Right now the rules are a 7800 word page with multiple redundancies and the complexity of a legal document. This is ridiculous. There's now other word for it. Long and overly specific rules create problems. How? > Long specific rule bans A, B, C, and D. > Introduce a new feature or someone finds a loophole. Finds a new bad thing called E. > Write clause adding E to long specific rule at the end of A, B, C, D. > repeat ad infintum Broader, more general rules are better. They allow you to encompass the point of the rule without opening up a stupid amount of loopholes. Here's a draft that I've worked on, with help from @Dewsy92 and @UnitedStates2. It's probably not perfect as is, BUT it can be changed as needed.
yeah that'd be part of the idea. staff know how to handle given situations specifically. as well some exceptions that currently exist in the rules may best be removed, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
Sorry, I have to disagree with this. Way too simple, and it makes sense so it is completely unacceptable. I am also extremely disappointed in @Dewsy92 as I would have expected much more from him. A lawyer would turn that 7800 word document into at least 20k words.
+1 I will agree that the current rules written are rather overwhelming especially to a newer player. It still confuses me at times. What if the version you guys wrote up was used in conjunction as a simplified or "kid-friendly" version of the rules? I do think that the current sections and clauses are very thorough regarding what specific situations need to be addressed but at the same time it can be seen as overkill. It reminds me of a user agreement. Everything that's written is there for a reason although a majority of users tend to scroll down and agree to it without reading the fine print. Sorry, but I just don't see the average 9-year-old sitting there and reading the current rules line-for-line.
Explicit rules open up a lot of room for loopholes. Rules are guidelines for the community to follow, not a legal contract they need to follow to the dot. Adults won't either. :b The only reason I know the rules is because I enforced them for years. (Well, a fair bit has changed since then, too.)
-1, there's nothing bad with a read. Anyway, I like the current rules because they're very specific. No need to just dumb it down. Would raise a ton of "What if this?" questions.
Its just that your rules lack a lot of details. No specifications of legal and official owners with their differences in your rules. Should add that griefing INCLUDES breaking in to trespass, even if you replace blocks. Your scamming rules are too general too. Would you consider overcharging an unknowing person scamming too? The list can go on, but I personally find detailed rules better for ECC. If you're concerned people don't read them, I think people can use common sense for at least some of them. And frankly, I don't consider ECC rules of loopholes.
That's because the only real difference isn't a rules difference, it's whether you can file apps. Doesn't need to be included. You're still griefing, though. So it's covered. That's not illegal under the current rules. Frowned upon, but not illegal. Under the rules I've drafted it's illegal if one party is dishonest or misleading to arrange the deal - obviously requires a bit of discretion on the enforcement but not a rule I'd mind adding. What's next?
How able keep the old rules as a fully detailed list and have this new list as what players are referred for reading the rules. That way we have the best of both worlds, we have the very detailed rules page if it is needed and we have the simple list for people who cba to actually read the rules even though they say they have.
But you do want some information about it somewhere, Its all well and good that the mods will know about what people can and cant do as a Owner and Original Owner, but the members wont really have anywhere to look for those rules that arent rules...
So there would be more guides and information made on the wiki? So your saying simplify the rules and take the information that isn't needed in the current rules out and made them into wiki information? If i'm understanding correctly?
+1/-100: +1 because when someone joins for the first time a long rulebook may be overwhelming, and also: "Think of the children!" (cit.); -100 because specific rules are better than generic ones, and you can't know a priori know the correct interpretation of a broad rule. IMHO, the best would be having two "rulebooks": a short one, even shorter than the one N6 made; and a detailed one, even more detailed than the current one. Alternatively, a single "rulebook" where each section has: an initial, compulsory recap in big characters; and then a discretionary, detailed description in small characters. This way: new and occasional players have no excuse for blatantly breaking the rules because it literally takes 3 minutes to read the short version; regular players don't have to always ask staff whenever they are in doubt on how a specific rule should be interpreted. I don't like to have to ask staff about the interpretation of a rule, it always leaves me with the impression that another staff member might have given a different answer; and I think that, whenever someone raises a question that is not stated in the rules, that is a sign that the rules should be updated indeed. And even though staff members' answers on the interpretation of a rule might be consistent, why would I have to ask them in the first place? If it's something that I'm allowed to ask and they're allowed to tell me, than it's not matter for private, staff guidelines: it's matter for public, general rules. TL;DR: big no to a mere reduction of the rules, big yes yes to a stratification in recap + detailed rules. (Btw, when was trade channel cooldown raised to 10 min? I had no idea! Updating my macro right now...)
Rules are guidelines for the community to follow, not a legal contract they need to follow to the dot. Making it the latter opens it up to quick and dirty loopholes, and constant amending of the rules to patch said loopholes. ECC's rules went from ~5k words in 2011-2012, to the current 9k word monstrosity, just because people kept having to patch up loopholes and add extra information. And now, just like the laws of a country, nobody actually knows what's in the rules exactly. It's quite silly, actually.
