/tg/Station 13

Ok so rule 0 already causes confusion among some admins to what its usecase is, and I find myself quoting the secret rule in debates a lot. So I'm gonna suggest a change that makes it more clear as well as brings up the importance of fun. Below I have provided a exmaple of a rule 0 re-write, I'd rather if headmin's want to change it, write their own rendition of it.

Rule 0. Admins will enforce the rules with the intent of maximizing fun for players.
Rules will be enforced in the best interest of the playerbase. This may involve preventing players from ruining others fun in ways that the core rules do not cover. Admins may also disregard rule violations in pursuit of fun.
Admins are fully accountable for any consequences should they invoke this rule.

Rule 0 Precedents
1: Admins should carefully consider if what they are doing improves the general player experience before utilizing rule 0.
2-5: Unchanged


This change maintains the bulk of rule 0 while also introducing the core of the secret rule. Rules should be enforced with the intent of making the game fun. This is a video game, we're here to have fun and admins shouldn't be getting in the way of it. Truthfully this doesn't change enforcement as everything in this rule is covered by existing rule 0 and the secret rule/sticky-mayhem rule, but escalating the importance of allowing rule exemptions in the pursuit of fun to rule 0 should hopefully see admins use it more.
Rule 6 should be enough to cover the obvious issue of people claiming that they should have their rulebreaks were fun for everyone if they were not. Rule 10 should cover situations where one players fun suffers as a result of many players having more fun.

We love and appreciate sticky's mayhem rule. Rule 6 and 10 interactions mentioned are good. I'm curious as to thoughts from people who have applied 0 or secret rule more.

Sure, that's how it's enforced anyways.

I feel like keeping "Admins are also allowed to intervene in rounds when it is in the best interest of the playerbase." in rule 0 is important rather than just "rules will be enforced in the best interest of the playerbase."
Intervention does not always result in administrative action - IC responses or a button press that isn't the "admin pm" button are important as well
also, grammar issue: you mean "disregard rule violations" not "disregarding rule violations".

I like it!

While rule 0 shouldn't be quoted at admins and at the time I wrote the secret rule of mayhem this made sense I think we may, with a much larger admin team, benefit from players invoking it as a reminder and hail mary.

"Ok yes I definitely broke this rule but it was pretty funny right?"

I thought rule zero was our emergency button for "this person is an asshole rules lawyer, ban 'em anyways"?

No, that's 7

Or 1

Looks good to me. That's already how we handle the thing anyway.

Stickymayhem wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:53 am While rule 0 shouldn't be quoted at admins and at the time I wrote the secret rule of mayhem this made sense I think we may, with a much larger admin team, benefit from players invoking it as a reminder and hail mary.

"Ok yes I definitely broke this rule but it was pretty funny right?"

Strongly agree, I like the rewrite better for this reason. The rules can all be boiled down to having the goal of making the game better and more fun for the players, so stating it explicitly in a preamble like this only makes sense.

This is basically how I already apply Rule 0 when I admin. Was there another way I was supposed to interpret it?

The wording of this rule is exceptionally poor.

In the old rule 0, admins had a discretion to pick and choose when rule enforcement mattered, and they were held accountable for exercising their discretion incorrectly. The assumption was that admins enforce the rules unless they had a good reason not to.

This removes this discretion and makes it mandatory for every admin to consider what maximum fun is every time they enforce the rules.

This may sound great but I'm loathe to greenlight a change like that.

If an admin enforces any of the other rules in a way that doesn't maximise fun, the admin has broken rule 0.

When the admin complaint is inevitably dismissed, we'll be back in the same position of admins not knowing what this rule is for and players really not knowing why this rule that says admins will do a.thing doesn't actually apply to them.

This weakens the grasp of the rule and, as Timber said, makes us bikeshed “Is this fun? What is fun?” every time we do something in lieu of rule 0.

I hope people realize that our rule 0 is very similar to something in regards to the origins of the server, tabletops. The admin/dm can do what they want, but know that doing so can empty the table/game. Rule zero is a universal for just about anyone running a game environment.

It literally boils down to: "whatever the DM (admin) says, goes."

CLICK ON ME DO IT
OR CLICK ON ME

In some ways the OG rule 0 better encompasses what Nameless is trying to stress:

0. Admins may disregard any of these rules at their discretion when they feel its in the best interest of the current round/server/playerbase at large. They will, of course, be fully accountable for their actions should they choose to exercise this privilege.

Compared to the current:

0. Enforcement of these rules is at the discretion of admins.

Admins are fully accountable for any consequences should they invoke this rule. Admins are also allowed to intervene in rounds when it is in the best interest of the playerbase.

Rule 0 should only be invoked by admins when it is in the best interests of the server.
Admins have intervened before and will do so again in situations where a player regardless of antag status has repeatedly delayed round-end by recalling the shuttle when most other players are dead or want to leave.
Admins may mirror bans from other servers at their discretion.
Admins may ban accounts linked to the use of proxies, CID randomizers, DLL use, or other similar things, at their discretion.
Admins may ask players in possession of multiple alt accounts to choose one to play on and ban the other accounts.

Originally it didn't explicitly say anything about intervention however. But does it REALLY need to?

It doesn't need to be some bloated overly complex obtuse nonsense, like what some of the rules grow more and more to be like.

What merited reason is there that this rule can not be simple? Some of y'all get way too wrapped up in the rules instead of the fun.

Also listen to Sticky, they were Headmin when rule zero got reworked to what it is now and know more about why it is what it is more than anyone else.

I gotta say this looks like the single best policy change I've read to date.

This in particular:

NamelessFairy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 11:16 pm1: Admins should carefully consider if what they are doing improves the general player experience before utilizing rule 0.

The rules exist to make the game more fun for the people playing it. I think this change is good for precisely the same reasons Timber thinks it's bad:

Timberpoes wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:22 amThis removes this discretion and makes it mandatory for every admin to consider what maximum fun is every time they enforce the rules [...] If an admin enforces any of the other rules in a way that doesn't maximise fun, the admin has broken rule 0.

I can't see how this is a bad thing. If the rules are being enforced in a way that doesn't actually benefit anyone or improve the round/server, then why are they being enforced? This rule just cements that into stone.

Players can't appeal something based on Rule 0 so I don't see the need for this worry about needing to explain how every ban and action maximized fun. It's just a bloody good directive to have under-girding the rules.

Has there been a decision on adjusting rule 0?

The secret rule is a plausible escape clause for anyone that wants to not follow the rules, that's why it should never be officially in writing

While we generally agree that the above proposed rewrite matches well the spirit of enforcement of rule 0. It sacrifices clarity, and, as Timber mentioned, opens up a significant amount of space for bikeshedding over "fun" that is always going to vary player by player, and is just going to result in headaches when the ideal runs into the reality of a complex game with many different moving parts and people with different goals and standards - It's a good ideal that we should remember, but not effective policy.

Spook: Do Not Change
San: Do Not Change
Rave: Do Not Change