General Discussion > Web Development and Site Suggestions

[IC Forums] Discussion: Proposed Ruleset

<< < (2/13) > >>

Aedre Lafisques:
Here's my take, 23 is redundant in part because of 1-6 and a few others. If you're not being a ...uh huge helicopter d*ck to people, then I would say to have a comment moderated solely quoting 23 would be pretty disheartening.

As for Rule 19, I think PMing the 'offensive' newbie is the best reaction. OOC, nicely. There's no reason to publicly shame and haze people over canon misunderstandings. I've never really understood that. There is so much canon. Maybe that's easy to forget once you get past clearing up the fundamentals?
This should maybe also be done by a mod? Rather than a pile of (potentially well-meaning) people. This is exactly why people are afraid to reach out. Don't tell me they're not - I spent a year studying the lore before I felt comfortable saying so much as anything! I still couldn't say I know very much about certain topics. I'd rather be chatted informed and linked to nicely than messed-with IC. That's destructive. Who would want to keep playing like that? And realistically, who's going to spend a year studying and doing other stuff just to RP? XD

35 - I sometimes reformat chat logs with permission for posting. Would something like that be allowed, as it's not copy-pasta private chat logs, and with permission? I ask not to mess with the rules, but because that could come up.  Is there a place for character stories, or would that continue to be posted here?

PROPOSED: I would add to the last one that people also remember to post as not-themselves too, just as they should take slights as towards their characters; it works both way, IC <--> OOC. While that's obvious and some people's duders are more avatars than others, I think the wording would still be appropriate.

32 - I think rumors could be handled as an extension of forceposing (which, while a basic tenant of RP, might be good to put in the rules anyway?). IE, consent. I think if you wanted to spread a rumor about Aedre and actually asked me, I'd probably allow it no questions asked. Roughly speaking, I think I'd be okay with it either way, but I can see how, at least in this community, that could get really dirty very quickly. You know, nobody forces me to mine all day or do market stuff while I play my EVE. I don't really see why anyone should be forced to play the rumors game either if they don't have the skin for it. It's not really fun if they're not into it, you know? However, if they are into it, then banning rumors outright stops a style of play. It's fairly simple to be like "I want to say I saw this about your duder, interesting?" or "mod, I didn't okay this rumor wtf :x" Since there's only ever two people involved, it should be reasonable to manage?

And here I started pro-rumors. I talked myself out of it :p

6 - How are you going to enforce no racism? 90% of RPing I see is racism-based. XP I'd lift that, since you have, instead: No Ranting, Personal Attacks and Trolling! IE, being a huge racist specifically to get a rise out of people. You can be a huge racist, because New Eden is Racism Central (probably everyone is racist, because their cultures literally demand it, and everyone thinks in at least terms of the Big Four), but you can't use your bigotry to then instigate hysteria.

Anyway, TLDR, I think 'being a racist' isn't really a very good rule for us IC, when you have 2-5 to cover the actual assholery that usually comes from it. It seems more like a public forum/OOC concern to me, Real Life stuff. (Additionally, if the rules are somewhat IC, then it doesn't make sense I don't think :P)

Thanks for all this! And for opening up the table for discussion.

Jennifer Starfall:

--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jan 2015, 08:51 ---More generally, I'd say that the rules should be as few as possible, imho. Having 27 rules or what is confusing, and easily lends itself to metagaming based on those rules.

--- End quote ---

Detailed rules allow for significant weaselling. Broader, "softer" rules specifically counter metagaming, as Nico puts it. An RL example is the FDA in the US. The FDA was originally founded to combat snake oil merchants (the ultimate rules lawers). FDA regulations are deliberately broad and do not have  hard and fast requirements (I do not miss my days in the pharma industry).

By the same token, when you start writing rules that delineate "bad behaviors", they can be meta'ed around by saying "but it doesn't say that's wrong." Whereas, "behavior deemed disruptive by the moderators" will cover anything that disrupts the community and can't be weaselled around. The only flaw is that it depends on a body of trustworthy moderators, but I think we're covered there.

Vizage:
I'm also in agreement with Esna, Nico, and Jenn on this one. Properly condensing the rules will not only give user proper room to breath but also allow for proper moderation "In good faith."

If there is anything Backstage isn't short on its proper moderation. So I think we won't have nearly as much as to worry about when it comes to particularly inflammatory post or repetitive grudge flaming going under the radar.

Beside that, I think these are pretty great rules and I'm getting excited about all this!

Lyn Farel:
Rules have to be made the most simple possible, but also the clearest. Too many rules leads to obnoxious rule metagaming, but too loose rules lead to what we have seen already here or there, which means no moderation accountability, which is even worse because it creates gaps between mods and users and leads to mistrust and toxic environments.

Condensing rules is good, but they will have to be made clearer. For example, include things like "no ad-personam". It's rather universal and not too vague to deal with. The more vague and loose you will be, the more you will have people contesting rulings, and pointing fingers at "moderation tyranny".


BASELINERS :

Banning it under the justification that too many people abuse it is unfair in itself for the people that play by the rules. Either allow it, or ban it first place, but banning it under such reasons is completely fallacious in my eyes, and dangerous. It already happened about other things in the Summit/OOC, and it will happen again if people start to abuse it.


Letting non subscribers participate :

Banning them under the pretext that they can't be shot ingame is a fallacy. You can't either shoot anyone who stays docked and spew things here and there. So either ban everyone that is not ready to undock to back up their words, or just don't. I think the answer is pretty obvious on that one.

Muck Raker:

--- Quote ---Rumor mongering is prohibited.
--- End quote ---

kek.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page