you're constructing. We're not cartoonishly evil antiRPaladins with a "thou shalt not suffer an RPer to live" code, we're just people who like a different part of the game than you do (which does NOT mean that we hate what you like about the game).

If you want to speak for everyone, you can let the clique know that your pursuit of your 'different part of the game' destroys the part that matters by default.

Imagine we're all in a room. We have a job: Paint the room. It's agreed on by everyone that the most important thing is to do is have fun painting. Everyone is taking their time painting this room in different ways. There are differing designs, but they're all unique, guaranteed to make what was just a simple room far more interesting.

Two people then run in and say "Well we just have to paint the room right?" and spray paint it black. An argument breaks out and their logic is "We just paint the room differently.". The two argue: "We don't hate art, but this is mechanically the best way to paint the room. This is just the way we like to paint."

You can nit-pick specifics until the end of time to defend your ""playstyle"", but the game is universally worse for it.

[Archie700]

Y'all should buy a corn field for all of those strawmen you're constructing. We're not cartoonishly evil antiRPaladins with a "thou shalt not suffer an RPer to live" code, we're just people who like a different part of the game than you do (which does NOT mean that we hate what you like about the game).

If you want to speak for everyone, you can let the clique know that your pursuit of your 'different part of the game' destroys the part that matters by default.

Imagine we're all in a room. We have a job: Paint the room. It's agreed on by everyone that the most important thing is to do is have fun painting. Everyone is taking their time painting this room in different ways. There are differing designs, but they're all unique, guaranteed to make what was just a simple room far more interesting.

Two people then run in and say "Well we just have to paint the room right?" and spray paint it black. An argument breaks out and their logic is "We just paint the room differently.". The two argue: "We don't hate art, but this is mechanically the best way to paint the room. This is just the way we like to paint."

You can nit-pick specifics until the end of time to defend your ""playstyle"", but the game is universally worse for it.

Except instead of spraypainting they're throwing paintbombs without caring about anyone being in the line of fire.

Actually let me rephrase that.

They're throwing open paintcans into the room and beat others over the head with them when they dare to paint over their "work".

[terranaut]

Except there's 4 different rooms with different people painting their rooms in a different way and there is, in fact, no "agreed by everyone" standard way to paint the room the best way.
It's astonishing how you open with "if you want to speak for everyone" and then speak for everyone.

[Stickymayhem]

Except there's 4 different rooms with different people painting their rooms in a different way and there is, in fact, no "agreed by everyone" standard way to paint the room the best way.
It's astonishing how you open with "if you want to speak for everyone" and then speak for everyone.

Their point, which is well put, is that one kind of activity explicitly denies any other one from occurring. The NRPers reduce the options to either "Have your stuff ruined by black paintbombs, or pick up a paintbomb and join in". Everything else kind of exists in a natural tension maybe some borders conflict occasionally, but the paintbombs ruin and overwhelm everything.

I guess your analogy is about servers, which doesn't really hold since even then the paintbombers are a minority, even on Terry. They're just such a disruptive minority that it's easy to think everyone agrees with them instead of just puts up with them.

[wesoda25]

Fwiw that sort of playstyle can still create very interesting narratives, though. There’s a definite beauty in what our servers currently are imo. I think things could probably be better, but all I’ve ever known is what we have and while I have my grievances, I’ve come to really value the (almost) total freedom we currently get. It’s not the end of the world/tg whether this becomes a rule again or not so I’d say just put it to a vote.

[cacogen]

Speaking of paint bombs, yesterday on Manuel a botanist detonated a grenade in the bar on DeltaStation which dyed the floor different colours, which was pretty cool by Manuel standards. But I think some lawyer called him a shitter. Was he a shitter? It’s 6:00am here and I’m still wondering. I need a Manuel regular like CGP Grey to weigh in on this for me.

[Jonathan Gupta]

Speaking of paint bombs, yesterday on Manuel a botanist detonated a grenade in the bar on DeltaStation which dyed the floor different colours, which was pretty cool by Manuel standards. But I think some lawyer called him a shitter. Was he a shitter? It’s 6:00am here and I’m still wondering. I need a Manuel regular like CGP Grey to weigh in on this for me.

it probably had space drugs in it.

[cacogen]

I don’t think so, unless they dye the floor. I don’t remember getting high off it.

[YBS]

Speaking of paint bombs, yesterday on Manuel a botanist detonated a grenade in the bar on DeltaStation which dyed the floor different colours, which was pretty cool by Manuel standards. But I think some lawyer called him a shitter. Was he a shitter? It’s 6:00am here and I’m still wondering. I need a Manuel regular like CGP Grey to weigh in on this for me.

It's not shittery if he comes in with a beret and declares himself a "overground artist" and signs his name on the floor.

[The Wrench]

I hope the new headmins can handle everything that was discussed in this thread with grace and dignity

[RaveRadbury]

Expect a ruling and conclusion to this thread before the current term is over.

[RaveRadbury]

After a lot of deliberation, we have come up with a new rule in response to this thread.

Rule 12: This is a sandbox roleplaying game
The purpose of the game is to have fun roleplaying. Play-to-win gameplay that ruins the purpose of the game at the expense of others is against the rules.

Rule 12 Precedents

• Playing-to-win is to focus exclusively on a competitive victory condition, such as killing all antagonists. It is not empowering yourself to achieve personal goals, or taking measures to survive the shift
• Taking a few items beyond what you need to do your job is usually fine, especially if they're not needed by anyone else. Examples of okay items to take include taking a medkit from the public Medbay lobby or the insulated gloves from tech storage. Hoarding lots of station resources for poor reasons may break this rule and be handled administratively.
• Genuine conflict with other players does not ruin the purpose of the game. Player conflicts will continue to be administrated in line with Escalation Rules.

Headmin Votes:
RaveRadbury: Agree
Dragomagol: Agree
NamelessFairy: Agree - During the community meeting some of you may remember that I was opposed to rule 3 when it was brought up. To be clear I agree with some of the objectives set out by it but not the initial rule as a whole and I have over the past few weeks been working with my fellow headmins to change the rule into something that I think will still accomplish most of what it set out to accomplish while also making it something that I think will be more widely accepted.