Rewrite of Rule 8

[Fren256]

Seeing the discussion regarding nipples at viewtopic.php?f=33&t=34262, I think the community would benefit from adding precedents to Rule 8 in the wiki to define what constitutes "erotic roleplay" and what doesn't, as well as a clarification on whether media (such as paintings, graffiti, literature, etc.) that displays or depicts sexual content is allowed.

[kinnebian]

if its a blanket ban on erotic literature, a blanket ban on ERP, just make it a blanket ban on erotic paintings, too. no more felenid cleavage cleverly disguised as art for assistants to parade around the main halls.

[Vekter]

No. The rule works fine as it is and does what it's supposed to.

This is just a retread of our discussion in the thread about nipples - we are not anti-adult content, we simply just don't permit ERP.

E: A clarification that this kind of thing is allowed would be fine, but I don't support expanding rule 8 restrictions.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

This is just a retread of our discussion in the thread about nipples - we are not anti-adult content, we simply just don't permit ERP.

I've seen people get upset that someone's static said "Love you" and used the *blowkiss handover on their character's partner, before. Player, admittedly, and not an admin, but still.

I also know people who are afraid of making innuendo, because they don't want to get bonked for it. Having someone throw a pie at you and yelling "(Name) creampied me!!!" over radio is a staple of admittedly immature but still entertaining humour.

(Note, didn't reply on you because I disagree with you, just because it was a good point to springboard off of)

The rule as it's written is "No form of erotic roleplay is allowed on the servers, including things that could be construed as sexual by unwilling participants." and while the meaning behind the latter half is obviously meant for things like 'Sec dressing up a prisoner in a maid uniform against their will and talking about what a pretty princess they are' it's open for the interpretation that ANYTHING perceived as sexual is off-limits, including harmless innuendo or minor flirting.

It could definitely use clarifying, if we want that stuff off limits it should be made clear, and if not, it should be reworded, instead of being up to the whim of whichever admin happens to be online at the time.

[sinfulbliss]

I think this rule gets overextended by admins a bit too often.

Vekter’s interpretation is the correct one IMO:

we are not anti-adult content, we simply just don't permit ERP.

That clown player getting slapped via Rule 8 (?!) for poop RP, Evola getting an instant rule 8 perma for running around kissing people, plusk getting an instant rule 8 perma for calling someone a preyslut in dchat, Mice World and TypicalRig getting slapped for just being naked — and that’s just off the top of my head — I think none of these situations were the “ERP” the rule was actually created to prevent. Every situation could’ve been handled by a simple human conversation and a note, if they should’ve been handled at all to begin with.

Now the rule in effect is: “if anyone, including an admin or ghost observing you, is made uncomfortable by something you said or did, admins can permaban you instantly for it via rule 8.” I often make risqué jokes and never have run into a problem because I know the line, but I do see some players surprised they’re even allowed to, because they’re worried any innuendo at all can get them just permabanned, so they just stay on the safe side and treat it like Fulp or something. Which is fine but I think it shows the rule is often taken a bit too far.

[Vekter]

I think this rule gets overextended by admins a bit too often.

Vekter’s interpretation is the correct one IMO:

we are not anti-adult content, we simply just don't permit ERP.

That clown player getting slapped via Rule 8 (?!) for poop RP, Evola getting an instant rule 8 perma for running around kissing people, plusk getting an instant rule 8 perma for calling someone a preyslut in dchat, Mice World and TypicalRig getting slapped for just being naked — and that’s just off the top of my head — I think none of these situations were the “ERP” the rule was actually created to prevent. Every situation could’ve been handled by a simple human conversation and a note, if they should’ve been handled at all to begin with.

Now the rule in effect is: “if anyone, including an admin or ghost observing you, is made uncomfortable by something you said or did, admins can permaban you instantly for it via rule 8.” I often make risqué jokes and never have run into a problem because I know the line, but I do see some players surprised they’re even allowed to, because they’re worried any innuendo at all can get them just permabanned, so they just stay on the safe side and treat it like Fulp or something. Which is fine but I think it shows the rule is often taken a bit too far.

I don't think admins should be forbidden from acting on situations where someone's been made uncomfortable by someone else's actions.

No form of erotic roleplay is allowed on the servers, including things that could be construed as sexual by unwilling participants.

This covers a lot of things, though I'll admit that we stretch it from time to time. I'm not familiar with every situation, but if someone's being made uncomfortable by someone else's actions, we should be able to ask them firmly to stop and, if they refuse, apply an appropriate punishment.

I'm for allowing certain adult content, but I'm also for us having the ability to put a stop to someone's direct actions if they make someone uncomfortable. We might need an addendum to the rule to codify this, but I don't want situations where a player feels someone is being sexually creepy towards them and we aren't empowered to act on it.

[BeeSting12]

I think this rule gets overextended by admins a bit too often.

Vekter’s interpretation is the correct one IMO:

we are not anti-adult content, we simply just don't permit ERP.

That clown player getting slapped via Rule 8 (?!) for poop RP, Evola getting an instant rule 8 perma for running around kissing people, plusk getting an instant rule 8 perma for calling someone a preyslut in dchat, Mice World and TypicalRig getting slapped for just being naked — and that’s just off the top of my head — I think none of these situations were the “ERP” the rule was actually created to prevent. Every situation could’ve been handled by a simple human conversation and a note, if they should’ve been handled at all to begin with.

Now the rule in effect is: “if anyone, including an admin or ghost observing you, is made uncomfortable by something you said or did, admins can permaban you instantly for it via rule 8.” I often make risqué jokes and never have run into a problem because I know the line, but I do see some players surprised they’re even allowed to, because they’re worried any innuendo at all can get them just permabanned, so they just stay on the safe side and treat it like Fulp or something. Which is fine but I think it shows the rule is often taken a bit too far.

I don't think admins should be forbidden from acting on situations where someone's been made uncomfortable by someone else's actions.

No form of erotic roleplay is allowed on the servers, including things that could be construed as sexual by unwilling participants.

This covers a lot of things, though I'll admit that we stretch it from time to time. I'm not familiar with every situation, but if someone's being made uncomfortable by someone else's actions, we should be able to ask them firmly to stop and, if they refuse, apply an appropriate punishment.

I'm for allowing certain adult content, but I'm also for us having the ability to put a stop to someone's direct actions if they make someone uncomfortable. We might need an addendum to the rule to codify this, but I don't want situations where a player feels someone is being sexually creepy towards them and we aren't empowered to act on it.

I agree that we should under no circumstances allow people to be creepy toward others. However, I'm not a fan of saying that admins should be able to intervene every time someone is uncomfortable. Realistically there are some situations where the admin should tell the person "tough shit, ignore it".

I made a joke about suit sensors being a way to track crew masturbation and got nailed with a note (successfully appealed) - thats the type of thing I'm talking about here. Nontargeted risque jokes and gimmicks that people can ignore. It's not codified in the rules that I can't, and I shouldn't have to check who's online before I make a joke. Personally I think the poop clown falls under that category as well as simply being naked in the halls, but I'm not fully familiar with the latter situation. By the way, I don't remember ever getting a straight answer on the appeal if the joke was okay or not, it seemed to get lifted because they didn't think I'd do it again.

When it comes to targeted stuff, I can see how that is up to the discretion of whether the target is uncomfortable or not, but as far as nontargeted stuff goes, there should be an objective standard where we say "Yeah that's a little too far" or "They're allowed to do that, if it makes you uncomfortable then ignore it". It should not be "We're only asking you to stop because an Soandso is uncomfortable".

[Vekter]

I agree that we should under no circumstances allow people to be creepy toward others. However, I'm not a fan of saying that admins should be able to intervene every time someone is uncomfortable. Realistically there are some situations where the admin should tell the person "tough shit, ignore it".

I made a joke about suit sensors being a way to track crew masturbation and got nailed with a note (successfully appealed) - thats the type of thing I'm talking about here. Nontargeted risque jokes and gimmicks that people can ignore. It's not codified in the rules that I can't, and I shouldn't have to check who's online before I make a joke. Personally I think the poop clown falls under that category as well as simply being naked in the halls, but I'm not fully familiar with the latter situation. By the way, I don't remember ever getting a straight answer on the appeal if the joke was okay or not, it seemed to get lifted because they didn't think I'd do it again.

When it comes to targeted stuff, I can see how that is up to the discretion of whether the target is uncomfortable or not, but as far as nontargeted stuff goes, there should be an objective standard where we say "Yeah that's a little too far" or "They're allowed to do that, if it makes you uncomfortable then ignore it". It should not be "We're only asking you to stop because an Soandso is uncomfortable".

Then where do we draw that line? At what point does someone's concerns stop being valid?

[sinfulbliss]

I think this rule gets overextended by admins a bit too often.

Vekter’s interpretation is the correct one IMO:

we are not anti-adult content, we simply just don't permit ERP.

That clown player getting slapped via Rule 8 (?!) for poop RP, Evola getting an instant rule 8 perma for running around kissing people, plusk getting an instant rule 8 perma for calling someone a preyslut in dchat, Mice World and TypicalRig getting slapped for just being naked — and that’s just off the top of my head — I think none of these situations were the “ERP” the rule was actually created to prevent. Every situation could’ve been handled by a simple human conversation and a note, if they should’ve been handled at all to begin with.

Now the rule in effect is: “if anyone, including an admin or ghost observing you, is made uncomfortable by something you said or did, admins can permaban you instantly for it via rule 8.” I often make risqué jokes and never have run into a problem because I know the line, but I do see some players surprised they’re even allowed to, because they’re worried any innuendo at all can get them just permabanned, so they just stay on the safe side and treat it like Fulp or something. Which is fine but I think it shows the rule is often taken a bit too far.

I don't think admins should be forbidden from acting on situations where someone's been made uncomfortable by someone else's actions.

No form of erotic roleplay is allowed on the servers, including things that could be construed as sexual by unwilling participants.

This covers a lot of things, though I'll admit that we stretch it from time to time. I'm not familiar with every situation, but if someone's being made uncomfortable by someone else's actions, we should be able to ask them firmly to stop and, if they refuse, apply an appropriate punishment.

I'm for allowing certain adult content, but I'm also for us having the ability to put a stop to someone's direct actions if they make someone uncomfortable. We might need an addendum to the rule to codify this, but I don't want situations where a player feels someone is being sexually creepy towards them and we aren't empowered to act on it.

I agree that we should under no circumstances allow people to be creepy toward others. However, I'm not a fan of saying that admins should be able to intervene every time someone is uncomfortable. Realistically there are some situations where the admin should tell the person "tough shit, ignore it".
[...]
I made a joke about suit sensors being a way to track crew masturbation and got nailed with a note (successfully appealed) - thats the type of thing I'm talking about here. Nontargeted risque jokes and gimmicks that people can ignore. It's not codified in the rules that I can't, and I shouldn't have to check who's online before I make a joke.

This is all I mean, yeah. It's a shame to see the rule enforced like this.

Admins should tell some people to just get thicker skin honestly. Everyone can feel uncomfortable at everything, you need to have SOME actual rule defining when Rule 8 should apply or else literally every single dick joke can catch a permaban so long as someone manages to get offended at it. Rule 8 should just protect players from getting weird sexual advances or ERP IMO, not all these stupid ones in the examples I gave.

Then where do we draw that line? At what point does someone's concerns stop being valid?

I feel like it's common sense, but you definitely shouldn't consider a concern valid simply because it exists. It needs to make sense to be a concern.

[Lacran]

I get not liking pearl clutching and ofc you can't please everyone but I think it's less about drawing a line about subject matter in grey areas and more just looking at if it's being done in a way that's well intentioned and handled with compassion.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I feel like there's several worlds of difference between "Someone makes a Dick Joke" or various other innuendo, and unwanted sexual harassment.

[BeeSting12]

I agree that we should under no circumstances allow people to be creepy toward others. However, I'm not a fan of saying that admins should be able to intervene every time someone is uncomfortable. Realistically there are some situations where the admin should tell the person "tough shit, ignore it".

I made a joke about suit sensors being a way to track crew masturbation and got nailed with a note (successfully appealed) - thats the type of thing I'm talking about here. Nontargeted risque jokes and gimmicks that people can ignore. It's not codified in the rules that I can't, and I shouldn't have to check who's online before I make a joke. Personally I think the poop clown falls under that category as well as simply being naked in the halls, but I'm not fully familiar with the latter situation. By the way, I don't remember ever getting a straight answer on the appeal if the joke was okay or not, it seemed to get lifted because they didn't think I'd do it again.

When it comes to targeted stuff, I can see how that is up to the discretion of whether the target is uncomfortable or not, but as far as nontargeted stuff goes, there should be an objective standard where we say "Yeah that's a little too far" or "They're allowed to do that, if it makes you uncomfortable then ignore it". It should not be "We're only asking you to stop because an Soandso is uncomfortable".

Then where do we draw that line? At what point does someone's concerns stop being valid?

To me I feel like it's somewhat obvious to go off intent and how much the other player's actions affect them. Someone calls a player a slut and they find this offensive. It's an insult in the heat of the moment most likely and they should be told not to do that with this specific player and call it good. Someone makes a sexually charged joke on comms. This can be easily ignored and isn't directed at anyone. The admin should tell the offended player to grow a thicker skin and not say anything to the joker. Someone follows a player around making sexually charged comments at them. That's an obvious rule 8 ban.

Not sure if I can come up with a clear line for you but that's kinda where my thoughts lie. Anyone can get offended at anything, and enforcing rules based on if someone is offended is pretty dumb. Once again, I'm not saying that we should allow people to get harassed, just that if people want to complain about 18+ content in an 18+ game then they should be told to grow a thicker skin or go to a server with tighter rules on that sort of thing.

[BrianBackslide]

Are they targeting the general audience, you (the character), or you (the player)? Is it repeated or is it an insult called out in the heat of the moment? Separation of character and player is important here.

If I call a character (WORD), and their player takes personal offense to that word, is that harassment if it doesn't happen again? What if it can be backed contextually and isn't being used to target the player and/or for sexual gratification? If I call a character a slut for wearing the more provocative clothing, or being a felinid, or dragging around a suggestive painting, or as a general insult to piss them off, does that constitute as harassment if it's a one-off?

[CPTANT]

I feel like people forgot that the actual reason ERP was banned was that there were literally people RP'ing penetration in the dorms every other round. That this "zero tolerance" has been extended to lewd jokes and the like is honestly sad.

[kieth4]

We have no interest in re-writing rule 8 and are happy how it plays out, in the edge cases where it needs to be appealed headmins are here to be reasonable.