Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
talk:decisions:constitution_and_criminal_law [2013/02/10 13:33] greeenkitten [Proposal: Mod Elections] |
talk:decisions:constitution_and_criminal_law [2020/11/08 04:02] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| * 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. --- //[[caBst@irc.dev-urandom.eu|caBastard]] 2013/02/10 06:10// | * 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. --- //[[caBst@irc.dev-urandom.eu|caBastard]] 2013/02/10 06:10// | ||
| - | <hidden Constitution Draft, beginning> | + | |
| + | ====== Constitution Draft ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | <hidden Constitution Draft> | ||
| 1. The legal system of the server falls into two categories: the Admin Law and the Autism Law. The Admin Law prevails over the Autism Law, if Admin Law doesn’t explicitly say otherwise. | 1. The legal system of the server falls into two categories: the Admin Law and the Autism Law. The Admin Law prevails over the Autism Law, if Admin Law doesn’t explicitly say otherwise. | ||
| Line 118: | Line 121: | ||
| h. nation – a community of 5 or more political players, who create things, buildings and/or supporting structures and agree to be bound by the Rules of Engagement, part of Autism Law. Nations may claim a reasonable amount of land around their cities. | h. nation – a community of 5 or more political players, who create things, buildings and/or supporting structures and agree to be bound by the Rules of Engagement, part of Autism Law. Nations may claim a reasonable amount of land around their cities. | ||
| --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/09 20:11// | --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/09 20:11// | ||
| - | </hidden> | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | ---- | ||
| - | |||
| - | mazznoff: looks gud 5/5 | ||
| - | --Rosenmann | ||
| - | |||
| - | Nice job Mazz.\\ | ||
| - | I could write the Autism Law, is that okay? --- //[[imosgud@gmail.com|Ranshiin]] 2013/02/09 22:16// | ||
| - | |||
| - | <hidden Constitution Draft, the rest> | ||
| The Admin Law | The Admin Law | ||
| Line 136: | Line 127: | ||
| 3. The players, their rights and freedoms are of supreme value. Their recognition, compliance with, defense of and enforcement are their own, moderators’ and admins’ responsibilities.\\ | 3. The players, their rights and freedoms are of supreme value. Their recognition, compliance with, defense of and enforcement are their own, moderators’ and admins’ responsibilities.\\ | ||
| - | 4. Players have the right to play without being harassed, griefed or killed.\\ | + | 4. Players have the right to play without being harassed, griefed or killed.\\ |
| 5. Griefing is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed griefing must be limited by the Autism Law.\\ | 5. Griefing is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed griefing must be limited by the Autism Law.\\ | ||
| 6. Killing players is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed killing of players must be limited by the Autism Law.\\ | 6. Killing players is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed killing of players must be limited by the Autism Law.\\ | ||
| Line 184: | Line 175: | ||
| • To accept the declaration of war\\ | • To accept the declaration of war\\ | ||
| • To opt out of the war by paying tribute to the attacking nation\\ | • To opt out of the war by paying tribute to the attacking nation\\ | ||
| - | i. This fee will be determined by the active populations of the two nations: [128 *(defending population/attacking population)]\\ | + | i. This fee will be determined by the active populations of the two nations: [**128** *(defending population/attacking population)]\\ |
| ii. By paying tribute, the defending nation may not be declared war upon by that nation for at least two weeks.\\ | ii. By paying tribute, the defending nation may not be declared war upon by that nation for at least two weeks.\\ | ||
| iii. If no legitimate evidence of provocation (land disputes, chat logs, etc) can be provided to mods or admins by the attackers, this fee is waived.\\ | iii. If no legitimate evidence of provocation (land disputes, chat logs, etc) can be provided to mods or admins by the attackers, this fee is waived.\\ | ||
| - | • To opt out of nationship for at least two weeks week and return to a settlement. This will obsolete the declaration of war. If used as a stalling tactic, this rule will be amended.\\ | + | • To opt out of nationship for at least **two weeks** and return to a settlement. This will obsolete the declaration of war. If used as a stalling tactic, this rule will be amended.\\ |
| 24. Once in a war, after a maximum of three straight days of being asked for a sanctioned battle, a nation must make a choice:\\ | 24. Once in a war, after a maximum of three straight days of being asked for a sanctioned battle, a nation must make a choice:\\ | ||
| • To accept that battle\\ | • To accept that battle\\ | ||
| • To accept something else (The parties can negotiate their own rules of battle if they want to. These will hold only as long as the Whatever and the war persist.) | • To accept something else (The parties can negotiate their own rules of battle if they want to. These will hold only as long as the Whatever and the war persist.) | ||
| - | • To opt out with a fee of [64 *(defpop/atkpop)]\\ | + | • To opt out with a fee of [**64** *(defpop/atkpop)]\\ |
| - | • To surrender the war with a fee of [128 *(defpop/atkpop)] plus any additional payment that was expressed to the other side before the war.\\ | + | • To surrender the war with a fee of [**128** *(defpop/atkpop)] plus any additional payment that was expressed to the other side before the war.\\ |
| 25. Lawful Battles\\ | 25. Lawful Battles\\ | ||
| • In order for a battle to be officially and lawfully recognised, it must have the full agreement of both parties' governments and both sides must have agreed to be at a state of war \\ | • In order for a battle to be officially and lawfully recognised, it must have the full agreement of both parties' governments and both sides must have agreed to be at a state of war \\ | ||
| Line 210: | Line 201: | ||
| • All attackers are required to return any valuable loot at the request of the defenders.\\ | • All attackers are required to return any valuable loot at the request of the defenders.\\ | ||
| • Defenders may lawfully keep any spoils they strip from the raiders.\\ | • Defenders may lawfully keep any spoils they strip from the raiders.\\ | ||
| - | 29. After 3 total raids by the attackers they must ask for a battle to take place. After the battle the number of performed raids resets.\\ | + | **29. After 3 total raids by the attackers they must ask for a battle to take place. After the battle the number of performed raids resets.**\\ |
| - | 30. After winning three battles, a nation has the option of declaring victory and receives whatever reward was expressed upon at the beginning of the war (though in materials it may not exceed the equivilent of [256 *(defpop/atkpop)] unless first agreed to and in land it must be approved by mods or an admin if there is controversy)\\ | + | 30. After winning **three battles**, a nation has the option of declaring victory and receives whatever reward was expressed upon at the beginning of the war (though in materials it may not exceed the equivilent of [**256** *(defpop/atkpop)] unless first agreed to and in land it must be approved by mods or an admin if there is controversy)\\ |
| - | 31. Legal Assassination: the assassin, the to-be-assassinated and the payee should all be political players. The payee must announce to the to-be-assassinated that he has hired an assassin in due time before the assassination is performed.\\ | + | **31. Legal Assassination: the assassin, the to-be-assassinated and the payee should all be political players. The payee must announce to the to-be-assassinated that he has hired an assassin in due time before the assassination is performed.**\\ |
| III – Civil Law | III – Civil Law | ||
| Line 221: | Line 212: | ||
| 35. Tournaments and totalizators may exist. These can be conducted with the help of mods (e.g. spawning mobs against a contending player)\\ | 35. Tournaments and totalizators may exist. These can be conducted with the help of mods (e.g. spawning mobs against a contending player)\\ | ||
| 36. Labour contracts may exist. The pay should be fair and reflect the nature of labour.\\ | 36. Labour contracts may exist. The pay should be fair and reflect the nature of labour.\\ | ||
| + | </hidden> | ||
| - | </hidden> | + | ---- |
| + | |||
| + | bold parts are updated, compared to the current Rules of Engagement. --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/22 12:04// | ||
| + | |||
| + | mazznoff: looks gud 5/5 | ||
| + | --Rosenmann | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nice job Mazz.\\ | ||
| + | I could write the Autism Law, is that okay? --- //[[imosgud@gmail.com|Ranshiin]] 2013/02/09 22:16// | ||
| please don't edit the draft itself, use other sections to comment on it. --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/10 08:26// | please don't edit the draft itself, use other sections to comment on it. --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/10 08:26// | ||
| Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
| 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 \\ | 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 \\ | ||
| --- //[[greenkitten@rocketmail.com|green kitten]] 2013/02/10 13:23// | --- //[[greenkitten@rocketmail.com|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.\\ | ||
| + | --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/10 13:39// | ||
| + | \\ | ||
| + | <code> | ||
| + | 15. The moderator should stipulate the ban reason in the language of the accused player [based on the country of his login]. | ||
| + | </code> | ||
| + | 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. --- //[[people:areteee|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.\\ | ||
| + | --- //[[people:mazznoff|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'.\\ | ||
| + | --- //[[people:mazznoff|mazznoff]] 2013/02/10 14:51// | ||
| + | |||
| + | <hidden About 'Mod abuse'> | ||
| + | It should be noted, even if trivial, that moderators **are still** players, therefore bound to the rules that are mandatory in commound ground for everyone; This implies that the abuse of moderator powers is a punishable act of a certaint gravity. This makes necessary the creation of a list of reasons that define the infamous "Mod abuse", such as:\\ | ||
| + | //1// -Wether the moderator uses his powers in a means to directly/indirectly damage another player/organization.\\ | ||
| + | //2// -The moderator uses his powers to give himself a militar/economical edge above anyone else, in case the moderator himself is a political player.\\ | ||
| + | //3// -The moderator banishes bans a player with no given reason, even if the banishment itself is of a ridicolously short time.\\ | ||
| + | **Feel free to adjust the above draft** | ||
| + | </hidden>\\ | ||
| + | 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\\ | ||
| + | --- //[[imosgud@gmail.com|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. [[talk:people:vladimirr|Click here to read :-----DDDDD]] --- //[[people:vladimirr|V1adimirr]] 2013/02/23 01:23// | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also [[proposals:propositions_on_nation_rules|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. --- //[[people:vladimirr|V1adimirr]] 2013/02/23 01:47// | ||
| + | |||
| + | I drafted up a coherent [[talk:people:areteee|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. --- //[[people:vladimirr|V1adimirr]] 2013/02/23 22:24// | ||