A ruleset actually created by the community

Currently viewing this thread:

In the interest of moving things along, I have created a template ruleset that can form the basis of our public discussion involving rules and rule design. This is by no means final, but attempts to cover as many circumstances as possible in a list as short as possible. Enforcement of this ruleset assumes intelligent administrators fluent in English.

New rules will be drafted, discussed, and improved and added to OP as modules separated by spoilers to allow servers to mix and match rules as they please. All of the rules are be required to be short but comprehensive.

Forum community, what circumstances can you come up with that happen that could be added to cover it? How will the rule that covers it look? Is it simple to understand yet covers all possible variants? Can it be applied to circumstances without listing every single circumstance? Do you need a PhD in law to understand it?

Have some decency. Being rude to others will result in similar treatment.



Killing
Killing a player may only be done after a hostile action
Hostile action is:
- an ingame damage dealing action
- a fulfillable text demand followed by a text response
- being in an ingame state of war



NLR/NRR/NNR/what-have-ye
Hostile actions may not be performed against the player or group of players that killed you.



War
An ingame state of war is declared by setting your color faction to hostile towards another color faction.
War is not allowed between non-color factions (commoner, outlaw)



Exploits, Bugs, Cheating, etc
Use of all of the above to gain advantage is disallowed.
Server Administration is required to make best effort to fix them as soon as possible.

I am more than happy to individually discuss the drafted template but it would be more productive to simply add new modules to cover circumstances that I do not include but can be desirable to server owners, for example assassination rules or limits on demands.
 

Salva

Sergeant Knight
One could add to common sense:

"Admin decisions have to be respected and followed."

To give them a certain status despite the rules. Also to minimaze disrespectful manners such
as rage complaints.

chunky_monkeh said:
2011, worked. 2015, RDM fest 24/7.

Its worth a try. Overall the rules at its base form havent changed a lot since the start of Nexus.
 
I'm not sure it's useful to add that admin decisions should be respected, seeing as they actually have the tools to make decisions. It won't really add anything to the list of things restricted. Perhaps a new rule altogether against out-of-game hostility, across the board?

chunky_monkeh said:
2011, worked. 2015, RDM fest 24/7.

FYI I wrote the original draft by looking at your ruleset and condensing it into a few sentences. Almost everything in your ruleset is covered in some way by the base draft.
 

VVyrd

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SM&B
- On the common sense part, more than anything, I would add something like "Use common sense. If you try to be a smartass and loophole the rules, you will be punished", etc.

- On the killing part, I don't like that it defines what you must do or must get done on you in order to have a legal reason to kill someone. Instead, I'd leave it as something like "You need a proper RP reason to kill someone. -He looked at me with angry eyes, for example, is not a reason at all-. Even robberies and such must be RPed properly, "HALT. DROP ALL" or something along the lines isn't proper RP, not even near. It'd be up to the admins to decide what is actual proper RP (We're not talking about hardcore RP, but at least something decent to not make this a TDM with stupid rules).
 
"Common sense" has no real meaning since it is a philosophical term, whereas decency is strictly defined "behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability.". The 4th rule covers loopholes, exploits, cheating to get an advantage. The point of the ruleset is to have 0 loopholes, anyways.

The Killing rule as in the draft is strict but generic, it does not strictly define anything that must be done nor hint at what the player could do like when you say "halt drop all". That being said, "halt, drop all" is a valid demand under the base killing rule, so long as the victim is allowed a text response. If you wish to disallow it, an extended rule will be necessary. Perhaps something akin to the following?

Valid Demands:
  The request must be possible to complete.
  The request must be specific.
  The request must not result in the loss of more than x|x% of the net value carried by the target of the request.

Again, the point of a ruleset is to generically list to the player what is disallowed based on some rules, if something is disallowed and not covered by some rule then it is a failed ruleset and should be rewritten. If we simply list off all possible circumstances that we can think of, we will certainly miss some and further we will arbitrarily limit the gameplay to be nothing but the listed options.
 
It's come to my attention that the killing rule misses a huge portion of circumstances: the player being demanded from ignores the demand. By the rule in its current state, neither player would be allowed to kill each other. This makes no sense. However, given that adding a time limit or warning limit or something is entirely arbitrary and counter to the point of a generic ruleset, I don't think it's the way to go. It would end up simply as a copy of current rules trying to list all circumstances.

What do you all think of a rule that strictly disallowed killing between non-hostile factions, for example, color factions killing commoners or commoners killing commoners? It would in essense mean that any kill that shows up as "killed a member of their own faction" would break this rule. Servers would be able to modify a server setting to decide if commoners are set to hostile to color factions or not, and outlaws would always be hostile.

The obvious effects of this is that there is nothing from stopping someone from going on a killing rampage, however I think that the punishment after 3 rapid kills of becoming outlaw is a good counter to this. If they die while outlaw, they not only lose their gear but their class. If the map has no outlaw trainings, they would likely be unable to regain their stuff even with assistance of friends. It would simply be impractical to wait 15 minutes every time you die after going on a rampage to leave outlaw and rejoin your faction even if your faction was assisting you the whole way.
 

OperaticOcelot

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Splintert said:
What do you all think of a rule that strictly disallowed killing between non-hostile factions, for example, color factions killing commoners or commoners killing commoners? It would in essense mean that any kill that shows up as "killed a member of their own faction" would break this rule. Servers would be able to modify a server setting to decide if commoners are set to hostile to color factions or not, and outlaws would always be hostile.

You would probably have to prohibit any hostile actions between non-hostile factions in this case, as this would disallow factions from killing those who are causing any trouble. Is this too limiting?
 
It would disallow them from killing only until hostility is declared. If the troublemaker is in their own faction they would have to have their leader kick or outlaw him. Internal faction politics enforced by game mechanics. The ideal case for proper roleplay.
 

_666_

Squire
How to fix PW mod (ze German way):
- Put like 90% of the current, rather toxic playerbase in a "camp".
- Replace them with a more mature, better playerbase.

Also, Splintert, I love how you always rant that all servers nowadays just use the same old copy-pasta ruleset, and yet here you are suggesting the exact same, even admitting that you basicly just copied it..  :party:
(Gawd I love the PW forum  :iamamoron:)
 
Where did I say I copied it? I said that it would've been a copy, which I wanted to avoid, before proposing an entirely fresh idea. If you don't have any constructive input, head elsewhere if you don't mind.
 

_666_

Squire
Splintert said:
[...]
FYI I wrote the original draft by looking at your ruleset and condensing it into a few sentences. Almost everything in your ruleset is covered in some way by the base draft.

Constructive input: Maybe actually try what you always suggest, create something new/make a "good" server/etc.?
 
There is more going on in the background than may appear. I have already presented the idea to a server and they plan on at least temporarily implementing it as a test. Once again, both of you have yet to comment on the actual topic and instead resort to attacks on the poster. If you don't mind, step aside and let the adults do the debating.

After some deliberation it has been proposed that the Killing rule would be replaced by the following:

"You are only allowed to harm players that are set to hostile to your faction, including commoners and outlaws." or similar wording, with perhaps a clause to consider accidental friendly fire.

The idea is to provide a game mechanic enforced rule, such that randoming is easily defined, and also to leave it open enough to allow a huge variety of interactions previously disallowed. For example, this rule does not explicitly disallow robbing of armour like many servers do, but players will have to find a way to rob armour without threatening the player's life. This rewards creative gameplay with the ability to do effectively anything, so long as the player is not harmed.

Another example is the currently enforced "skirmish rule". Instead of having ridiculously hard to enforce and arbitrary rules that can mean 2 different things to different people, this rule allows factions to simply declare hostility, harm those they want to skirmish with, and declare peace. This eliminates all possible edge cases, because at no time is any arbitrary region defined as a "skirmish zone" where players can be killed freely. The rule remains enforced the same way 24/7, no matter the game circumstances, while allowing "skirmishes" to take place at players desire.

Thoughts on this? And what other rules do you think would be necessary in order to compliment this rule, where this is the core of the ruleset?
 
Top Bottom