Completed [JB] Otherwise legal LRs with rulebreaking parts in them (1 Viewer)

[Nergal Nergalton]

As a Jailbreak community, the rules for when LRs can or can't be denied, or have to be denied, are quite clear. LRs that break the rules in every aspect (EX: mass freekill day) have to be denied. Basic LRs like hunger games have to be done. However, there is one gray area to this: otherwise legal LRs that have something added to it that breaks the rules. A good (and not uncommon) example would be "Warday with FF." Warday on its own is fine, but with FF on it's not. The rules explicitly prohibit this.

Where the gray area falls is whether or not wardens are allowed to do the LR without the rulebreaking part if it's possible, such as simply doing Warday without FF in an LR like "Warday with FF", or if they can, or should be forced to, fully deny it. Should the warden be forced to deny the LR regardless? Should they be given a choice? Should they have to do it without the rulebreaking part? You could argue the first example is covered by "A LR must not break any of the rules like for example “mass freekill day” or “Warden must scream on mic.” but that rule feels too vague as it only lists LRs that can't be done in any way without breaking the rules.

Whichever ones gets the most votes, this would be my ideal addition to the rules:

- Force the warden to do the LR without the rulebreaking part if possible: "If an otherwise legal LR contains a part that breaks the rules (EX: Warday with FF), the warden must do the LR without the rulebreaking part, if possible."
- Give the warden a choice: "If an otherwise legal LR contains a part that breaks the rules (EX: Warday with FF), the warden can either choose to do the LR without the rulebreaking part (if possible) or deny it."
- Force the warden to deny all LRs with any form of rulebreaking in them: "A LR must not break any of the rules like for example “mass freekill day”, "Warday with FF", or “Warden must scream on mic.” LRs with any sort of rulebreaking in them cannot be performed." (basically adding to this already existing rule to make it more clear)

 

[Musisphaera]

I'm voting in favour of having the warden choice option.
Courtesy can be given if necessary or can be fully denied if the LR recipient truly wants the rulebreaking part included. Having either extreme could cause more problems if I'm honest.

 

[cilantro]

I think forcing wardens to do LRs without the illegal part is really difficult on them, as most wardens probably don't have every rule memorized, and might not make as good judgement as an admin on what is legal. Personally I sometimes already struggle remembering some obscure rules as warden and if I was forced to somehow make an illegal lr legal I would feel a little uncomfortable of still accidentally rule breaking.

 

[Semicolon Backslash]

>Get LR
>Make it "HNS Seek at 9:54"
>Switch to blue and force warden
>"Yeah we're doing the LR"

Holy crap new point farming method just dropped

 

[SirKrookodile]

Pretty much what cilantro said.
As it stands the current ruling is generally if the lr is invalid don't do it at all.
Omitting the invalid part of the lr has been allowed to be done.
But it's a terrible idea to force it.
Especially if the blue isn't sure about which parts of the lr are illegal. In those cases it's better to straight up decline it.
Forcing warden to make their own interpretation of an illegal lr is just a recipe for disaster.

 

[BritishMafia]

Let them choose, if they want to be lame, let them be lame. Wardens that are forced to do something they dont want to do are never fun anyway, so just allow for the fun lr's without making it required.

 

[Mehgend]

Nine times out of ten im voting to give the players more freedom to do as they see fit

 

[Dr. Meatloaf]

I don’t want to give vindictive players the option to force just to deny LR on a technicality.

Most of the time if one part of the LR is against the rules it is very obvious what that is and how to fix it. Most of the time these LRs happen because the recipient made an innocent mistake like having HnS start too early, choosing an invalid warday spot, or trying to do diner in cell area. All of these are simple mistakes with very obvious ways to fix them.

Sure there might be rare cases where it’s actually hard to remedy an LR, but admins on this server are smart enough to not punish someone for something like that as long as they do their best to do the LR.

IMO theres no reason for wardens to deny these LR’s, and we should not allow wardens to deny them.

 

[ItsNotCalassic]

I don’t want to give vindictive players the option to force just to deny LR on a technicality.

Lil Timmy accidentally did HNS seek at 9:30 instead of 8:30.

Should we be allowed, as the warden, to deny this LR entirely?

 

[Empress_Kyuuna]

Pretty much what Calassic and Meatloaf have already stated. In most cases the illegal part of the LR is extremely clear. If the Warden cannot see it they might need to go read up on the rules again.

 

[SirKrookodile]

Lil Timmy accidentally did HNS seek at 9:30 instead of 8:30.

Should we be allowed, as the warden, to deny this LR entirely?

At the end of the day. It's entirely their fault for typing an illegal lr, even if by mistake. Usually a warden will regive an lr if it's illegal anyways.
I'd much rather not have a new blue player try to decipher what parts of "Warday with ff on every 5 seconds, blues roam at 8, Every blue must be in their own seperate location" are valid and end up doing something illegal.
Give the warden the choice, If a red types out an illegal lr it is their fault. And their fault alone.

 

[PistolPoppinSince02]

Yeah unsurprisingly I put my vote towards autonomy, which is to say more or less the status quo.
If someone does something goofy like Warday FF, they do have every right to have their entire lr denied by the Warden as its explicitly stated in the rules that FF is not allowed for those days. However I am totally cool with (what I usually do) omitting the goofy part and compromise maintaining a bit of that lr they did earn.
Defining the grey area as Warden's choice. If you do an lr, more often than not to make it deniable you have to go out of your way to make it dumb.

 

[Ahamkara's Vow]

Forcing wardens do to lrs can lead to some really bad stuff

 

[Bananawastaken]

Since this is leaning towards a choice, the team proposes changing a line in the rules:

OLD: A LR must not break any of the rules like for example “mass freekill day” or “Warden must scream on mic.”
NEW: "Last Requests that break rules are forbidden, however wardens may choose to modify the LR to fit within panda rules (eg Warday with ff > Warday)."

Feedback on content and wording please, it will go in effect on the 1st of August.

 

[Ahamkara's Vow]

NEW: "Last Requests that break rules are forbidden, however wardens may choose to modify the LR to fit within panda rules (eg Warday with ff > Warday)."

I like this wording. It should be fine.

 

[SirKrookodile]

NEW: "Last Requests that break rules are forbidden, however wardens may choose to modify the LR to fit within panda rules (eg Warday with ff > Warday)."

Don't mind this, However, I believe certain players will try abuse this by intentionally having blatantly illegal lrs in an attempt to trick newer wardens into doing illegal lrs. Personally think rule breaking lrs that are clearly made to just try slip a warden up should be auto declined regardless. Although that's extremely hard to moderate.

 

[cilantro]

Don't mind this, However, I believe certain players will try abuse this by intentionally having blatantly illegal lrs in an attempt to trick newer wardens into doing illegal lrs. Personally think rule breaking lrs that are clearly made to just try slip a warden up should be auto declined regardless. Although that's extremely hard to moderate.

Isn't this considered encouraging rule breaking? People are already punished for trying to get wardens to do illegal orders.

 

[Bananawastaken]

Added to the rules