+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. (/showthread.php?tid=24354)
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - n00bl3t - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:But you're saying it, after n00blet made a thread about it, not for any real decision made by the admin team, which means that they are not abused of it, or we all would have heard about it.
It is very tempting to say "watch this space" and then post "night Discovery" on my status thread.:P
Edit: While you are here, take a look at this thread.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - mwerte - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:I just don't want to see this turn into another 'Admin conspiracy!' flame thread.. A flame thread that is difficult for admins or mods to lock because it'll only make those people scream conspiracy more, even though what they are doing is deserving of a lock.Tell me about it...
"The more you tighten your grip Tarken, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
There is a reason the new US Health Care is 1500 pages long (literally). They're trying to account for every situation and define everything, but since that is so obviously impossible it just creates loopholes for lawyers to use later.
1.2 is a polite wording of 0.1
Ediot: I posted this after reading the first page, nothing subsequent, so that's why it seems a tad dated.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - n00bl3t - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:Tell me about it...
"The more you tighten your grip Tarken, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"
There is a reason the new US Health Care is 1500 pages long (literally). They're trying to account for every situation and define everything, but since that is so obviously impossible it just creates loopholes for lawyers to use later.
1.2 is a polite wording of 0.1
Considering the amount of malpractice in the medical system, they hardly need a 1.2.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - Ophiuchi - 08-04-2009
Me cockpits not big enough fer a passle o' bleedin' lawyers, mates.
I got along without 'em before. I ken I can do it now.
Are we bleedin' done here yet?
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - n00bl3t - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:Me cockpits not big enough fer a passle o' bleedin' lawyers, mates.
I got along without 'em before. I ken I can do it now.
Are we bleedin' done here yet?
Considering previous responses in other threads, mwerte, can you remove Marburg's post? (The one I quoted.)
Thank you.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - Ophiuchi - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:Considering previous responses in other threads, mwerte, can you remove Marburg's post? (The one I quoted.)
Thank you.
*Snort*
Not a bleedin' clue, Richard.
Not a bleedin' clue.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - Zeltak - 08-04-2009
Admins can ban me out of the blue if they so feel like it, I don't care. I'm here as a guest who plays for free, that is enough for me, I don't ask for any liberty and neither should you as long as you don't pay anything (other than your free time, but that is your choice) to play.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - n00bl3t - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:*Snort*
Not a bleedin' clue, Richard.
Not a bleedin' clue.
This post as well.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - Sprolf - 08-04-2009
I had always imagined that this rule was intended to be a backup and "catch-all" rule that our administrators could use to facilitate the sanctioning of a person who had discovered a way to be malicious, evil, or otherwise unpleasant while still remaining within the server rules.
The human race is an ingenious one, and one should always give them space to come up with yet another inventive way to be bad.
Thus, it is well that our beloved administrators have a backup plan to be able to effectively sanction anyone they need to, especially if no other rule covers their transgressions and/or idiocy.
~ I always posited that this was a cunning Plan B.
Administrators: Server Rule 1.2. - Spear - 08-04-2009
' Wrote:The rule is mostly used against people who aren't violating a specific rule (we can't cover everything you know.. And we can't predict everything either) but are doing something detrimental to the server, or to players on the server.
If you look like it as a loophole for the admins, I guess that's fine and partly true. However, considering how rarely it is used, it's easy to see that it hasn't been abused. It's been used what, 5 times in total?
Things like this are necessary, which is unfortunate. And even though it covers a lot of things, admins still have to have a reason as to how a player is harming server gameplay. It's not a trump card they can use whenever and wherever.
I just don't want to see this turn into another 'Admin conspiracy!' flame thread.. A flame thread that is difficult for admins or mods to lock because it'll only make those people scream conspiracy more, even though what they are doing is deserving of a lock.
Dab nailed it on the first page.
The recent fiasco with Niezck is reason enough to have this rule in place. We can't predict every type of violation and have a specific rule against it, if we did, the server rules would be impossibly long.
Law has to be an adaptive thing, as it is in reality when the courts make a decision it creates a precedent, a guideline for all future action when dealing with similar offences.