Rewrite rule 4 to make more sense without changing the actual meat of the rule

[Vekter]

Before anyone starts calling for my head, let me specify that this suggestion is for changing the rule wording only. I don't want to change anything about what antags can or can't do on any LRP server - those freedoms should stay as they are now.

With that out of the way, rule 4 has needed a rewrite for a while. There's a big problem staring us right in the face as soon as we look at it:

4. Lone antagonists can do whatever they want.

That's not really true though, is it? It used to be save for a very limited list of exceptions, but those exceptions have grown over time and result less in "doing whatever they want" and more "having explicit freedoms in how they act as antagonists". I don't think those restrictions are bad - we obviously shouldn't be allowing antags to crash the server or ERP - but they're still restrictions, and telling new players they can do whatever they want might be confusing in some contexts.

I propose the following rewrite:

4. Antagonists can antagonize in whatever way they see fit, including attacking crewmembers or sabotaging the station.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag. Indiscriminate killing (murderboning) is not permitted in low population rounds. This specifically refers to randomly killing anyone for no reason other than to increase body count.

It's a bit more wordy than what we have now, so by all means, help me edit it down a bit. We can also include the list of forbidden actions as a redirect link, kind of how we have the precedents and "Order of antagonist priority" list that's there now.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I'd like to point out that the rules already contain extra clarification not mentioned in this thread even though it was reused in the proposed new policy,

Here's my take, which is pretty much just replacing the wording "can do whatever they want" and stealing the way you worded the exceptions

4. Lone Antagonists can attack, harm, destroy, or kill whoever and whatever they want, and may generally play the game in whatever way they see fit.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

[Vekter]

I'd like to point out that the rules already contain extra clarification not mentioned in this thread even though it was reused in the proposed new policy,

Here's my take, which is pretty much just replacing the wording "can do whatever they want" and stealing the way you worded the exceptions

4. Lone Antagonists can attack, harm, destroy, or kill whoever and whatever they want, and may generally play the game in whatever way they see fit.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

I strongly dislike having the long run-on sentence of everything you can't do over having a much easier to read list.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

I'd like to point out that the rules already contain extra clarification not mentioned in this thread even though it was reused in the proposed new policy,

Here's my take, which is pretty much just replacing the wording "can do whatever they want" and stealing the way you worded the exceptions

4. Lone Antagonists can attack, harm, destroy, or kill whoever and whatever they want, and may generally play the game in whatever way they see fit.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

I strongly dislike having the long run-on sentence of everything you can't do over having a much easier to read list.

the long run on sentence is copy-pasted from your rules with one extra comment added (and one removed)


Unless you mean the Rule itself, in which case I think its actually pretty important to state the core intent of the rule and would rather cut it down to "Lone Antagonists can attack, destroy, or kill who/whatever they want; they may generally play the game however they want" since ultimately those are the freedoms antags actually have, by and large, so I think its important to get them across at first bat.

[Vekter]

the long run on sentence is copy-pasted from your rules with one extra comment added (and one removed)

This is the part I don't like:

Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden

I would rather it be an ordered list like I wrote it in the OP.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

the long run on sentence is copy-pasted from your rules with one extra comment added (and one removed)

This is the part I don't like:

Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden

I would rather it be an ordered list like I wrote it in the OP.

this sentence is copy-pasted from the OP apart from me slipping "camping arrivals" in, the too-long run-on sentence is just a small part of your tidy ordered list.

In fact, I picked that line because it contained the most useful information and instruction, while keeping the rule description in line with the others (Our rules page does not use lists and subdivisions outside of the precedents section, anyway)

[CMDR_Gungnir]

I strongly dislike having the long run-on sentence of everything you can't do over having a much easier to read list.

I grant you the answer;

Rule 4:
Lone Antagonists can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate any other listed rule.

The only thing I can think of that might get hit where it wasn't before is Rule 1, but that feels like a really edge case? But a Quick Cursory Glance at the rules said that things like "no killing or stealing" aren't actually listed, and the rules are pretty much just the "No ERP" "No Metacomming" "No Ick Ock/Ock Ick" "No Real World Bigotry"

[sinfulbliss]

I find this rewrite exceptionally bad. Players already don’t read the rules, and a rule that requires reading several paragraphs (or even one paragraph, to be honest) to even understand what the rule is saying, is a bad rule.

Players should be able to quickly skim the 12 rules we have, and understand them enough to play a few minutes later because that’s what 99% of the playerbase does anyway.

“Can do whatever they want” is extremely intuitive. I don’t think anyone is accidentally ERP’ing as an antag because of rule 4. The only slightly confusing one is the lowpop murderbone exception, and that’s such a specific case that it’s not important enough to rewrite the whole rule for.

[Vekter]

Players already don’t read the rules

Players are expected to read the rules before playing and not reading them isn't a valid defense. We shouldn't write our rules around the ones that refuse to read them, we should make them easier to understand and leave fewer grey areas where we can.

[sinfulbliss]

Players already don’t read the rules

Players are expected to read the rules before playing and not reading them isn't a valid defense. We shouldn't write our rules around the ones that refuse to read them, we should make them easier to understand and leave fewer grey areas where we can.

Do you agree with rule-bloat being a valid concern? If so, why? If players must read everything, and not reading them isn’t a valid defense, and leaving fewer grey areas is the priority, why not just explain every grey area away until all the rules are crystal clear and 20 pages long?

Do you read the full ToS on every app you install and every service you use? In the same way, players just trying out TG casually aren’t going to read every headmin ruling and piece of silicon policy and each rule in depth. They are not 8 year players with thousands of hours in this game like you and I, they do not care, they are going to skim and the rules should be designed to serve the people who they’re actually intended for — new players — as opposed to rules lawyers and forumites like us who are going to read each one meticulously regardless of how poorly written or long it is.

[TheBibleMelts]

i like it all except for the blurry definitions for

- Antags cannot camp or disrupt the arrivals area of the station. Players entering the round should not be attacked or converted, nor should the area be destroyed intentionally.

it should read "Players entering the round should not be INTENTIONALLY attacked or converted, nor should the area be destroyed as a goal, rather than collateral."

shit happens, arriving in a shuttle should not be the metaprotection equivalent of the mario invincibility star. i don't want to be bwoinked by the admins while i'm fighting for my life just because some dewey eyed new crewmate decided he wanted to step foot off of the shuttle and get physically involved in an active crime scene.

[Vekter]

Do you agree with rule-bloat being a valid concern? If so, why? If players must read everything, and not reading them isn’t a valid defense, and leaving fewer grey areas is the priority, why not just explain every grey area away until all the rules are crystal clear and 20 pages long?

Do you read the full ToS on every app you install and every service you use? In the same way, players just trying out TG casually aren’t going to read every headmin ruling and piece of silicon policy and each rule in depth. They are not 8 year players with thousands of hours in this game like you and I, they do not care, they are going to skim and the rules should be designed to serve the people who they’re actually intended for — new players — as opposed to rules lawyers and forumites like us who are going to read each one meticulously regardless of how poorly written or long it is.

This isn't really a valid concern - yes, I'm worried about rule bloat, but the problem is that people don't read those rulings because they don't know where they are or the information isn't directly available to them. This aims to fix that.

The main goal of rewriting this is to reduce the number of situations where players do something that's against the rules and claim that they didn't know it was because the headmin ruling that made it against the rules isn't easily accessible to them.

Also, it's not really fair to compare a relatively simple (but long) list of rules to an app's ToS, which are intentionally hard to read due to legal wording and being longer than War and Peace in some cases.

i like it all except for the blurry definitions for

- Antags cannot camp or disrupt the arrivals area of the station. Players entering the round should not be attacked or converted, nor should the area be destroyed intentionally.

it should read "Players entering the round should not be INTENTIONALLY attacked or converted, nor should the area be destroyed as a goal, rather than collateral."

shit happens, arriving in a shuttle should not be the metaprotection equivalent of the mario invincibility star. i don't want to be bwoinked by the admins while i'm fighting for my life just because some dewey eyed new crewmate decided he wanted to step foot off of the shuttle and get physically involved in an active crime scene.

Fair point; we can do that.

[kinnebian]

I find this rewrite exceptionally bad. Players already don’t read the rules, and a rule that requires reading several paragraphs (or even one paragraph, to be honest) to even understand what the rule is saying, is a bad rule.

Players should be able to quickly skim the 12 rules we have, and understand them enough to play a few minutes later because that’s what 99% of the playerbase does anyway.

“Can do whatever they want” is extremely intuitive. I don’t think anyone is accidentally ERP’ing as an antag because of rule 4. The only slightly confusing one is the lowpop murderbone exception, and that’s such a specific case that it’s not important enough to rewrite the whole rule for.

I think I'm with sinful on this point. Rule 4 as it stands is an very intuitive rule, and keeping the rules easy to read and skim is essential for new players coming into the game.

The exceptions to the above rule include the following:
- Antags must abide by rules 2, 3, 8, and 11. Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden.
- Antags cannot camp or disrupt the arrivals area of the station. Players entering the round should not be attacked or converted, nor should the area be destroyed intentionally.
- The abuse of exploits or bugs for personal gain, as well as any intentional crashing or disruption of the server's operation is forbidden.
- Indiscriminate murder ("murderboning") is not permitted during low population shifts. This is defined as killing players for no reason aside from maximizing bodycount. The specifics regarding player count and what constitutes a valid reason to kill are generally up to admin discretion.

The first three of these exceptions are already well covered by the first sentence of rule 4, which states:

Except metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals

I think that the only area in which we could improve rule 4 is just by adding on the final point you brought up, which is lowpop mass-murder.

[Vekter]

The first three of these exceptions are already well covered by the first sentence of rule 4, which states:

Except metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, and spawn-camping arrivals

I think that the only area in which we could improve rule 4 is just by adding on the final point you brought up, which is lowpop mass-murder.

I maintain that I strongly dislike run-on sentences and feel like it's going to look and read significantly worse if we add anything to it. I'm sorry, but this reads and sounds bad:

Except metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, spawn-camping arrivals, littering, jaywalking, and driving without a license.

We can do better to list these in a way that makes sense without being hard to read while also explaining the other rulings related to it without players having to look in another place to find them or just shrug and go "I didn't know!" when they break them.

I grant you the answer;

Rule 4:
Lone Antagonists can do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't violate any other listed rule.

The only thing I can think of that might get hit where it wasn't before is Rule 1, but that feels like a really edge case? But a Quick Cursory Glance at the rules said that things like "no killing or stealing" aren't actually listed, and the rules are pretty much just the "No ERP" "No Metacomming" "No Ick Ock/Ock Ick" "No Real World Bigotry"

Rule 1 is the big reason this doesn't work.

[Vekter]

Updated OP with the latest revision. Consolidated a few of the bullet points to make it easier to read and added TBM's edit.

[Constellado]

I'd like to point out that the rules already contain extra clarification not mentioned in this thread even though it was reused in the proposed new policy,

Here's my take, which is pretty much just replacing the wording "can do whatever they want" and stealing the way you worded the exceptions

4. Lone Antagonists can attack, harm, destroy, or kill whoever and whatever they want, and may generally play the game in whatever way they see fit.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag.

I would rather it be an ordered list like I wrote it in the OP.

I personally find Dorisdaf's one much easier to read compared to Vekter's version.

[Vekter]

I personally find Dorisdaf's one much easier to read compared to Vekter's version.

I like the body of theirs, but I don't like how long the title of it is. How about we join forces?

4. Antagonists can antagonize in whatever way they see fit, including attacking crewmembers or sabotaging the station.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag. Indiscriminate killing (murderboning) is not permitted in low population rounds. This specifically refers to randomly killing anyone for no reason other than to increase body count.

[sinfulbliss]

I'm sorry, but this reads and sounds bad:

Except metagaming/comms, bug/exploit abuse, erotic/creepy stuff, OOC in IC or IC in OOC, spawn-camping arrivals

We can do better to list these in a way that makes sense without being hard to read while also explaining the other rulings related to it without players having to look in another place to find them or just shrug and go "I didn't know!" when they break them.

I think having all the exceptions listed quickly and in a small paragraph is significantly easier to read than listing each one in bullet form in a multi-paragraph display. It’s just overwhelming for someone who wants to jump into the game and they’re simply not going to read it or probably even know what it’s talking about.

Dorsidorf’s is, in my opinion, worse than Vekter’s because of how clunky it sounds:

4. Lone Antagonists can attack, harm, destroy, or kill whoever and whatever they want, and may generally play the game in whatever way they see fit.

Attack, harm, or destroy… It just sounds off. Enumerating a list of what they CAN do is NOT a good idea IMO, it sounds like it limits antags to these options. What you’re trying to say is they can do whatever they want! They’re not restricted to the same IC rules as normal players! Why not just say that, then rattle off the exceptions below (like it is currently)?

Is it really this common for antags to break rules that this ancient rule needs to be rewritten? I mean if it’s happening every round that antags lowpop bone, ERP, kill teammates, all because they read this rule and thought “I can do whatever I want!” then sure, but I am extremely skeptical that ever happens.

[Vekter]

Is it really this common for antags to break rules that this ancient rule needs to be rewritten? I mean if it’s happening every round that antags lowpop bone, ERP, kill teammates, all because they read this rule and thought “I can do whatever I want!” then sure, but I am extremely skeptical that ever happens.

I have had enough instances of people telling me "I thought I could do that" in regards to antag stuff that I think it's helpful if we reword it a bit.

Usually this is in regards to either murderboning on low-pop, fucking with arrivals, or (in a few rare cases) being bigoted. It's not what I'd call common, but it's enough that I'd want to make it more clear to folks that you aren't allowed to do literally anything.

[sinfulbliss]

Is it really this common for antags to break rules that this ancient rule needs to be rewritten? I mean if it’s happening every round that antags lowpop bone, ERP, kill teammates, all because they read this rule and thought “I can do whatever I want!” then sure, but I am extremely skeptical that ever happens.

I have had enough instances of people telling me "I thought I could do that" in regards to antag stuff that I think it's helpful if we reword it a bit.

Usually this is in regards to either murderboning on low-pop, fucking with arrivals, or (in a few rare cases) being bigoted. It's not what I'd call common, but it's enough that I'd want to make it more clear to folks that you aren't allowed to do literally anything.

I think, then, it'd be simple enough to just chuck lowpop bone into the list of exceptions that's already there, along with fucking with arrivals, TBH

[Vekter]

I think, then, it'd be simple enough to just chuck lowpop bone into the list of exceptions that's already there, along with fucking with arrivals, TBH

I'm going with what I wrote four posts ago. I appreciate your feedback but it hasn't been along the lines of what I want out of this.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

4. Antagonists can antagonize in whatever way they see fit, including attacking crewmembers or sabotaging the station.
Metagaming/metacomms, IC in OOC (or vice versa), erotic/creepy behaviors, camping arrivals to target arriving players, and explicitly bigoted language or actions are forbidden
Team antagonists can act as per lone antagonists, as long as it doesn’t harm their team. Non-antagonists can do anything to antagonists that antagonists are allowed to do to them, but non-antagonists are not allowed to pre-emptively search for, hinder or otherwise seek conflict with antagonists without reasonable prior cause. Non-antags acting like an antag can be treated as an antag. Indiscriminate killing (murderboning) is not permitted in low population rounds. This specifically refers to randomly killing anyone for no reason other than to increase body count.

I like the title revision.

[zxaber]

I think it'd be easier to move the OOC harrassment clause to a new rule number. Then we could simply

Rule 4:
Antagonists are exempt from Rule 1. Team antagonists are exempt from Rule 1 except towards other team members. Silicons may be exempt from Rule 1 depending on their lawset.

This drops the "Do whatever" in favor specifically of ignoring the "Don't be a dick" rule, which is really what we want out of an antagonist.

[Vekter]

I think it'd be easier to move the OOC harrassment clause to a new rule number. Then we could simply

Rule 4:
Antagonists are exempt from Rule 1. Team antagonists are exempt from Rule 1 except towards other team members. Silicons may be exempt from Rule 1 depending on their lawset.

This drops the "Do whatever" in favor specifically of ignoring the "Don't be a dick" rule, which is really what we want out of an antagonist.

I don't like any definition of rule 4 that relies on rule 1 in any way. Rule 1 is very nebulous a and just outright saying "you're exempt from rule 1" brings up a bunch of issues with what you would or wouldn't consider being a dick.

[kieth4]

It's common sense we don't need to bloat it

[Vekter]

I'm gonna lock this, I don't think any of the rewrites any of us did really solves the issue, though I will be talking to the headmins and figure out if they think anything valuable can come of un-bloating it.