Making rules less blurry

[hnood190]

I've been working on this document because I saw that people needed rules to become more clear.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sO34r3LjKP7DppoMccBULbkNewRf9xAhRVu32FRpJdU/edit?usp=sharing

 

I chose google docs to make it easier for me to edit things and can add people to it to if I need to.

PS. If there's anything I've forgotten or left out, or you just don't understand clearly. I'll try to update the document and answer your questions. I am also thinking of making more docs like this about cloud gaming. Already got some things in mind, but tell me what you think this community needs.

[Thias]

Cool idea, I've corrected some spelling for you to accept

[Turtle]

I feel like most of these are pretty self explanatory, especially 1.3 and 1.7 -- if someone is AFK when needed for a sit usually I just put  text screen up saying something along the lines of '/pm Turtle when you're back, if you leave you will be banned for LTA.' However I think that it would be difficult to prove that someone had the knowledge of them being reported and as a result left, and if that evidence was apparent it would just be common sense to ban them. IMO Rule 1.7 is pretty blatant in its meaning when it says 'third party software ', it already covers everything. 

Edit: I only saw the top three and didn't scroll down ?

[hnood190]

24 minutes ago, Turtle said:

I feel like most of these are pretty self explanatory, especially 1.3 and 1.7 -- if someone is AFK when needed for a sit usually I just put  text screen up saying something along the lines of '/pm Turtle when you're back, if you leave you will be banned for LTA.' However I think that it would be difficult to prove that someone had the knowledge of them being reported and as a result left, and if that evidence was apparent it would just be common sense to ban them. IMO Rule 1.7 is pretty blatant in its meaning when it says 'third party software ', it already covers everything. 

Yes, I understand, they're self explanatory. I made this because some people still have questions about these types of things. It's just to make things more clear. And having the knowledge of being reported is a rare scenario, but it has happened before, it's just an example after all.

[Turtle]

13 minutes ago, hnood190 said:

Yes, I understand, they're self explanatory. I made this because some people still have questions about these types of things. It's just to make things more clear. And having the knowledge of being reported is a rare scenario, but it has happened before, it's just an example after all.

Yeah I understand, some of the rules are pretty vague but at the same time they can't be too long so there just needs to be a balance which can only be found by seeing what problems arise. In relation to the LTA thing, I meant that getting evidence of the person who has been reported being knowledgeable of them being reported and therefore leaving the server/going AFK would be the tricky thing to get(if that makes sense lol)

[hnood190]

Just now, Turtle said:

Yeah I understand, some of the rules are pretty vague but at the same time they can't be too long so there just needs to be a balance which can only be found by seeing what problems arise. In relation to the LTA thing, I meant that getting evidence of the person who has been reported being knowledgeable of them being reported and therefore leaving the server/going AFK would be the tricky thing to get(if that makes sense lol)

Yeah, I feel you bro. It's pretty difficult. I just put it there for the sake of examples.

[Noseian]

Looks very nice. 

 

Has this been confirmed to be legible rules so staff can enforce or help with insight? 

[hnood190]

Just now, Chriss said:

Looks very nice. 

 

Has this been confirmed to be legible rules so staff can enforce or help with insight? 

Yes, check credits. Riph confirmed it with me.

[Noseian]

Just now, hnood190 said:

Yes, check credits. Riph confirmed it with me.

Lovely stuff. Thanks big man