The Rule Set

[Dudel]

So cantrians are the most "human-like hominidae as possible". Gee, who would imagine such thing? (I bet CDingoes did, yet she couldn't put it in a way to avoid being buggered by Dudel).

My point was more Doug and his voluntees being under the presumation we're not retards. Doug, I hope you will learn from this mistake and in future explain every obvious detail slowly and louder than required and if that doesn't work, just slap us about for a bit. It's the only way we'll learn.


...no comment on whether I'm going back on the no-joke thing or not in this post.

Actually, Chasing Dingoes, that is EXACTLY what they need to do.

Oh and I'm being 100% serious now, too. My last few posts were rather sarcastic.

I see what you're doing. By agreeing with me you invaildate my point. Very clever. I'll go and join the lizard people crying in the corner.

(Note - lizard people may have tearducts due to the people part where as lizards - generally - don't.)

Chasing Dingoes, be your last post filled with sarcasm or not... that is what needs to be done.

Rules need be set down so that they can be enforced. OR the rules shouldn't be enforced as they ain't written down. I mean in a clear OBVIOUS location so that there is less confusion and more understanding.

If people brake a rule they didn't know was there... you can point them to the heading sub paragraph and go "See, right there!" They'll have egg on their face but at least there is a place to point too.

OTHERWISE it's like this. "Well, it's a CRB... but I don't have proof. Take my word for it or you'll get in trouble." That can be said to anyone about ANYTHING and without a rule set you get certain people encouraging people to play their way under guise of rules. Rules that don't even exist!





I've had that happen to me TWICE, where people tried telling me what I was doing OOC in game was a CRB and I was like "Uh... no?" And I've heard it happen to other characters and AGAIN I was like "Uh... no?" and it's mostly RP purists that take ANYTHING not "Cantr perfect" as a CRB.

The rules need be set down so that people can't abuse that they aren't AND so that people can point out what is or isn't "against the rules".

(I split the topic myself! )

OH and I voted yes, of course. :p

[Snake_byte]

I agree. I believe there is a link to them on the main page but I don't think they've been added to a sticky on the forum clearly...

[Caesar]

I voted for clarification. (Although only so under the circumstances of the community having influence on what it will be like, not just the upper highest classes of noblemen.)


Vivit Populus.

[Chasing Dingoes]

I would like to accept any of the bravos and I dirrect any blame toward Dudel.

[Saalko]

You would make more rules? I like it to have the player department, to decide. And if anyone make stress, because there are no rules written down, I think the PD should ban such users.

No, because than we have a book of the CR. No one will read it.

[Doug R.]

No, because than we have a book of the CR. No one will read it.

That is absolutely true. No one will read it. Never the less, it's needed for when players ask "well, where does it say that?"

There is an extensive Terms of Use policy in development that covers everything I can think of. It's been in development for a while, and I don't expect it to see the light of day soon.

Oh, I guess I have to add in the "characters are human" bit, although maybe that would fit better in the game's description.

[formerly known as hf]

It'd be nice to have it to refer to during player disputes. Not that it'll make much difference.

Someone running multiple accounts, helping their own characters, exploiting loopholes and bugs will still post misinformation on this forum, blaming corruption and self service in the cantr staff.

Moreover, is 'because we run the game and say you can't do that' really not as good enough a reason?

[SekoETC]

I think it was suggested in the past that there should be a collection of examples of CRBs that have happened in the past, but someone said that it would only give people ideas of how to break the CR. I still think it would be good to have more examples, and examples that are more relevant to young characters. Very often we see newspawns who talk about their cousin or friend in another town even though they've never been to other towns. It should be said that people shouldn't speak of characters they haven't met or places they haven't visited unless they're lying or read about it from a note they've actually seen with that character.

But it should never be so that you couldn't call something a CRB just because the specific situation in question hasn't been thought of before. It's pretty easy to see which things go against the spirit of the CR even if it was the first time something happened. New examples could be added to the collection when things occur, but it shouldn't be claimed that the collection covers everything.

[joo]

Voted yes, I think the reasons against having the rules clearly set out are negligible.

[NaruShadow]

I vote yes. Nuff said.

[Dudel]

A few notes:

You would make more rules? I like it to have the player department, to decide. And if anyone make stress, because there are no rules written down, I think the PD should ban such users.

No, not more rules. You make the rules that are already, technically, being enforced in a clear obvious place.

People making a stress, well, I could argue a lot of stuff that isn't a CRB and people have been yelled at for. Not to mention that PD is human and can put personal opinion on a matter. Having a clear obvious set of rules means everyone is one voice and have something to point to if there is a problem.

Banning people because something isn't a CRB when it "is" will only cause more problems and it leads to troubles that have happened in the past. "People saying staff is out for themselves, etc." I've seen Cantr "reviews" from people getting banned, blocked, whatever for "imaginary rules"... such things would stop as the rules were there on sign up and/or on the front page, etc.

No, because than we have a book of the CR. No one will read it.

First, Doug is correct on this thought.

Second, it allows people who are "scared" or "worried" a clear place so that they can check to see if what they are doing is "okay". This is usually brought on by people in game saying that something is a CRB or against the spirit of the CR; there are a lot of things that some players would have you thinking are against the rules, that are not.

Moreover, is 'because we run the game and say you can't do that' really not as good enough a reason?

Not at all, actually. As humans are faulty and can choose to ignore or enforce parts of rules that no one actually knows are there at random intervals.

We've all seen CRBs happen that have severity in one place and leniency in another. This is not only confusing, it's sorta dumb. A clear set of what "is" and "isn't" (listing punishments for it wouldn't hurt either) means that people aren't just making stuff up as they go... or changing things that already are for one reason or another.

This way people can't say there is favoritism or confusion as the rule is "right there" and people can read, quote and post it. No need to argue, simply slap the rule down and move on.

But it should never be so that you couldn't call something a CRB just because the specific situation in question hasn't been thought of before. It's pretty easy to see which things go against the spirit of the CR even if it was the first time something happened. New examples could be added to the collection when things occur, but it shouldn't be claimed that the collection covers everything.

And this is a main problem. The spirit of the CR isn't the CR. It's a vague RP purist behavior (Sorry Seko, not being mean) that allows other players to chastise and ostracize players for "not playing their way". I've seen many people do this and, really, it's not cool. With clear set down rules, this behavior should slowly calm itself down. Either the RP purists get their candy land or they realize that a lot of these "CRBs" ain't "CRBs" before a complaint is even made.

Rules don't have a spirit. Rules are rules and, as such, should be followed. Story end. Otherwise, it is a guideline and thus no punishment AT ALL should be followed unless extreme cases are had.

Also: That bold part, that's slightly.... lame. Just because something is against the rules and not written down doesn't mean it's not against the rules is the current problem at hand.

The "golden rule" doesn't apply to Cantr.

HOWEVER, more rules can be added as they are now... it simply needs to be in a place so that future problems don't happen.

Which means the initial problem causer technically found a bug.

Voted yes, I think the reasons against having the rules clearly set out are negligible.

I can't think of any good reasons against this to be 100% honest. I see no harm in having the rule set that people are supposed to follow in a clear spot to be read and broken down to their exact degrees.

Then again, I'm an American and that's how our lives are lived.

[NaruShadow]

Then again, I'm an American and that's how our lives are lived.

New american motto: If it aint written down, then it aint true

[Snake_byte]

But it should never be so that you couldn't call something a CRB just because the specific situation in question hasn't been thought of before. It's pretty easy to see which things go against the spirit of the CR even if it was the first time something happened. New examples could be added to the collection when things occur, but it shouldn't be claimed that the collection covers everything.

Also: That bold part, that's slightly.... lame. Just because something is against the rules and not written down doesn't mean it's not against the rules is the current problem at hand.

I think that's what Seko meant. Double negative implies a positive. "Even if a situation never thought up before arises, it can still be defined as a CRB".

[Dudel]

HOWEVER, more rules can be added as they are now... it simply needs to be in a place so that future problems don't happen.

Which means the initial problem causer technically found a bug.

[chase02]

I think that's what Seko meant. Double negative implies a positive. "Even if a situation never thought up before arises, it can still be defined as a CRB".

I don't like that one bit. Better to define an exact list of what is against the rules, or you'll keep having confusion and borderline cases unfairly assessed. Who cares if it 'gives people ideas' on how to break the rules? If they are legitimately breaking a set of clear cut rules (whether they read them or not), then /kickban and the case is closed.