The simpler the rules, the easier it is for new people to actually take the time to read and remember them. +1
Well, the only real difference between official owners and legal owners are reclaims and applications, neither of which are rules. Applications are already covered on literally every app wiki section. Reclaims aren't mentioned really anywhere, so that also doesn't need to be changed. Some things could get their own wiki page, like the /own section of the rules. Other things should probably just be removed entirely without needing to be mentioned. That's exactly my point here. Right now, the rules are based around the concept that there are certain things you cannot do. If you bring up a new thing, the rules allow it until a line gets added to specifically prohibit it, or you get a murky interpretation of other specific rules. The main idea here is changing the rules from specifics to guidelines, where you should be able to easily tell whether something is good or not based on the principle behind the rule you think you might be violating.
The fact that current rules are a patchwork is no argument against having detailed rules: it's an argument against having incomplete rules, which therefore had to be patched up because they were incomplete and too vague in the first place! The rules in 2011 were designed for a different server and with less experience and knowledge on what ought to be an effective rulebook. Current rules are a mess because they were not designed carefully according to what the server is now, but they are just the result of adding a patch here and there to a skeleton that was designed in another era. I'm not explicitly against short rules: I'm against them being short for the sake of shortness, which is nonsense. The purpose should be effectiveness, not shortness: and if you design rules carefully to be effective, then they will automatically be shorter than the patchworked mess we have now! But, on the other hand, if you design rules to be short, here's the best rulebook ever (according to that metric): Spoiler: The best rulebook ever EcoCityCraft Rulebook Don't be an asshole. When in doubt, ask a mod. The end. TL;DR: I'm all for a redesign of the rules, but the aim should not be shortness: it should be effectiveness. If you aim for effectiveness, then you will automatically get a rulebook shorter than the current mess. Don't mix cause with effect: shortness is a consequence of effectiveness, not the other way around!
Uhm, ok... and? I'm elaborating on why I'm against the original suggestion, and therefore it follows naturally to say how I think it would be improved, and why. Shouldn't I elaborate on the reasons at the root of my stance? Wouldn't be pointless to just say "No and I'm not gonna tell why"? Wouldn't be better to say "No, because so and so"? Wouldn't be even better to say "I see a problem here, but it would be much better to do it this way"? The point of filing a suggestion on public forum rather than in private to staff is to encourage discussion and constructive criticism. Wasn't I trying to be constructive? I don't understand the point of your comment.
+1 At least a simple list of single or couple dozens of rules can help much as long as it covers most of the rules, even if it is there as a alternative version of the rules.
What I'm saying that while you're saying you're against the suggestion... your proposal is the exact same as the suggestion itself. You've said yourself: This is exactly the point of the suggestion - the rules should be simple and to the point. Long, specific rules are not effective. This has been underlined every single time a specific change has been made. I could easily change where I've said "make the rules shorter" to "make the rules better" and my meaning here would be exactly the same. The purpose is shorter, more effective rules. Not just shorter rules.
Nicit, I believe his point is this: Great rulebooks are short and effective. He is worried that your rulebook is merely short, and does not contain the "effective" part. if you still don't understand his point, check the spoiler, it might help. if you do understand, don't look in the spoiler, it might further confuse you. Idk. Spoiler Let's say you have a deductive reasoning "problem" (can't think of how else to put it) that says the following: "If someone lives in Texas, then they live in the United States of America." That bit of deductive reasoning, however, does not mean that someone who lives in the United States of America lives in Texas. They might live in New York, or Florida. What ex is saying, I believe, is that he's worried you're taking this: "If a rulebook is effective, it is short." And only using and/or worrying about the "short" part. My apologies if my post is, at this point, entirely unnecessary.
Yeah I support it. I feel people need a to-the-point set of rules that outlines what kind of conduct is expected/disallowed on the server. Right now the rules attempt to target every past, present and possibly future situation. It makes a lot of loopholes and they are so specific that when something comes up that isn't explicitly stated in the rules no one knows what to do about it. I also support additional information pages to express the rules we have for town evictions and such(multiple accounts might be another such page). I've read the rules front to back many times over in my time here, and did fully read them before I joined. However I am not most people and can justify that many many newer players have said they don't read our rules because they are very very long. The rules are pretty ineffective right off the bat if people wont read them in the first place. Also technicalities are dumb, which is sometimes what some situations boil down to because the rules are way too specific. I'd like to see "you broke this 'general rule' because you're not being respectful" and not "technically that's legal since the rules do not specifically disallow it".
Then write a better one. I don't care, the draft I've worked with is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that we make the rules more effective by simplifying them. The draft is mainly meant as an example that's had enough work put in on it that it could be used with whatever changes are deemed necessary.
I'd definitely like to see the rules simplified. Like Clar said, there's so many technicalities that basically cover every single possibility. Whilst this is good from a staff members point of view, a new player won't sit and read the 9,000 words upon joining. Maybe the staff guidelines should have specifics in (which I believe they do) and then the rules cover simply what is and isn't allowed. If this is accepted, I'd agree with some guides or something on the wiki to help explain, and just to clarify things. +1
I think having a condensed version is fine, but we shouldn't get rid of the old version. If somebody wants to know if something is illegal right now they can go to the rules and check. If it's not there they THEN can ask a staff/someone gets reported for it, and it is at that point staff opinion/discussion comes into play. Worse case scenario it now needs to be added to the rules and than it will now be known from the start its illegal. With a condensed set of rules it is almost entirely up to the staff from the get go, and undoubtedly because they are not all same people will give different answers at some point. I just don't see the point of getting rid of something that isn't wrong, it serves as clarity.
But yet time and time again we have the same issue of staff disagreeing on what the rules mean. Clearly complex rules aren't preventing this, so why have them?
Current rules aren't preventing this, because they are an incomplete (but nonetheless complex) patchwork resulting from adding a patch here and there, where every patch was added during the years only to avoid a particular behavior and not to explain the spirit of the rule. Well thought rules, though, (i.e: a minimal complete set of rules each equipped with a detailed explanation of its spirit) will prevent this.
I think you've missed the point. What I've said is by keeping the current rules staff/players will at least have some definite rules to fall back on. Whereas with the condensed rules they will need to discuss every decision/rule. Just because our current set requires some discussion on rules does not mean we should switch to a set of rules that requires discussion on everything. Again, I'm all for having a condensed version for builders to read but the old version should stay.
Totally agree. Personally I think that: [new well thought detailed rules + condensed version] > [old patchwork rules + condensed version] > [old patchwork version only (current situation)] > [condensed version only (original suggestion)]. If there's not enough time to write a new detailed rulebook on top of a condensed version, then I'm all with riku: we should keep the old rules in addition to the condensate. But even better would be to find the time (and people!) to write a new, well thought, complete rulebook (and should manpower outside staff be needed, I volunteer to participate in a collaborative effort).
How will simpler rules require a discussion on everything, though? I really fail to see how that's the case.
