Declined [JB] Add a Small Addendum to the Rules in Regard to This Decision (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

PistolPoppinSince02

Well-Known Member
Donator
Joined
Feb 27, 2022
Messages
153
Just wanna add something to the rules to prevent further confusion.
A verdict has been reached, therein we should add a sentence to the rules to reflect this.
Future players very well may not see the question answered here https://www.panda-community.com/thr...entire-round-a-valid-order.33405/#post-155121 , so add something to concretely refer to.

Current Rule:
"The Warden has the rights to request players to stay off the microphone to help himself giving clear orders, you can kill Red players talking through your orders if you give a warning first.
But you cannot restrict players to be muted for the entire round, you can request 30 seconds or the the entire start of the round to speak for yourself as Warden.
You as Warden can't restrict players from using the chat or force players to type in the chat. (Jeopardy/Kitchen Minigame is the only exception)"

Proposed Addendum:
"The Warden has the rights to request players to stay off the microphone to help himself giving clear orders, you can kill Red players talking through your orders if you give a warning first.
But you cannot restrict players to be muted for the entire round, you can request 30 seconds or the the entire start of the round to speak for yourself as Warden.
False orders may be muted for the duration of a round, as to allow clear unrestricted orders. Reds who give False Orders after a warning will become Rebellers.
Blus may never give False Orders.

You as Warden can't restrict players from using the chat or force players to type in the chat. (Jeopardy/Kitchen Minigame is the only exception)"
 
can you please stop spamming suggestions


edited for a more correct sentiment
 
After reading this, I'm not against this to be honest. On top of being annoying for other REDs, worst case scenario I have actually witnessed these type of orders lead to unintentional MFKs by BLUs who are confused and kill REDs who don't fall for the false order. Allowing the warden to prohibit false orders would definitely help curb the amount of false orders given and make REDs think twice.
 
After reading this, I'm not against this to be honest. On top of being annoying for other REDs, worst case scenario I have actually witnessed these type of orders lead to unintentional MFKs by BLUs who are confused and kill REDs who don't fall for the false order. Allowing the warden to prohibit false orders would definitely help curb the amount of false orders given and make REDs think twice.
For clarification; Warden CAN make False Orders KOS as of now, and this suggestion is merely to clarify that in the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nergal Nergalton
Feels unnecessary. We don't need a list of what the warden can and cannot restrict. Just use a bit of common sense. Imo.
 
  • Friendly
  • Like
Reactions: Valen and Cowboy
Feels unnecessary. We don't need a list of what the warden can and cannot restrict. Just use a bit of common sense. Imo.
It really isn't common sense though.

Multiple conclusions can and will be drawn from a non existent rule.
Nergal and Pure have both thought it was illegal to prohibit players from giving this order, as did I and many others.
We have decided it is legal for warden to give the command, so add it to the rules to prevent further confusion.

Banana stated it best;
"The purpose of this whole saga is to get the unwritten rules, well, written...
Implementing concrete solutions is what’s best for the current state of JB.
It’s simple and easy to understand what’s not to love."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mehgend
It really isn't common sense though.

Multiple conclusions can and will be drawn from a non existent rule.
Nergal and Pure have both thought it was illegal to prohibit players from giving this order, as did I and many others.
We have decided it is legal for warden to give the command, so add it to the rules to prevent further confusion.

Banana stated it best;
"The purpose of this whole saga is to get the unwritten rules, well, written...
Implementing concrete solutions is what’s best for the current state of JB.
It’s simple and easy to understand what’s not to love."

it is a testament to the average jb player's common sense that this isn't obvious lol
 
it is a testament to the average jb player's common sense that this isn't obvious lol
Common sense is subjective.
New players will never have this "common sense" that most of us veterans do.

If you want to help future players, and current ones, swallow your pride.
 
Something I want to say about the whole thing about adding addendum after addendum in the rules for so called "clarifications".

I get the sentiment but but you're only setting yourself up to adding more and more to the rules for things that can be easily explained by simpler rules, the warden has always had the ability to restrict things that disrupt the round, either by restricting certain classes to not use items or to not do a specific action, you can always judge the merit of these restrictions per round, and by my opinion its obvious that false orders also fall unto the arsenal of reds to disrupt said rounds, you're not rebelling when you heal as medic but a warden can restrict that to make himself and the round safe, same logic. That's where common sense comes.

Are you gonna add every instance like that in the rules to "clarify", Bloating the rules more than it needs to be is quite unnecessary when as I said you can judge the intention of said restrictions, The rules have to be vague in certain sections to either let you be creative or to not make this a treadmill of just continuously adding every situation you can imagine in there.

Not that im saying every single one of those are comparable of course, some are definitely more disruptive than others.

And lastly that's just me but making the ruleset longer and longer is only gonna discourage people from reading it :confused:
 
are you gonna add every instance like that in the rules to "clarify", Bloating the rules more than it needs to be
Absolutely on point. Couldnt of said it better myself.
 
To anyone saying that this is “common sense” I’ll remind you that this all started when a member of the JB team told me that I couldn’t restrict false orders. If your own admins can’t get this straight maybe that should be an indicator that it’s really not common sense?

I understand wanting to keep the rules simple, and that’s an important goal, but in my eyes having all of these “unwritten rules” which are enforced but not in the actual rules makes things more complicated, not less.

We’re not asking for every instance of what a warden can or cannot do to be added to the rules. This is a very common scenario which has caused a lot of confusion lately so I think it’s fair to just add it.
 
To anyone saying that this is “common sense” I’ll remind you that this all started when a member of the JB team told me that I couldn’t restrict false orders. If your own admins can’t get this straight maybe that should be an indicator that it’s really not common sense?
this isn't a problem with the rule at that point, its a problem with the admin. We've always been able to restrict false orders.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Valen
Something I want to say about the whole thing about adding addendum after addendum in the rules for so called "clarifications".

I get the sentiment but but you're only setting yourself up to adding more and more to the rules for things that can be easily explained by simpler rules, the warden has always had the ability to restrict things that disrupt the round, either by restricting certain classes to not use items or to not do a specific action, you can always judge the merit of these restrictions per round, and by my opinion its obvious that false orders also fall unto the arsenal of reds to disrupt said rounds, you're not rebelling when you heal as medic but a warden can restrict that to make himself and the round safe, same logic. That's where common sense comes.

Are you gonna add every instance like that in the rules to "clarify", Bloating the rules more than it needs to be is quite unnecessary when as I said you can judge the intention of said restrictions, The rules have to be vague in certain sections to either let you be creative or to not make this a treadmill of just continuously adding every situation you can imagine in there.

Not that im saying every single one of those are comparable of course, some are definitely more disruptive than others.

And lastly that's just me but making the ruleset longer and longer is only gonna discourage people from reading it :confused:
I can see the potential of a slippery slope, but that by definition is a logical fallacy.

This is merely a two sentence clarification on an already existing verdict, however it is important to keep the end-goal of simplistic rules in mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Meatloaf
To anyone saying that this is “common sense” I’ll remind you that this all started when a member of the JB team told me that I couldn’t restrict false orders. If your own admins can’t get this straight maybe that should be an indicator that it’s really not common sense?

I understand wanting to keep the rules simple, and that’s an important goal, but in my eyes having all of these “unwritten rules” which are enforced but not in the actual rules makes things more complicated, not less.

We’re not asking for every instance of what a warden can or cannot do to be added to the rules. This is a very common scenario which has caused a lot of confusion lately so I think it’s fair to just add it.
To extend this thought; I didn't pull this suggestion of a magical hat.
This is a common source of confusion.

This is a two sentence addition that I have already done the heavy lifting for.
This is for the benefit of the community.
 
To put this as straight as possible. The rules are already massive as is. Extra bloat like certain clarifications are not good for the ruleset. What you can do however. Is give friendly reminders in game chat that you can infact restrict overtalk if they do ever become a major problem. Because fact of the matter is, they really aren't that big of a deal. False orders are rarely an issue. And in certain cases where they do become an issue (Accidental MFK because a blu fell for the trick order for example.) That's on the blu for falling for it. You should be able to tell two peoples voices apart realistically. This doesn't need clarification in the ruleset because it is such a minor thing that you can just let people know about via word of mouth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zee
To put this as straight as possible. The rules are already massive as is. Extra bloat like certain clarifications are not good for the ruleset. What you can do however. Is give friendly reminders in game chat that you can infact restrict overtalk if they do ever become a major problem. Because fact of the matter is, they really aren't that big of a deal. False orders are rarely an issue. And in certain cases where they do become an issue (Accidental MFK because a blu fell for the trick order for example.) That's on the blu for falling for it. You should be able to tell two peoples voices apart realistically. This doesn't need clarification in the ruleset because it is such a minor thing that you can just let people know about via word of mouth.
Why word of mouth, when you could add two sentences?

Help new players, so we don't lean on word-of-mouth, which can very often lead to conflicting messages.

I agree we don't need to excessively bloat the rules, but guys its two sentences on a rule that already exists.
People should be able to read the rules and play on the server, without asking an Admin to fill in a gap.
 
Why word of mouth, when you could add two sentences?

Help new players, so we don't lean on word-of-mouth, which can very often lead to conflicting messages.

I agree we don't need to excessively bloat the rules, but guys its two sentences on a rule that already exists.
People should be able to read the rules and play on the server, without asking an Admin to fill in a gap.
When has overtaking been a serious issue, like ever. I can only think of one real example. It's a rare issue and you rarely need to restrict it anyways. If we let this pass it'll cause a flood of useless "clarification" suggestions along similar lines. I don't want to have the rules become an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts it's better some rules remain unspoken. This is a perfect example.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Zee
When has overtaking been a serious issue, like ever. I can only think of one real example. It's a rare issue and you rarely need to restrict it anyways. If we let this pass it'll cause a flood of useless "clarification" suggestions along similar lines. I don't want to have the rules become an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts it's better some rules remain unspoken. This is a perfect example.
This is one best not left unspoken, and once again
"The purpose of this whole saga is to get the unwritten rules, well, written...
Implementing concrete solutions is what’s best for the current state of JB.
It’s simple and easy to understand what’s not to love."

Leaving this rule unspoken merely hurts new players. Keep it mind many of these unspoken rules we regulars know, new players will not, even those that do read the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread