[Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

(Mainly the wiki)
Post Reply
User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

[Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by FantasticFwoosh » #635563

If Manuel & Sybil players are as divided as cats & dogs, the current situation with them brigading each other trying to impose their viewpoints onto generalist policy is going to eventually tear the community apart. So here's my input into what could be done to expand policy discussion, and i look forward to seeing if a initial first pass of this idea could be drawn onto coding discussion also.
My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other LRP matters

MRP Subforum: Manuel central

HRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a HRP server. And later any practical policy.

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.

Spoiler:
Image
Image
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by sinfulbliss » #635569

This is honestly a great idea. 90% of the disagreements in policy discussion are MRP players and LRP players talking past each other because they both play very different games with completely different rules and policies. I don't think the "opt-in" mechanism is useful though, it's a little too much juju and will just make things more complicated. I also don't think the HRP subforum is useful since an HRP server doesn't exist on TG.

Currently five threads in the first page of the policy section have the [MRP] tag before them, so there's definitely already an impetus for something like this. But the main issue this would solve is LRP players and MRP players fighting tooth and nail over each and every policy, because the proposed policy change will affect their servers differently and may be suboptimal for LRP or MRP. I.e., a policy thread advocating against calling the shuttle for minor infrastructure damage etc. might be very welcome on MRP but would be very unwelcome on LRP.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
massa
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 am
Byond Username: Massa100

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by massa » #635580

yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more
:donut2: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :donut2:
User avatar
BeeSting12
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2016 1:11 am
Byond Username: BeeSting12
Github Username: BeeSting12
Location: 'Murica

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by BeeSting12 » #635599

just make the mrp policy discussion a subforum of policy discussion
Edward Sloan, THE LAW
Melanie Flowers, Catgirl
Borgasm, Cyborg
Spoiler:
OOC: Hunterh98: to be fair sloan is one of the, if not the, most robust folks on tg

DEAD: Schlomo Gaskin says, "sloan may be a faggot but he gets the job done"

DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "YOU'RE EVERYWHERE WHERE BAD SHIT IS HAPPENING"
DEAD: Rei Ayanami says, "IT'S ALWAYS FUCKING EDWARD SLOAN"
oranges wrote:Bee sting is honestly the nicest admin, I look forward to seeing him as a headmin one day
[2020-05-21 01:21:48.923] SAY: Crippo/(Impala Chainee) "Shaggy Voice - She like... wants to get Eiffel Towered bro!!" (Brig (125, 166, 2))
hows my driving?
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by sinfulbliss » #635656

massa wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:46 am yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more
How is that fracturing the playerbase? It’s admitting that policies differ on Manuel and LRP and separating their discussions so people know which is which.

People who play Manuel rarely if ever touch LRP servers, and vice versa. Let’s stop trying to pretend we’re all one giant server and admit they’re different servers with different playerbases and different rules and policies.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
massa
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:20 am
Byond Username: Massa100

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by massa » #635663

sinfulbliss wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:00 pm
massa wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 11:46 am yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more
How is that fracturing the playerbase? It’s admitting that policies differ on Manuel and LRP and separating their discussions so people know which is which.

People who play Manuel rarely if ever touch LRP servers, and vice versa. Let’s stop trying to pretend we’re all one giant server and admit they’re different servers with different playerbases and different rules and policies.
was to the op
:donut2: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :heart: :honkman: :donut2:
User avatar
OscarTheSheep
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:22 am
Byond Username: HiKewne

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by OscarTheSheep » #635701

Silly, nonsensical, utter flimshaw, and you propose to put Sybil players next to the Terry players? You, sir, don't have all your candies inside your mason jar
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by Mothblocks » #635714

We have the base rules. Then we have MRP, which extends off those rules. Both servers share the base rules and so it is critical that both bring in their own feedback. People having differing points of views based on the server they play isn't a problem, it's the entire reason we discuss policies in the first place. It's like saying we need a separate thread for every job because a medical doctor will have different thoughts on a rule about not stealing insulated gloves than an assistant.
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by FantasticFwoosh » #635743

I laid off replying to filter some feedback, so here's some prepared responses.

Mothblocks (2 parts):
► Show Spoiler
OscarTheSheep wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 4:36 am Silly, nonsensical, utter flimshaw, and you propose to put Sybil players next to the Terry players? You, sir, don't have all your candies inside your mason jar
If you read my reply to mothblocks, id apply more or less same answer, RP level is the most basic distinction to matter between them both used for the draft.
Massa & SinfulBliss:
► Show Spoiler
sinfulbliss wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:00 am This is honestly a great idea. 90% of the disagreements in policy discussion are MRP players and LRP players talking past each other because they both play very different games with completely different rules and policies. I don't think the "opt-in" mechanism is useful though, it's a little too much juju and will just make things more complicated. I also don't think the HRP subforum is useful since an HRP server doesn't exist on TG.
~snip~
I think i probably am a dinosaur for suggesting such a thing as usergroups, as back in my day it was used for pooling access in and out of certain boards, but much of the functionality has been retired. Also coupled with that people may wish to advertise they're in the MRP or LRP main groups as identifable lapel badge rather than just guessing the audience where you last meta-saw their static before throwing a untrue accusation at them.

As for HRP never say never, but perfectly fair its a little over the top for the draft.

Spoiler:
Image
Image
User avatar
Archie700
In-Game Admin
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:56 am
Byond Username: Archie700

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by Archie700 » #635771

There is literally not enough separation in policy to justify 2 different subforums.
User avatar
sinfulbliss
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:53 am
Byond Username: SinfulBliss
Location: prisoner re-education chamber

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by sinfulbliss » #635837

Mothblocks wrote: Thu Mar 31, 2022 6:53 am People having differing points of views based on the server they play isn't a problem, it's the entire reason we discuss policies in the first place.
There is a reason people who play MRP and LRP have very different views about lots of policies. It's because their servers will react differently to them. One ruling might make the game better on Manuel, and worse on LRP servers, or vice versa. Discussion between LRP and MRP players about policy isn't useful at all, because they want different things out of the game entirely. This would be largely solved by splitting up the subforum into MRP and LRP IMO.

There are base rules and policies that apply equally to both MRP and LRP, but those usually aren't controversial and won't spark much discussion or debate anyway.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Mothblocks
Code Maintainer
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
Byond Username: Jaredfogle

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by Mothblocks » #635848

There are base rules and policies that apply equally to both MRP and LRP, but those usually aren't controversial and won't spark much discussion or debate anyway.
Nearly every policy discussion applies to both LRP and MRP players. The one's that aren't are basically always prefixed with [MRP].

LRP players not including themselves in those discussions will absolutely hurt them.
Shaps-cloud wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!

Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.

Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by FantasticFwoosh » #635850

Mothblocks wrote: Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:46 am
There are base rules and policies that apply equally to both MRP and LRP, but those usually aren't controversial and won't spark much discussion or debate anyway.
Nearly every policy discussion applies to both LRP and MRP players. The one's that aren't are basically always prefixed with [MRP].

LRP players not including themselves in those discussions will absolutely hurt them.
The intent of the draft doesn't distinguish to keep them from interacting, but rather clarity and sanctity of the discussions, in excluding LRP for "hurting them" you extract a knowledge base of player insights usually in practical gameplay mechanics (MRP still have to physically use the station if not a emphasis on efficiency, rather than style if you want to be stereotypical in application).
Off Topic
Section removed by Domitius for being offtopic and provoking.

Spoiler:
Image
Image
User avatar
Domitius
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:30 am
Byond Username: Domitius
Github Username: DomitiusKnack

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by Domitius » #636608

No, this would purely be a waste of time on needless bureaucracy. Mothblocks summed it up perfectly well why this is not necessary.
User avatar
MrStonedOne
Host
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:56 pm
Byond Username: MrStonedOne
Github Username: MrStonedOne

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by MrStonedOne » #636619

My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a LRP server. And later any practical policy.

MRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other MRP matters

HRP Subforum: Manuel/Campbell central

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.
FTFY
Forum/Wiki Administrator, Server host, Database King, Master Coder
MrStonedOne on digg(banned), Steam, IRC, Skype Discord. (!vAKvpFcksg)
Image
User avatar
FantasticFwoosh
Joined: Mon May 04, 2015 11:25 pm
Byond Username: FantasticFwoosh

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by FantasticFwoosh » #636626

Off Topic
Thanks for removing the additional posts Domitus. Not so thanks about the other stuff.
MrStonedOne wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:10 pm
~snip~
FTFY
Ehh, it took my eyes a moment to adjust but uh, that's interesting. Is this a serious-post? Or?

Spoiler:
Image
Image
User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by oranges » #636671

MrStonedOne wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:10 pm
My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a LRP server. And later any practical policy.

MRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other MRP matters

HRP Subforum: Manuel/Campbell central

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.
FTFY
support
User avatar
TheFinalPotato
Code Maintainer
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:58 am
Byond Username: LemonInTheDark

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by TheFinalPotato » #636708

Hard true
My ancestors are smiling at me, Imperials. Can you say the same?
Image
Image
Image
Image
User avatar
Pandarsenic
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 11:56 pm
Byond Username: Pandarsenic
Location: AI Upload

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by Pandarsenic » #636734

oranges wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 10:58 pm
MrStonedOne wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:10 pm
My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a LRP server. And later any practical policy.

MRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other MRP matters

HRP Subforum: Manuel/Campbell central

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.
FTFY
support
With possible exception of Terry as LRP/NRP quarantine hell, let's do it, let's gooooo
(2:53:35 AM) scaredofshadows: how about head of robutts
I once wrote a guide to fixing telecomms woohoo
User avatar
MrStonedOne
Host
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:56 pm
Byond Username: MrStonedOne
Github Username: MrStonedOne

Re: [Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

Post by MrStonedOne » #636757

FantasticFwoosh wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 5:08 pm
Off Topic
Thanks for removing the additional posts Domitus. Not so thanks about the other stuff.
MrStonedOne wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:10 pm
~snip~
FTFY
Ehh, it took my eyes a moment to adjust but uh, that's interesting. Is this a serious-post? Or?
In my mind, sybil/basil/terry are suppose to sit perfectly between lrp and mrp, at the mid way point, and manny/campbell sit midway between mrp and hrp.

Limiting antags and limiting lane departures stands slightly on the hrp side of thing, but we try not to over do it.

Limiting the validing of antags to IC justification is a mrp thing, but we try not to overdo it on the mainline servers.

etc.
Forum/Wiki Administrator, Server host, Database King, Master Coder
MrStonedOne on digg(banned), Steam, IRC, Skype Discord. (!vAKvpFcksg)
Image
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users