Implemented personal thoughts on rule changes / additions / removals

[Weiss]

hi welcome to my talk




i still think this is an insane rule to have in your rulebook.

"We take our roles as staff members seriously, and hold ourselves to a higher standard than everyone else. I suspect very strongly that any staff member who would do anything remotely similar to this would find themselves swiftly demoted to player." - Lightning

giving the ability to anyone to just tell someone do some thing or else is not good practice. don't let the issue even arise with any staff being able to do it in the first place, even if they're gonna get punished for it later. if you can stop something from even happening in the first place, why wait to stop it after it's already happened? just being staff doesnt mean you're a good person. you and i both know there have been plenty of "good staff" who do awful things. (this isnt directed at any one specifically on the staff team, and i hope it doesnt come true)

adding map rules (im like 90% sure theres missed traitorous actions with the maps we have so i need to look at the map list when i can):

airship / air bus? idk the map with the fuckin single spawn on a plane.
building the traps should be traitorous. afaik they literally serve no purpose other than to damage other players or are traps and i dont think they have discrimination either (like only targetting innos for example)

minecraft b5 (man this map is bad why would you like it)
throwing away the diamond blocks / gold block should be traitorous

albatross:
carrying the knife/sword thingy

(more to come when i remember)




why does this need to be a rule?

i think its covered already by camping and delaying; if someone breaks a door with a prop and lets say its the only way into said room and they're just sitting in the room, t's have c4.

if they're camping / delaying, you can just slay them or tp them out.

if the prop kills someone, just consider it an rdm.

other than it used as a delaying mechanism, what other harm is there in using props to mess around with doors? you already can just e spam one if you want to lock yourself in a room.

nsfw / disturbing content:

i think you should have discretion for a warn, just in case someone posts something thats risque but not directly nsfw by your standards.

but that said, i think people who very very very obviously post nsfw or disturbing content should really just be like 8 week or perma banned. these people aren't here to play, they're just here to troll and why give them the opportunity even if they have to wait 2/4/8 weeks?

 

[Barrel]

can you break this up into multiple posts so they can be voted on individually

 

[Weiss]

can you break this up into multiple posts so they can be voted on individually

no

sure but only if you stop killing me with potted plants, will do when i get home eta 1 hr

 

[[CK] Panda With a Gun]

giving the ability to anyone to just tell someone do some thing or else is not good practice. don't let the issue even arise with any staff being able to do it in the first place, even if they're gonna get punished for it later. if you can stop something from even happening in the first place, why wait to stop it after it's already happened? just being staff doesnt mean you're a good person. you and i both know there have been plenty of "good staff" who do awful things. (this isnt directed at any one specifically on the staff team, and i hope it doesnt come true)

I disagree with the language of "Demoted to player" since player in itself is not a negative role or anything, and instead a shift in responsibility. Players and regulars are the reason for any community and their involvement and words are what make everything what it is. players own the means of... gaming..?

As for the ruling itself, I think you're reading too much into it personally. In a perfect world, nothing bad would come up and disagreements across the board woulnd't happen at all in a perfectly cultivated community/environment, but that's unrealistic and will never happen. Stuff will happen and staff will have to intervene and steer the ship back into a chill environment. That being said, staff are expected to have a certain level of social & emotional awareness and common sense that should already be present as a person/improved upon during their trial phase and general time as staff. Or what I call "Read the room and don't be a pretentious-sounding nerd".

But of course, no one is perfect and there will be mistakes made and misteps, it's just as guaranteed as a non-perfect environment and server on a game like this. It's the administration and players' job to keep staff in check and call them out. It's the whole point of reports and internal discussions. Of course being done in a respectful manner. This community is still young, and assuming it retains it's playerbase only time will tell. I myself have said a couple times if things start to get weird and cliquey, especially on the staff side of things- that I will peace out. But so far the playerbase is kicking ass and the staff team is stacked with a lot of experienced people with a good head on their shoulders, I have a lot of faith.


I agree with some of your map suggestions and would recommend making separate suggestions per map. I think they'd be pretty open and shut but even just one of these can lead to a decent amount of discussion.

why does this need to be a rule?

I'm like 90% certain it was a rule before, if it's not there someone some day is going to be a situation out of and it's going to spark discussion or a potential report regarding takes on concrete ruling vs staff discretion. Extended rules are extended rules for a reason, there's a lot there so I think that's totally valid as an official rule. Breaking doors is inherently not an intended gameplay feature, leads to deaths that can be hard to link someone to, and even lead to crashes on some maps.

i think you should have discretion for a warn, just in case someone posts something thats risque but not directly nsfw by your standards.

I agree, but say this is already a part of staff discretion and having common sense. If anything, we could probably expand further on this on the staff discussion/guides side of things. Anything outside of that would just be more bloat to an already large (public) rule and protocol set.


?

 

[Siddo]

Thanks for not inviting me to your TED talk. I'll add my thoughts in order of how they appear in the OP;

Spoiler: Compliance clause

i still think this is an insane rule to have in your rulebook.

"We take our roles as staff members seriously, and hold ourselves to a higher standard than everyone else. I suspect very strongly that any staff member who would do anything remotely similar to this would find themselves swiftly demoted to player." - Lightning

giving the ability to anyone to just tell someone do some thing or else is not good practice. don't let the issue even arise with any staff being able to do it in the first place, even if they're gonna get punished for it later. if you can stop something from even happening in the first place, why wait to stop it after it's already happened? just being staff doesnt mean you're a good person. you and i both know there have been plenty of "good staff" who do awful things. (this isnt directed at any one specifically on the staff team, and i hope it doesnt come true)

I think there's merit to your point. First I'll explain why I think it's needed, then I will add why I think your point has merit all the same.
The rule is necessary as a catch-all underline for staff authority to curtail behaviour that is disruptive. Whether by discretion or in the course of enforcing the rules as written, it sets the tone that if we tell you something needs to stop, it's because it has to. Be it a discussion that's negatively affecting the vibe of the server, delaying a round by hiding in a room, or whatever else. And I think that's where Lightning's point comes in that - especially for our current composition - staff would be extremely unlikely to use this in an abusive or excessive way.
But where I think your point has merit is that it does rely strongly on the quality of staff and their integrity. At the end of the day, staff are just players with a side-hustle as referees. They are not any more moral or good than players - even if we set expectations that one should strive to be an example and on their best behaviour. Where I think your point does end up hollowed out a little is, ultimately that's the rule whether it's explicitly there or not. If you don't do what staff asks you to, then they'll escalate to something more than a warning. That's just the nature of enforcing the rules.

On a tangential note, I think, whether that clause is in there or not, the ability to gag, mute, kick, slay, ban, are all at their disposal. Regardless of a rule being broken. I don't think the clause significantly alters that dynamic; if someone is going to be an abusive prick as staff toward a player. Then, on a practical level - they can. They have the means to do so. This is a little away from the core argument though, so let me bring it back to the clause itself; I think that something to the same effect is useful to point to. It covers discretionary warnings and can be turned to if someone comes in to rules-lawyer something silly.
So I'd like to pose a question back to you; what if anything would you use as a clause instead, considering that regardless of the clause, staff will enforce the rules - including escalating that enforcement after warnings?

Spoiler: Map-specific rules

adding map rules (im like 90% sure theres missed traitorous actions with the maps we have so i need to look at the map list when i can):

airship / air bus? idk the map with the fuckin single spawn on a plane.
building the traps should be traitorous. afaik they literally serve no purpose other than to damage other players or are traps and i dont think they have discrimination either (like only targetting innos for example)

minecraft b5 (man this map is bad why would you like it)
throwing away the diamond blocks / gold block should be traitorous

albatross:
carrying the knife/sword thingy

+1, not much to add. There's a lot of things that still need to be added for map specific rules.
I've never seen the traps finished on airbus, so I'm unsure what their exact function is, but I think being that it is a trap, it should be traitorous. Now whether it's specifically a T-trap, I don't know. If it is specifically a T-trap activatable thing (i.e. floating boom boom hand), then it is covered by the rules already, as running around with props that activate T-traps is traitorous.
Including things like accounting for instant inno victory conditions, such as minecraft_b5, and tester-activators would also be good. Same as there now exists for instant traitor win conditions.

Spoiler: Open ne noor

why does this need to be a rule?

i think its covered already by camping and delaying; if someone breaks a door with a prop and lets say its the only way into said room and they're just sitting in the room, t's have c4.

if they're camping / delaying, you can just slay them or tp them out.

if the prop kills someone, just consider it an rdm.

other than it used as a delaying mechanism, what other harm is there in using props to mess around with doors? you already can just e spam one if you want to lock yourself in a room.

I think Panda made a good point that sometimes door-breaking also causes lag and occasionally crashes. While I do agree that most of the problems that can arise from it are covered by other rules, I also think there's no legitimate reason to be breaking doors. Having a rule that covers it regardless of consequences (delay, rdm, etc.) to circumvent trolling with it, is fine. Does it need to be a rule? Not strictly speaking, no, I don't think so. Is it a problem that it is a rule? I also don't think so.

Spoiler: NSFW

nsfw / disturbing content:

i think you should have discretion for a warn, just in case someone posts something thats risque but not directly nsfw by your standards.

but that said, i think people who very very very obviously post nsfw or disturbing content should really just be like 8 week or perma banned. these people aren't here to play, they're just here to troll and why give them the opportunity even if they have to wait 2/4/8 weeks?

If something is risqué or otherwise borderline on the rules, it's already the staff norm that we ask for discretion to warn + remove the spray. I don't think it needs to be codified further, as it falls under discretion. Currently, having mods ask as we figure out where the line goes in this community, is better than granting blanket discretion on this. In the future when we have that standard, maybe that can change to allow moderators to have that discretion to warn rather than ban. It's still early days so I think keeping it slightly above my paygrade right now is best to avoid big discrepancy between some mods allowing it and some warning or even banning for it.

Similarly on punishments, while this hasn't been relevant as of yet (to my knowledge), if it needs to be escalated further, I think it would be. As for changing the protocol itself, I'm not really averse to that. You don't *accidentally* set a porn spray or some reprehensible shit. You gotta find the image, grab the link, and set it. You have plenty of time to wonder "hmm, is this a good idea?" So honestly, in terms of a harsher protocol with less chances at breaking the rules on porn/disturbing sprays, +1. I don't see the need to be particularly lenient about it, even if we are generally speaking an 18+ community.

EDIT: And finally - thank you, sincerely, for sharing your feedback and views on this. We're still adapting and fixing blindspots in the rules and protocol. Having your perspective as a player and someone who has prior experience acting as staff as well, is very helpful in making sure we get it right.

 

[titan]

don't let the issue even arise with any staff being able to do it in the first place, even if they're gonna get punished for it later. if you can stop something from even happening in the first place, why wait to stop it after it's already happened?

in not so many words: this rule is effectively codified discretion. It makes it so the moderation and staffing of this community are not only reactive, but proactive too. otherwise, every little loophole can be exploited much further than they ought to be. yes, it can be abused, as can anything else - and we have ways to handle that situation.

as for what @panda said about the door breaking rule. Yes, it was a thing in past communities. door breaking is a common enough occurrence that having an explicit rule against it is useful enough to save the headache explaining to players why it's technically delaying or w/e. much simpler to say "no, sorry, door breaking isn't allowed". door breaking can be laggy, frustrating, and annoying.

 

[Weiss]

So I'd like to pose a question back to you; what if anything would you use as a clause instead, considering that regardless of the clause, staff will enforce the rules - including escalating that enforcement after warnings?

this rule is effectively codified discretion. It makes it so the moderation and staffing of this community are not only reactive, but proactive too. otherwise, every little loophole can be exploited much further than they ought to be.

see and i understand that this is meant to be something in regards to discretion- but the issue is the explicit allowance for staff to use their powers as they want. it begins to extend beyond enforcing rules and can lead into personal biases influencing their administration. i checked other servers (jesus theres so few servers now wtf) and their rule sets to see if they have anything even remotely similar to this rule, and they don't, because of what that rule currently implies. there isn't really a circumstance that can come up that isn't covered by another rule that this catch-all rule would cover that i can think of.

personally i feel like there's already an implicit underlying rule that staff can and will handle situations with a certain amount of discretion; but giving them the ultimate go-ahead by making that rule is stretching that implicit understanding into dangerous territory. the other server that has been around for a good while, dinkleberg- who in my opinion is markedly more strict regarding their rules- doesn't even have this as a catch-all because it shouldnt be necessary.

I agree, but say this is already a part of staff discretion and having common sense. If anything, we could probably expand further on this on the staff discussion/guides side of things. Anything outside of that would just be more bloat to an already large (public) rule and protocol set.

i agree. i suppose the main point of that for me was just setting the opinion that anyone really setting a nsfw spray is 99.99% a ne'er-do-well and should just go straight to big punishments truth be told.

 

[titan]

there isn't really a circumstance that can come up that isn't covered by another rule that this catch-all rule would cover that i can think of.

there are an infinite number of ways somebody who's out to ruin the fun can think of to be a minge that isn't necessarily covered by the explicit ruleset.

and, even if you could make the argument that somebody is breaking the rules through some technicality, that person is going to argue with you ad infinitium, wasting time and energy. it's much easier to have a specific line that one can point to in such a case, to quell any questions or doubts, ensuring that a staff member is not tied up for long periods of time dealing with one person.

personally i feel like there's already an implicit underlying rule that staff can and will handle situations with a certain amount of discretion;

If there's already implicit, unwritten, underlying rule that staff have discretion, then what's the difference if it's explicit discretion? it seems to me the only difference is that one is a written rule, and one is an unwritten rule.

and yes, there is an argument a "catch-all" discretion rule like this can be abused. i find it unlikely, but it certainly can occur. if it does, consider this:

1) if a person abuses their powers, that person is swiftly reported and/or removed from their staff role -- a wonderful, succinct solution.
2) if a person is hell-bent on abusing their powers, whether the discretion is implicit or explicit means nothing to them -- they will abuse all the same.

99% of the staff team at any given point is filled with people who just want to help facilitate a good time for everybody else who is apart of the community. Having an explicit discretion rule is one of the most useful tools the staff have to help them accomplish this goal. additionally, doing away with it would non-insignificantly neuter the staff team's ability to keep a good time for the players.

I see it as risk vs. reward. The risk of discretion being abused is low for any given staff member, and - if it is abused - there is a quick and easy permanent solution, with no lasting effects. The reward is that the staff team is able to facilitate a fun environment far more effectively than they would without discretion. low risk, high reward.

Just within the context of this discussion, is your argument that discretion shouldn't be a thing, or just that the discretion shouldn't be written out in the rules?

 

[Elvis]

Alrighty, so im going to break this down piece by piece. Shouldnt be too long of a post.

"You must comply with any warning or instruction given to you by our staff members. If we tell you to stop doing something, stop."

-This rule is in place as a way to counteract any player that is a problem within the community, but is not directly breaking any specific rule. For example: This could be used in a moment where the general chat is getting extremely heated, but no one is directly harassing anyone.

This will stay within the rules.

"Adding map rules"

-As of right now, we are in the process of adding as many map rules as we can remember. Please bear with us. It will take time. For the most part, we are all veterans here and know the various map specific rules. You should be fine.

"Door breaking"

-We do not allow players to break doors. In some instances (such as the door on vessel), when a prop is pushed into it, that prop will cause damage and knockback to players that collide with it. Often times resulting in RDM. Preventing that door from breaking, therefore prevents RDM.

"nsfw/DC"

-There was a recent rulechange that includes the following line "Staff reserve the right to remove any and all sprays. If deemed to be DC, but only borderline, a warning may follow. Continued use of borderline sprays will result in a ban."

This covers a majority of borderline sprays.


I am marking this suggestion as implemented but only for 2 of your 4 suggestions. Thank you for your suggestion.