Announcement: New Rules are here

[Haste]

I'd add a good old asterisk* to the cheating rule so that it can be clarified elsewhere. Stuff like the "160 fps rule" isn't obvious to new players.

Seconding comments about the piracy rule change. It should be simplified and the hard cap on "number of demands" is pointless. If someone wants to be a dick with just one demand, they can. If someone wants to be fair with four demands that don't take half the time or credits, that's perfectly possible too.

---

[Durandal]

+1 to Haste's post. Explanations on meta/powergaming for new players wouldn't be bad either.

[sindroms]

My vote is to return the original set of rules + merge them with the dropdown underneath the more complicated rule entries with explanations.
Then also add a translation in russian, german and PL + made adjustments to certain rules as discussed so far, especially regarding piracy, reengagement and so on.


Do not fix that is not broke.

---

--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------

[Jack_Henderson]

I am for short rules and strictly against a reverting to the old ones.

The old versions were clumsy, cluttered up and by no means clearer.

Working with the crisp ones now, and improving them (by cooperation, rewording, adding the examples, etc) is definitely the way to go, imo.

---

+ IMG| DISCORD: https://discord.gg/TWrGWjp
+ IMG| IS RECRUITING: Click to find out more!

[Thyrzul]

The old versions were clumsy, cluttered up and by no means clearer.

They weren't the best but were still more specific than the current even more vague rules and the (not so) clarification thread combined.

---

[Durandal]

The old versions were clumsy, cluttered up and by no means clearer.

They weren't the best but were still more specific than the current even more vague rules and the (not so) clarification thread combined.

I know you and I are polar opposites on just about every spectrum Thyr, but I'll try to convey this to you the way I see it. The clearer you get, the more loopholes are available AND the more legitimate roleplay is disallowed.

Prime example:

3.6 Attacking without Roleplay

No mention of a silly 'engagement notice', no mention of time limits, what constitutes an attack, et cetera. Not specific in the slightest. It'll allow for combat and the roleplay surrounding it to proceed much more organically, and gives the admin team the ability to handle things on more of a case by case basis rather than "was this guy an absolute twat? Yes. Did he break our extraordinarily descriptive rules? Nope, can't do anything." which was largely the norm in the past.

I'm not sure if that's their take on it as well, but I'm hoping it is. I don't find the rewrite itself to be as much a problem as the "you're a guest here and we can get rid of you whenever we like" mentality, but I think that's less the team's actual belief than it is a certain amount of posturing necessary to get the message through to certain elements playing on the server.

[Clavius]

Okay, so what if they're new? They accidentally say some OOC lines in chat and get sanctioned for it. They get put into Bastille. Because they're new they don't check the forums and make a new ship. They work hard on their new ship and then they accidentally write some OOC again. Sanction goes through and they have their ship deleted, as per punishments listed. They try one last time to get back to where they were and eventually they do. They accidentally break the RP before engagement rule because they've got their first ship and they want to fight with it and then they get banned for a minimum of 1 month.

I am sure Admins will check if the player who broke the rules is new/veteran and act accordingly

[n00bl3t]

Okay, so what if they're new? They accidentally say some OOC lines in chat and get sanctioned for it. They get put into Bastille. Because they're new they don't check the forums and make a new ship. They work hard on their new ship and then they accidentally write some OOC again. Sanction goes through and they have their ship deleted, as per punishments listed. They try one last time to get back to where they were and eventually they do. They accidentally break the RP before engagement rule because they've got their first ship and they want to fight with it and then they get banned for a minimum of 1 month.

I am sure Admins will check if the player who broke the rules is new/veteran and act accordingly

That sounds like extra work when they're seeking to streamline stuff.

Obvious veterans will be obvious. All people that are on the forums are not that obvious.

[Thyrzul]

The old versions were clumsy, cluttered up and by no means clearer.

They weren't the best but were still more specific than the current even more vague rules and the (not so) clarification thread combined.

I know you and I are polar opposites on just about every spectrum Thyr, but I'll try to convey this to you the way I see it. The clearer you get, the more loopholes are available AND the more legitimate roleplay is disallowed.

Prime example:

3.6 Attacking without Roleplay

No mention of a silly 'engagement notice', no mention of time limits, what constitutes an attack, et cetera. Not specific in the slightest. It'll allow for combat and the roleplay surrounding it to proceed much more organically, and gives the admin team the ability to handle things on more of a case by case basis rather than "was this guy an absolute twat? Yes. Did he break our extraordinarily descriptive rules? Nope, can't do anything." which was largely the norm in the past.

I'm not sure if that's their take on it as well, but I'm hoping it is. I don't find the rewrite itself to be as much a problem as the "you're a guest here and we can get rid of you whenever we like" mentality, but I think that's less the team's actual belief than it is a certain amount of posturing necessary to get the message through to certain elements playing on the server.

At the same time the vaguer the rules get the more interpretations you'll find and then it'll becomes a guessing game of whether you think the same as the staff or not. If you are unlucky, you get caught in a sanction without actually intentionally breaking the rules. I understand blurring the lines is to grant the Staff the ability to claim this or that bad on the spot when encountering a loophole, but it technically grants them that power without limits.

And I pray them using their powers responsibly, but I can tell that due to past experiences I do not trust a good few Staff members with the powers they have, not being sufficiently reasonable or unbiased for the position they have. Can't claim stuff in the names of others but I saw similar responses before from other members of the community, and while I personally did not care about it, the "you are a guest, things go this way, suck it up or leave" attitude sure wasn't a good PR move to help earn trust.

EDIT:
As a sidenote to the "you are nothing without us" d!ckwaving, yes, the game is empty without players, at the same time chaotic without Staff, so it goes both ways and the community dies out sooner or later without either side. Keep in mind that both players and Staff are required to run this place, so let's work together not to screw up, shall we?

---

[Internity]

4.1 If you die, that character/ship does not re-log for 2 hours and the player on any of their ships cannot reengage for 2 hours

If anything this one would possible just keep the server emptier then it is rather then promoting activity

Why can you not log the character at all now? Not everyone has multiple ships, plus if if my trader dies...I can't trade even on a different route? Not everyone has multiple traders with multiple routes, so this one seems...way to severe for dying.

I'm curious to the reasoning behind this one.

Yea, you both are right. This is ridiculous. This isn't a server with 200 players anymore, what are you admins thinking? Adding these changes will not help with the server activity at all. You people think that we're back in 2006-2007? No! We're in 2016. If you want to keep this server running with an average amount of players who are still interested in this game just don't bring such severe and drastic changes.

---

LNS Ithaca