[Deleted] Rules in general


Moderator: Board Moderators

User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:54 am
Byond Username: Ambassador Magikarp

Rules in general

Postby Karp » Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:01 pm #478934

Do you think our current ruleset is too harsh on our playerbase, or do you believe it might be too light on shitters?

Do you want to change our ruleset in any direction? Would it be more serious and harsh or to be lighter and jovial in nature?

HARD MODE: could you post a thread in the complaints/ban requests/policy where you think something was mishandled? It would genuinely be interesting to see what opinions might be of up and coming headmins.

*EDIT MODE* Do you have any specific rule you might want to address or modify in any way? Anything in particular you feel that might not specifically be worded properly or may be too light/deserving of removal/???

modedit: irrelevant shitposting removed.

User avatar
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 2:23 am
Location: *teleports behind you*
Byond Username: Repukan

Re: Rules in general

Postby D&B » Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:37 pm #479028

I'd look into merging some rules and making them more concise.

Rules regarding ghost roles, metacommunication, and doxxing would be made harsher.

I'd for sure delete the naming rules we have in place right now, draft improvements in naming convention for each different species, implement those, and make the rules for breaking these naming conventions harsher than attempt a change outright.
[20:26:02]ADMIN: PM: [censored admin]->[censored]: Welp. It was just a prank bro isn't a very good excuse when it comes to unprovoked nonantag murder, but since this is your first time doing it and you seem to understand the problem instead of a bannu I'm just going to leave you with a warning. Please PLEASE don't do this again in the future, as funny as crackhead broken bottle memes can be. Alrighty? Do you have any input on this?
[20:26:39]ADMIN: PM: [censored]->[censored admin]: Alright, no problem. I have some input. Fuck my boy pussy.
[20:27:06]ADMIN: PM: [censored admin]->[censored]: Okay then. Have fun.
[20:31:29]ADMIN: PM: [censored admin]->[censored]: Excuse me?

J_Madison wrote:that's a stupid fucking stat
you don't play, you've never played
lying little shit with your bullshit stat
fuck you

ColonicAcid wrote:and with enough practise i too could blow my own dick so well that only the gods know how it feels.

User avatar
Github User
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:27 pm
Byond Username: Subject217
Github Username: subject217

Re: Rules in general

Postby subject217 » Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:13 am #479041

I'm partially reiterating what I've said in a bunch of other threads, but I'll rewrite it on more general terms in here.

Our current ruleset and more particularly the enforcement of those rules is too light on the group of people who readily and intentionally make rounds worse for other people at no direct provocation solely for their own entertainment on a regular basis. This is the primary reason that I want to make changes to Escalation Policy, which I've discussed in my candidate thread as well as in Wubli's policy thread about it and don't particularly want to repeat here.

There are a number of different groups that play on /tg/ station and they all have different things about the game that they enjoy. This is fine, and we should do our best job to ensure that all of these groups can have a fun time playing here. One of the things that I love about /tg/ station and ss13 in general is the sheer breadth of the content. You can do so many different things that I've never seen in another video game, and they have a ton of depth and you can keep doing them for a long while and it's tremendously fun. There are still considerable portions of content on /tg/ station that I've barely even scratched the surface on in my ~3000 connections.

With that said, if your enjoyment of the game comes not from the game's content itself or engaging in positive interactions with other people, moreso that you find enjoyment from negative interactions with others, then you are a negative influence on /tg/ station as a whole. Some amount of negative interaction can spice things up, obviously. This is why we have antags, this is why we have escalation. But if this is literally all you do ever, then you should find another way to enjoy the game or you should go to a different server that is more suited for people with this competitive attitude. Currently I believe that the rules, particularly but not exclusively escalation policy, defend this sort of person and I think that the best thing I could do for /tg/ station during a headmin term would be to stop this in it's tracks.

I would go into more detail about escalation policy here but I don't want people to read my same block of text for the 3rd time so I'll spare you it.

Aside from that I think the other primary culprit of this is Silicon Policy. A lot of people play AI because they are waiting for an opportunity to be made rogue so they can destroy shit. In particular the way policy has defended people who intentionally interpret ambiguous laws in the most assholish way possible given no justification to do so is a sore point. I thought I wouldn't be linking a thread in here but I will. viewtopic.php?f=34&t=19052 I heavily disagreed with this ruling at the time and I still do. The person who was banned was by no means in the right, but the AI here was being a dick with zero justification to the point that it's functionally ban baiting. I didn't mention it at the time either, but silicon policy has a clause that states this:
Server Rule 1: "Don't be a dick out of character" applies for law interpretation. Act in good faith to not ruin a round for other players unprompted.

One could try to argue whether or not this was unprompted but in my opinion it's pretty clear. Additionally, in this case the issue wasn't directly law interpretation, it was order interpretation, given a law to follow all orders. Which doesn't lend any credence towards the AI in my opinion. The point of silicons is not killing people given any justification. The point of silicons and in my opinion where silicons shine the most is in interesting and creative law roleplay. But this case comes back to the same place as my point on escalation policy, which is that people who intentionally seek out negative interactions at every turn given no suitable justification to do so should be removed.

I realized I didn't go into enough detail about what's wrong with silicon policy. The issue is the encouraging of silicons to abuse any loophole they can find in their laws whatsoever, and partially just lax/nonexistent enforcement of existing rules. Silicons are always supposed to be moderated by Rule 1 when they exploit loopholes, but it's repeatedly been the case in the past that instead of the silicons getting in trouble for it the person who made the laws is the one who exclusively got in trouble for it. The point of that distinction (banning people who upload bad laws instead of the silicon for following them) is mostly intended for things that are blatantly bad like Antimov. An AI choosing to interpret ambiguous laws or orders in a way that is bad should not mean that the uploader gets banned.
thankfully former admin

User avatar
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:42 pm
Byond Username: Hulkamania

Re: Rules in general

Postby Hulkamania » Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:48 am #479050

I think the rules are actually in a really really solid place. They're ambiguous enough to leave some wiggle room for fringe cases, but they're straightforward enough that you shouldn't have any reasonable situation in which you're wondering if you are or aren't breaking one.

There's a few spots on Silicon Policy that I'd like to clean up, although I admit that's a personal thing. I really have fun discussing Silicon policy when people have a question about how something should/shouldn't be handled and being able to provide official headmin rulings on those situations would be helpful to the community as a whole. I kind of disagree with some of what subject said in that an AI choosing to interpret ambiguous laws a certain way shouldn't be the fault of the AI, it should be the fault of the person who uploaded the law in the first place. Isaac Asimov's stories were often written around AI's taking their laws in unexpected ways because that's how a computer would handle them. That being said, the line is obviously at causing mass killing/disruption because of a poorly worded law when the intention was pretty obviously not for it to be a harmful one. Example: Uploading the "real american" lawset and the AI interprets that to kill anyone who is labeled a communist, that's just poor taste.

As for the other part of the question, I think the rules are fine but might not always be enforced as strictly as they could. The biggest example of this is letting people who toe the line on rule breaking go without any consequences. We have the note system in place specifically to keep track of instances over extended amounts of time and that's something that should be used to its fullest. Arianya mentioned in another thread it's hard to make a rule 1 ban stick, but when you have a rap sheet a mile long it isn't an insurmountable obstacle at all.

To summarize: Rules having wiggle room is a good thing, admins being able to interpret the rules to best suit the entertainment of the players and the well being of a round is also a good thing, but being a bit harsher on people who are consistently breaking rule 1 is something I'm in favor of.

User avatar
Github User
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:50 pm
Byond Username: Iamgoofball
Github Username: Iamgoofball

Re: Rules in general

Postby iamgoofball » Mon Feb 25, 2019 1:02 am #479052

i'm taking a fire axe to our rules list and chopping off everything that isn't fucking critical

Return to Archived/Deleted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users