Discuss here, make your own article to formally propose your shit.
But constitution is already here :DD
- No malicious griefing
- No malicious griefing
- Don't go around killing people at random and generally being a dick. See Battle agreements
FuckFree Kovio
Main rules are already known. Fug the formal law, hurray for common sense. –t. Rosenmann
I agree though with him about writing down ban lengths for certain crimes, I mean caBst once banned me for 3 months for breaking a window. Also I'd like to see mods be punished too for breaking the rules, like Enton complaining in #chat about bans within minutes of banning others for complaining. — green kitten 2013/02/07 10:34
The nation/war/general pvp rules need fixings, so people can't complain about things they don't know, or things they do know that don't matter. Multicitizenship is a terrible idea. If smaller nations are allowed to exist, make stricter time limits for the wartime engagements, or include some kind of required interraction to maintain the actual war-ing. Fuck raids too. - Walrus
Greenkitten: you have a point, there should be a info page that would inform mods how to ban people properly. Walrus: Multicitizenship is a terrible idea indeed. Also war system is very hard to reform, because there are two groups of players who want different things, and having systems that makes two sides content is terrible hard. Anyway, feel free to submit your ideas. – t. Rosenmann
The war rules currently take into account both groups of players. The idea is that the 3 server rules apply generally, and signing agreements like the random pvp agreement or becoming a nation essentially forfeits some of that protection. New rules should follow these general guidelines, keep things contractual and spare builders from political autism. They could be reorganized, with some irrelevant shit thrown out, some better explanations given, and the vague bits elucidated and given more visibility. Most people don't understand the finer points of the war/battle/random pvp rules and fail to assert their rights of for example item return for the defeated defenders of a raid. I think an individual player should not be a citizen of more than two nations for nationhood purposes, and a citizen should not count toward nationhood requirements if there is no way to prove they have not contacted anyone in-game/irc/on the wiki for at least two months. — Sikandar 2013/02/07 20:58
I never did that greenkitten, that's some serious bullshit and I refuse to believe it. — caBastard 2013/02/08 01:09
I was also pissing you off with some bullshit and I'm pretty sure you were looking for an excuse to ban me. Later I got some other mods to lessen the ban, but if I didn't complain I would have had to be excluded for months. Its like that markuz guy was talking about this the other day, he was banned for 6 months when he was a noob because he 'griefed' which was probably an accident. I think mods are too harsh on noobs and like anyone they have personal grudges, I think setting a table which mods can adhere to might be a better way to enforce bans something like:
Ban reasion | first | second | third |
griefing | 5 days | 2 weeks | Permaban |
being homo | whatever | meh | Permaban |
Also maybe having a different table for older players because I know sometimes we get out of line. Its up to the admin's discretion on how it'd work but making it standardised across the board would help.
Also another idea might be having a wiki page listing all the banned users, the reason why they were banned, the duration of the ban and signed by the moderator who banned them. I'm not sure what the ban list is like now but it seems like mods can only see the ban message a user gets when they try to join. And when you get lazy mods who just say “No” in their messages the other mods have to take the word of the banned user as to why they were banned if they complain on IRC. A more detailed ban list might be more useful, but its just a thought. — green kitten 2013/02/08 12:48
GK: Permabans in itself are a bad idea and should (if at all) only be given for duping or very grave crimes.
The 3 offense system is a bad choice if you get a permaban for some minor offense and its also inappropriate for judging older players who have spent at least a year on the server. Also in the past youd get instant permaban for griefing so 5 days is kind of low. We need a banrange for individual offenses but if the 3 offense system is going to be kept the offenses should atleast fade away after some time. — areteee 2013/02/09 15:11
Constitution
I'm not especially happy that the drafting of a constitution and of criminal law are being conflated here, those are two totally different things, have different scope, and shouldn't go in the same document at all. Anyway here are some ideas for the constitution:
Technicalities: There are two kinds of law: default and opt-in. Default law (“The Rules”) is approved by the admins and enforced by mods and admins. Every player is subject to default law the moment they join. Opt-in law (“user law”) is defined and enforced by the users. To be subject to user law, players must agree initially.
Core principles:
- Players have the right to play without being harassed, griefed or killed. They can forfeit this right by violating the rules. User law can override these rights, but only if the player has agreed before.
- Players have the right to organize in groups. What these groups can do is subject to user law.
- Players can claim a reasonable amount of land. Groups of players can claim more land. Claims can be overruled under certain circumstances.
— tetete 2013/02/08 16:57
The Rules (for players)
- Don't grief.
- Don't kill people.
- When somebody wants to be let alone, let them.
- Don't cheat or abuse bugs to the point of breaking the game for others or the game balance.
- Rules 1-3 can be suspended/replaced by mutual agreement.
Questions, better wording, errata? — tetete 2013/02/08 17:13
The Rules (for mods and admins)
Admins: They run this shit and can make up rules or overrule others. They also occasionally do mod duties. If they do, don't try to overrule them. Main responsibilities are keeping the server alive and managing the mods.
Mods:
They are there when the admins aren't, they enforce the rules and are the admins' eyes and ears. They have extended powers to be able to enforce the rules, these should be used responsibly. Their decisions can be appealed to the admins, the admins can delegate these appeals to the mod court. This institution doesn't exist yet/is dead.
What mods can do includes, but is not limited to:
- rollbacks
- player bans
- usage of creative
- usage of openinv
- jailing
- killing people officially
- teleports
- setting weather
- cenotaph admin access
- cleaning up leftover LWC protections
To make life easier for mods, users and admins, consistent modding standards should be defined.
Changes highlighted, it's up to you to fill the gaps. — tetete 2013/02/08 17:29
Proposal: Mod Elections
To make it easier for the admins to find new mods, players can be nominated for mod elections. The player should have been around for at least, say, two months. An election would look like this:
- Nominate a player: Create a wiki page, write some words of appraisal and why they should be mod. This can be yourself, but of course it looks better when somebody else nominates you.
- Let players vote one of pro, con or neutral (create separate sections for each position if you like, to make counting easier), and optionally give a short reason. Longer reasons should go on the discussion page. Basically, throw as much mud as you like at the candidate and see what sticks.
- After ten days, an admin will look at the discussion and the votes and decide whether the mod will be a good addition to the mod team or not, then act accordingly.
You can also put up an existing mod for reelection/impeachment, but the reasons given should be very good. — tetete 2013/02/08 18:18
Would you also consider extending voting rights to players on other proposals? Right now there have been various proposals that have been stagnant for months and most likely continue to be since some of these mods are indifferent or aren't active enough to care. It might help speed up the process and give you a better idea of what the users want. — green kitten 2013/02/09 06:33
- User law is up to you, rule changes are easier lobbied by asking me in chat. — tetete 2013/02/09 15:37
Players should only be allowed to vote if they have been around at least 2, preferably 3 to 4 months. This way some newfriend cant just bring his whole clan of 14yo to vote for him whenever he wants to. I propose changing both voting and being voted for to 3 months. — areteee 2013/02/09 13:32
- I don't consider the vote binding anyway. When a bunch of 14yo gamer buddies try to rig a vote, I'll most likely ignore them. It's a way for me to collect information, not a consensus. — tetete 2013/02/09 15:37
- Eitherway, letting people vote for mods is pretty fucking stupid. You will have someone become a mod based on popularity and not competence. I tell you this from experience. The only time I suggested someone to become a mod he became a massive camwhore trap and started abusing powers like a fucking douchebag on roids. At the end he griefed TACO's Badfaceshire when he got mad at him. Then, the only time AlphaBernd let people to choose a mod for each nation we had an incompetent Red who never showed up (powers without obliation) and shit-for-brains dipshit who rollbacked the server for two days. Appointing mods is based on the admin's judgement uniquely. This is not a democracy. — caBastard 2013/02/10 06:10
Constitution Draft
bold parts are updated, compared to the current Rules of Engagement. — mazznoff 2013/02/22 12:04
mazznoff: looks gud 5/5 –Rosenmann
Nice job Mazz.
I could write the Autism Law, is that okay? — Ranshiin 2013/02/09 22:16
please don't edit the draft itself, use other sections to comment on it. — mazznoff 2013/02/10 08:26
I can't see much wrong with those rules. I just have a couple things that should be changed.
12. When determining ban longevity, a moderator / admin should take into account the following factors: the player’s political status, duration of the presence on the server, amount of damage done, previous ban history.
May I also suggest factoring in the mental state of the player? I mean I have been banned while being far from sober a few times.
22. Moderators are there to help players.
I'd probably add a little note here saying mods are here to help not to be servants, you can't expect a mod to teleport noob1 to noob2 every 5 minutes because they lost them in a forest or keep dying
— green kitten 2013/02/10 13:23
12 I think you are suggesting that drunk players should have shorter bans, but that devalues the amount of damage they might do. Also, there is no sure way of verification of the mental state of a player.
22 I agree entirely, but no good wording comes to my mind.
— mazznoff 2013/02/10 13:39
15. The moderator should stipulate the ban reason in the language of the accused player [based on the country of his login].
Ban reason should be written in english so everyone can understand it, especially players following the events ingame. This will provide legal security. If a player cant understand a ban reason written in english he isnt welcome here anymore, this is the fucking /int/ server. Its not like he couldnt translate it himself in the worst case, and if he cant, well then he is on the wrong server anyway. — areteee 2013/02/10 14:23
I don't think the server is explicitly kc /int/'s. Other players are welcomed too. This rule is the basics of the criminal procedure, because the accused HAS to know what he is charged with.
But when we have the Constitution in English, I guess you have a point. Maybe the language requirement is excessive.
— mazznoff 2013/02/10 14:45
Also, missing things: entities griefing, pets/cattle killing, usage of public farms, battles must be overseen by moderators, “outlawing” as type of punishment.
Suggested: #15 → English language, #20 2 → 3, #22 → + 'within reason'.
— mazznoff 2013/02/10 14:51
Also, a wiki page to keep track of current bans and their respective durations. Maybe correlated with a few records for maximum ass devastation :–D
— Ranshiin 2013/02/10 19:40
As the person who originally wrote the Rules of Engagement, I say with some embaressment that they were never intended to last this long. They were originally only meant to be a temporary solution to an emergency problem. For this reason, they are absolutely terrible. They're far too complicated and specific and inflexible. No math should be involved in this stuff. I wrote some updated rules that I think will be just as binding but will also be much easier to understand. In addition I posed a few more suggestions about possible rules on a new map. Click here to read :-----DDDDD — V1adimirr 2013/02/23 01:23
I also posted something yesterday, you can compare it to v1ad's version. His proposition is more specific on battle guidelines (and probably better) than mine, which is also covering other topics like nation privileges. — Enton 2013/02/23 01:35
I was going to write some more about other topics, but what you've written is more or less what I was going to suggest. I support all of it. I think our positions on war are more or less the same with some minor differences. I don't think, as you say, we should ban all war for war's sake if both sides agree to it. However I like your part “During a war, players of a nation can kill members of its enemy nation on its territory at any time.” I would add that to my own suggestion. Everything else in there I support completely. — V1adimirr 2013/02/23 01:47
I drafted up a coherent constitution and rules of engagement here that made minor edits to this constitution by including some of the above and some other suggestions people have provided. I believe it to be both in the spirit of mazznoff's constitution while being perhaps more easily applicable to daily life on the server. Please comment and include any concerns you have on it, as I would like to make this proposal to te3 ASAP. Cheers. — V1adimirr 2013/02/23 22:24