Rule Fix

[Caitlyn]

So basically no one showed for the rule fix meeting in TS. Now, whether its none cares or people have work or whatnot. it's still important and I would like to still give those who want the opportunity a chance to talk about this.


I'm only going to be reading posts that are formatted correctly or bundles to suggestions.
Keep in mind that all rule additions and removals are up to MOXXI and SHEPARD, Although they will see this and hear about it one way or another.

Format for ERROR in Document:
What rule is it:
What is the error:
Why is it an errorIf its self-explanatory you may leave blank)

Format for adding in a rule.
What rule is it:
Why does it need to be added:

Format for removing a rule.
What rule is it:
Why does it need to be removed:

Thanks for all who reply to this thread and want to help the community.

 

[IROCONIAN]

https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Sections_and_chapters

 

[Zaros]

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered:
[x] Gray's are individuals. Their actions shall be judged and acted on as their own. They may choose to work together with other Gray's or factions but do not have to.

As I said in my post, that was +1 'd but ignored by anyone who could actually give me an answer (staff -cough cough-), Gray's are a golden opportunity to Roleplay. It clearly states that they can work together, therefore they should be able to form their own little factions and such. (please refer to my post "grays right to roleplay" for more information) However, I have heard that they are apprently not allowed to have their own little groups? Can I please get an answer that is offical / if I am wrong that you could have a clan of gray's than that rule obviously needs to be changed.

 

[Spectre8105]

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered:
[x] Gray's are individuals. Their actions shall be judged and acted on as their own. They may choose to work together with other Gray's or factions but do not have to.

As I said in my post, that was +1 'd but ignored by anyone who could actually give me an answer (staff -cough cough-), Gray's are a golden opportunity to Roleplay. It clearly states that they can work together, therefore they should be able to form their own little factions and such. (please refer to my post "grays right to roleplay" for more information) However, I have heard that they are apprently not allowed to have their own little groups? Can I please get an answer that is offical / if I am wrong that you could have a clan of gray's than that rule obviously needs to be changed.

The situation you are referring to is when a group of 5-12 grays went off and made their own faction, since grays are a side thing and not a main faction this caused issues with players (Wasn't against that rule, but it affected players enough to have staff intervene). Specifically in that situation the sith were being heavily outnumbered and having the grays (Acting like Jedi V2) against them as well caused many issues.

Issues like these may not be against the rules, but if it affects enough players negatively staff can intervene and put it down.

 

[Zaros]

The situation you are referring to is when a group of 5-12 grays went off and made their own faction, since grays are a side thing and not a main faction this caused issues with players (Wasn't against that rule, but it affected players enough to have staff intervene). Specifically in that situation the sith were being heavily outnumbered and having the grays (Acting like Jedi V2) against them as well caused many issues.

Issues like these may not be against the rules, but if it affects enough players negatively staff can intervene and put it down.

So if the roleplay was actually there and those gray's were not just going around killing to kill, it would not have happened. Therefore the gray could indeed have their own little faction, as long as no huge negative player impact was made?

 

[Spectre8105]

So if the roleplay was actually there and those gray's were not just going around killing to kill, it would not have happened. Therefore the gray could indeed have their own little faction, as long as no huge negative player impact was made?

There would be no problem if only a few grays (not all) had a small community, perhaps not a faction. However they would get no home planet (Have to use neutral planets), ranks with power, exiles, PK orders, etc. Would basically just be a group of people walking around.

 

[Zaros]

What rule is it:
[x] The elevator on Korriban can break if spammed, players must wait 3 seconds, after the doors have opened, before hitting the elevator button.
[-] Note breaking rule can either result in a punishment in RP or by a staff member.
What is the error: This is no longer a thing however...
Why is it an error: The check point door, the big ones, can in fact break. (I saw it happen yesterday) This rule simply needs to be changed to reference the doors instead of the elevator.

 

[Zaros]

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered: [x] Players cannot Cloak and continue to fight in the middle of combat.
[-] Cloak can be used to open combat with shadow strike, or used to escape combat
This is about cloak itself. When you use it, people still can see you, I mean we have huge nameplates. Some say the roleplay is if you are close enough to hit you can be attacked, some say if you are moving you can be hit. I again would like an actual answer of what the proper ruling on cloak is. I have always roleplayed it as if you cloak I can not see you / I do not follow you, but I have many times before been slain despite my sneaky cloak. (I stopped bothering with hat force power as it is an absolute waste due to this unsureness on the rule)

 

[Zaros]

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered:
[x] Force Push/Pull is the only method allowed for boosting your allies while in the air. You also cannot use Force Charge after leaping to boost yourself in the air. I.E You cannot use Force Lightning to boost your friend away from combat.

If you are fighting an enemy, and you use force lightning and they are boosted do you need to stop and let them back on the ground, or is it okay because you are not doing it to boost them, you are doing it to try and kill them?

 

[Zaros]

General finding / suggestions: I know that I should have showed up to your rule meeting, and I fully wanted to but I am on a different time zone and I have a different schedule than you all. But most the things I see are simply wording issues where it leaves a big grey area for the rule. I could go on and on with little nit picks, and hey who cares what I think, I should have been there, but maybe just try and tighten up the rules so its clear what is right and wrong?

 

[Spectre8105]

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered:
[x] Force Push/Pull is the only method allowed for boosting your allies while in the air. You also cannot use Force Charge after leaping to boost yourself in the air. I.E You cannot use Force Lightning to boost your friend away from combat.

If you are fighting an enemy, and you use force lightning and they are boosted do you need to stop and let them back on the ground, or is it okay because you are not doing it to boost them, you are doing it to try and kill them?

Using lighting to kill is fine, the main reason that rule is a thing to is to prevent you from boosting allies with lightning

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered: [x] Players cannot Cloak and continue to fight in the middle of combat.
[-] Cloak can be used to open combat with shadow strike, or used to escape combat
This is about cloak itself. When you use it, people still can see you, I mean we have huge nameplates. Some say the roleplay is if you are close enough to hit you can be attacked, some say if you are moving you can be hit. I again would like an actual answer of what the proper ruling on cloak is. I have always roleplayed it as if you cloak I can not see you / I do not follow you, but I have many times before been slain despite my sneaky cloak. (I stopped bothering with hat force power as it is an absolute waste due to this unsureness on the rule)

If you see someones name and they are cloaked you are allowed to follow them, we have no rule against following cloaked players

 

[Caitlyn]

Rule to be expanded on/ definitively answered:
[x] Gray's are individuals. Their actions shall be judged and acted on as their own. They may choose to work together with other Gray's or factions but do not have to.

As I said in my post, that was +1 'd but ignored by anyone who could actually give me an answer (staff -cough cough-), Gray's are a golden opportunity to Roleplay. It clearly states that they can work together, therefore they should be able to form their own little factions and such. (please refer to my post "grays right to roleplay" for more information) However, I have heard that they are apprently not allowed to have their own little groups? Can I please get an answer that is offical / if I am wrong that you could have a clan of gray's than that rule obviously needs to be changed.

I think specter answered most of this, grays can RP and form small groups if Roleplay starts to disturb or ruin other players experiences staff reserve the right to shut it down.

 

[Caitlyn]

Using lighting to kill is fine, the main reason that rule is a thing to is to prevent you from boosting allies with lightning

If you see someones name and they are cloaked you are allowed to follow them, we have no rule against following cloaked players

This is correct @Zaros

 

[Caitlyn]

General finding / suggestions: I know that I should have showed up to your rule meeting, and I fully wanted to but I am on a different time zone and I have a different schedule than you all. But most the things I see are simply wording issues where it leaves a big grey area for the rule. I could go on and on with little nit picks, and hey who cares what I think, I should have been there, but maybe just try and tighten up the rules so its clear what is right and wrong?

Being too strict or specific on rules actually makes it more difficult for staff in some situations.
A good example of this was about the rule (Exploiting is against the rules) We had a rule after a situation that occurred, that made using (burnout, removed power) considered exploiting when used on Zombies/Npc's.
Being so specific made it so people could claim a specific "exploit" was not actually exploiting because it's not listed. This is why newer rules often have the 1.) The rule itself 2.) an example, but not limited to.
Abit of openness in a rule allows it to be managed easier, for example, the rule about FAILRP is very vague, as we don't list all the hundreds of examples there are of that rule being violated. Although using common sense and abit of reference from other rules will help you understand what constitutes fail roleplay. With some of the more open rules, the outcome of it should be handled in an SIT.
So basically some rules are purposely worded in ways that aren't specific. Although if something is really bad and not intended or doesn't look right then feel free to post it.