Administrators: Server Rule 1.2.

[atlantis2112]

If admins acted for the good of themselves.. you'd see Admin lolcaps. Not a couple lines of text.

[n00bl3t]

Living in today's worlds nooblet, I'm really surprised this concerns you. I'm not offtopicing towards some grand conspiracy theories but every government entity has set up their rules to cover their actions and not the actions of the "people".

In this case they have every right to, and I must say it works on that "take it or leave it basis"

Now I bet you don't mean anything wrong, but coupled with that post from few days ago, where you ask about the topic starter and admin and the entire business, someone might understand wrong and think you're pretty passive aggressive towards an certain admin.

Yes, I know about the internal security act my own country has in place.

Which Administrator? (Shoot me a PM, seriously.)

I know my recent thread was OP Powers, which asked for clarification on what an OP can and cannot ask for. (Which, by the way, is awaiting green text.)

That is all I can think of, off the top of my head. (That was a moderator decision as well, not an Administrator one.)

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[Turkish]

Basically yes - It's there if someone is acting in a way that we think is harmful generally and is not covered by a specific rule. While the rules do cover many eventualities there will always be someone who finds a way around them. Another example I can think of is the whole "crash trading" or whatever it was - a sneaky trick to get more credits, i believe this was stopped under this rule.
At least that's how i view this rule - as for the other Admins, it's up to them to chime in.
What it is not is some kind of allowance to let us do what we like - though those out there who are in the "admins-killed-kennedy" camp will believe that's exactly what it's for. Contrary to their beliefs, Admins do in fact try to act for the good of the server rather than themselves or their friends.

I would like to be the first to thank Administrator Laowai for taking the time to answer this question, if only as a player, rather than reading this and leaving it unanswered as a few other Administrators have.

Please don't take that as an attack on the administrative team, I know you're all busy, and I as a user know how hard it can be to answer a question, find the right words, or even care about a question.

But as for we as a communinty? Can we get a definitive explanation of the basis, application, and bearing of the rule in green?

---

I have a fetish for all things Norse.

[... kur nubėgo?]

In my eyes this one let the admins to put sanctions on people who done something what it unfair but still isint mentioned in the rules.

---

Omega Pirates Guild

History of OPG | Antonio "Vilkas" Devivar

[Panzer]

Live and let die.

---

[Cannon]

But as for we as a communinty? Can we get a definitive explanation of the basis, application, and bearing of the rule in green?

Hmm. Tricky. No, I don't think I could give a definitive explanation. A definitive explanation needs more legal training than I have (which is zero) and any attempt I make would be doomed.

I'll provide my perspective though; this is not a definitive explanation, just an explanation that covers some of the usage and my understanding of the policies:

First:
- I agree with Loawai's perspective.
- I agree with many of the other statements by people in this post, things like:
"Harming server gameplay? That could almost be anything...". Yes it could and this the point of such a rule.
"If you look like it as a loophole for the admins, I guess that's fine and partly true." Yes it is a loophole.
"I know it was used to sanction OoRP docking before." Yes it was until a OORP docking rule was created. (Remember Corsairs docking on manhattan and then undocking to kill all lawful ships before docking again)

As people have said, 1.2 is a catch-all rule that covers any situation not covered by the other rules.

In practice it requires a significant amount of discussion before being used as the situations requiring its use are rare and usually contentious.

There is no specific policy governing its use but in practice a large proportion of administrators will need to agree before using it. It is also a rule more likely to draw the attention of Igiss.

As this rule is vague it is possible that it could be used in inappropriate ways. In practice I can't see how this could happen given that things like this are discussed, usually at great length. As always though people can make mistakes.

What's the definition of inappropriate? The definition used is: if a majority of the administration team agree to use this rule, then its use is appropriate.

----

Now, my turn for a question: Why do you want a definitive explanation? If I know why you are asking I'll be better able to answer your question. Just curious and don't feel obliged to answer.

I've put this post in yellow because I like the colour.

EDIT: stupid colour! go yellow go yellow!
EDIT: finally yellowish.

I'll add one more thing to answer a subsequent statement: this isn't a superpower rule. Its use is ultimately governed by Igiss. If an administrator (or the whole team) abuses it, he can reverse the decision and/or ban/remove the people who abused it. This rule is used to cover situations that the other rules don't cover - just like what happened with the OORP docking.

---

Proud member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"

Old Avatar #2 | Old Avatar #3

[JakeSG]

Post seems green to me.

1.2 is their loophole to counter all loopholes. Really, at least they have a rule that covers on-the-spot situations. Many games I've played if an Admin/GM/Mod/Whatever has found something to be distasteful, they'll often just go through with the punishment and not bother with such trifles. We are all guests on this server. Such trivialties are best not bothered with, unless you're in the habit of doing something that could risk getting you banned.

---

For the Core.

[reavengitair]

I've put this post in yellow because I like the colour.

Looks green to me...

Anyway,

"Harming server gameplay? That could almost be anything...". Yes it could and this the point of such a rule.

Of course, an example of how extreme this could be, such as, you could delete this post and ban me from disco for posting this, as some would call it "harming server gameplay". But I trust you guys, and so far, you do a great job!

However, admins should not have all-out superpowers. This rule is just a little too much for me.

[n00bl3t]

Now, my turn for a question: Why do you want a definitive explanation? If I know why you are asking I'll be better able to answer your question. Just curious and don't feel obliged to answer.

It's use, or threats to use it, have become more frequent. As always, natural curiousity gets to me. (As it has to you.)

Thank you.

(Further comments from Administrators, moderators and members are welcome still.)

Such trivialties are best not bothered with, unless you're in the habit of doing something that could risk getting you banned.

Feel free to insinuate. (I have never been sanctioned though.)

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[casero]

However, admins should not have all-out superpowers. This rule is just a little too much for me.

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.