Completed Add a rule clarification (1 Viewer)

[Ian]

If people are going to get punished for something sometimes with no warning it’s better to add it to the rules. My suggestion: Under Disruptive Behavior add a written rule against promoting rule breaking (I think JB needs it most as people do it all the time and I could probably report 30 people tomorrow alone (hypothetically if I wasn’t at school)). Without the rule being written, arguments for the rules existence arise and usually follow “it’s common sense”, or feel like “because {insert regular’s or moderator’s name here} said so”. Another important thing to note is when someone who is not an administrator, and trying to enforce something that isn’t documented people tend to not listen leading to unnecessary “rulebreaking”. I don’t think we need a poll for this as this is a suggestion for administration to decide. You can add one but it doesn’t make much sense.

 

[Ian]

Context for why I made this in the first place

 

[Dr. Meatloaf]

Personally I'm against this. I want to be able to jokingly tell people that they should MFK or that they should freekill certain reds who are being annoying. That's just part of Jailbreak lingo and it would be a shame to be worried about being muted for harmless conversation like that. I disagree with gold's reasoning for your mute that players shouldn't be able to promote rulebreaking because I think too many players would be unnecessarily punished seeing as it's hard to tell who's joking and who isn't. Also telling somebody to break rules casually isn't harmful (although what you did clearly was) since players should know not to listen. As Lego correctly said, he could probably report 30 people in one day for promoting rule breaking and this rule would undoubtedly be very unevenly enforced because of how often it would be violated.

What YOU did was different. You went beyond promoting rule breaking by giving false information in order to trick the warden into breaking the rules. It's obvious why this is harmful. Admittedly, I've seen players lie to trick blus into breaking rules before, but there's no explicate rule against it, however I agree with gold that what you did should be against the rules. My proposed change is that it be against the rules for players to "Present false rules, lie about game rules, or lie in order to promote rulebreaking." Your mute would fall under the pretext of the third. Hopefully it should be obvious why this rule should exist, and hopefully people agree that the first proposed rule could be interpreted too broadly, and that this is a better solution.

 

[Ian]

I’m not arguing the ban anymore meatloaf, it’s expired and of no bother to me. If you read the second half of my post you would of seen how you just repeated information. I’m just saying that the rule enforced should be written so that others can use written reason to enforce it. Using voice to spread information is unreliable, and based on trust rather than reading something from a formal facet and being able to reference info directly.

 

[Dr. Meatloaf]

I'm not arguing your mute either. Although I also agree that admins shouldn't enforce rules that aren't written as "common sense" (seriously, remember Travis) that's not my place to say either, as you and I don't have authority over admins discretion. I was just making my case against your proposal, and using your mute to suggest a different proposed rule.

 

[Ian]

Oh, my bad

I'm not arguing your mute either. Although I also agree that admins shouldn't enforce rules that aren't written as "common sense" (seriously, remember Travis) that's not my place to say either, as you and I don't have authority over admins discretion. I was just making my case against your proposal, and using your mute to suggest a different proposed rule.

I wasn't trying to argue for change to the rule. I just want it to be documented and added to the game server rules. doing this so people know the rule exists and don't break it, along with that they can enforce it without the hassle of explaining how its not actually in the gameserver rules post but is an enforced rule.

 

[Random Coffee Table]

If we don't allow rulebreaking, why would be allow people encouraging it beyond a one off joke or two (such as in your case). I didn't realize we needed to specifically state that rulebreaking wasn't allowed and telling people to break them it isn't allowed either.

 

[Ian]

You literally didn’t read my messages nor understand the point of what we said. I’m not repeating myself again. Read the message above your own, you took the conversation out of context. Double check the conversation and analyze what’s being said before replying.

If we don't allow rulebreaking, why would be allow people encouraging it beyond a one off joke or two (such as in your case). I didn't realize we needed to specifically state that rulebreaking wasn't allowed and telling people to break them it isn't allowed either.

 

[iamhuman]

If we don't allow rulebreaking, why would be allow people encouraging it beyond a one off joke or two (such as in your case). I didn't realize we needed to specifically state that rulebreaking wasn't allowed and telling people to break them it isn't allowed either.

Why is it red's fault when a blue breaks rules? Shouldn't the blues already know the rules or be aware that friendly fire isn't on themselves? (In the context of Lego's ban)

The same way you can't trust reds about them telling you that someone is KOS should apply to a warden turning on friendly fire. Both actions involve the guards to be visually aware of what's going on before they even take the advice of a person on red team. I mean I haven't read the chat-logs from @Lego for his ban, so I don't exactly know how much he was pushing it. But in reality, if a warden thinks he's turning off FF because a red team member told him to, then he really shouldn't be on blue team. The warden would be breaking a rule because he's making a mistake trusting reds.

 

[Random Coffee Table]

You literally didn’t read my messages nor understand the point of what we said. I’m not repeating myself again. Read the message above your own, you took the conversation out of context. Double check the conversation and analyze what’s being said before replying.

I did read all of it. I read Gold's reply on your appeal as well. I understand what's going on here. My point of logic still stands: if we don't allow rulebreaking, why would we allow someone encouraging it to be broken? Obviously there are jokes but consistently trying to others to break the rules for your shits and giggles hasn't been allowed and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that encouraging that to happen isn't allowed.

Why is it red's fault when a blue breaks rules? Shouldn't the blues already know the rules or be aware that friendly fire isn't on themselves? (In the context of Lego's ban)

The same way you can't trust reds about them telling you that someone is KOS should apply to a warden turning on friendly fire. Both actions involve the guards to be visually aware of what's going on before they even take the advice of a person on red team. I mean I haven't read the chat-logs from @Lego for his ban, so I don't exactly know how much he was pushing it. But in reality, if a warden thinks he's turning off FF because a red team member told him to, then he really shouldn't be on blue team. The warden would be breaking a rule because he's making a mistake trusting reds.

It's the red's fault if they continually tell a warden throughout a round that ff is on so that they turn it on and create chaos. Besides, there is a difference between reds lying about orders or being KOS and actively trying to force the warden to break server rules. "Don't trust reds" doesn't give them permission to encourage rule breaking, it just means that they can't control a round and are allowed to lie about the state of the game.

 

[Ian]

The point of this thread is just to write a rule in the rules thread that isnt there already. Come on, follow the posts in chronological order. I just want to have this rule added into the rules so I can use the fact of the rule being written to enforce the rule. The rule against encouraging rule breaking isnt there, and I think it should be. I just linked the appeal because Gold suggested I post this to get the rule added into the rules page linked here.

 

[Madact]

I've been poked about this. Is anybody still bothered about this? I could just add two words to general disruptive behaviour to sort this issue out

 

[Ian]

It wouldn’t be harmful. I just thought it would clear things up.

 

[Madact]

Well I've popped it in. I haven't placed a changelog as it was all ready enforced. It's only part of the description of General disruptive behaviour.