Rules

[Le Fedora Master 69]

Hi there,
So I got banned for a day for 'intel griefing' today. I'm not appealing because there's no point in that, I broke a rule and will face the consequences.

However, this got me thinking about the skial rules. Specifically, how non-specific they are. Some of the rules have (like the racism one, though that one's also pretty obvious) failry broad meanings and can (and will) be interpreted differently from player to player, and admin to admin. This causes a problem for many players, because they might not even realize they are breaking the rules even when knowing them. Like me today, I know that 'harming your team for an extended period of time' is a rule, I just don't know what qualifies as an extended period of time. It's all relative to what you consider to be a short time and a long time. Is it 3 seconds? 3 minutes? One minute? It's all relative. Griefing isn't a rule, it should be. And it should be specified what constitues as griefing.

What I'm saying is, though you probably get this a lot, please review your rules. Don't have rules that are up for interpretation, that's not what a rule is. The ending to Birdman is, but rules shouldn't be. I've played on your servers for some 3 years, used to be a donor, and I love the community. It's just that, sometimes your rules can be difficult to follow because they have so broad meanings. I have never been banned before (and I have no intentions of getting banned in the future), but please make the rules clearer so this doesn't happen again. Skial comes off as kind of hostile to its' own community sometimes, and it may just be that people aren't familiar enough with the rules.

See you in a day lol.

EDIT: Seems like a lot of the skial staff/admin takes this as strong critisism, rather than a proposal. Please don't. In my opinion, Skial is already the best. That does not mean there is no room for improvement. So far the counter aruments for my 'case' has been to use my arguments by dumbing them down to 'obviously you can't hack cause hacking isn't fun for anyone', which is true, but everyone knows that. This post was intended to highlight the more not so obvious rules.

 

[Renegade]

The rules already have examples to them. They're specific enough as they are.

 

[Sargent¥]

Hi there,
So I got banned for a day for 'intel griefing' today. I'm not appealing because there's no point in that, I broke a rule and will face the consequences.

However, this got me thinking about the skial rules. Specifically, how non-specific they are. Some of the rules have (like the racism one, though that one's also pretty obvious) failry broad meanings and can (and will) be interpreted differently from player to player, and admin to admin. This causes a problem for many players, because they might not even realize they are breaking the rules even when knowing them. Like me today, I know that 'harming your team for an extended period of time' is a rule, I just don't know what qualifies as an extended period of time. It's all relative to what you consider to be a short time and a long time. Is it 3 seconds? 3 minutes? One minute? It's all relative. Griefing isn't a rule, it should be. And it should be specified what constitues as griefing.

What I'm saying is, though you probably get this a lot, please review your rules. Don't have rules that are up for interpretation, that's not what a rule is. The ending to Birdman is, but rules shouldn't be. I've played on your servers for some 3 years, used to be a donor, and I love the community. It's just that, sometimes your rules can be difficult to follow because they have so broad meanings. I have never been banned before (and I have no intentions of getting banned in the future), but please make the rules clearer so this doesn't happen again. Skial comes off as kind of hostile to its' own community sometimes, and it may just be that people aren't familiar enough with the rules.

See you in a day lol.

I like your non-aggressive manner, it warms my night. Regardless if the user interprets the rules incorrectly, that's not our fault, our rules are pretty basic, not something crazy like "If an admin enters, type Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious backwards". What I mean is, the rules aren't hard to follow, should we list a griefing rule, it might be a good idea but it's just obvious that that shouldn't be something one should be doing. Before you do something abnormal, think about what you're doing. For example, with your case, did you ever think what you were doing was wrong? I doubt it, you were just doing it because you thought it was fun but you have to understand in your case that not capping the intel either

• Doesn't allow the team to win if it's the game-winning intel and wastes their time
• Doesn't allow the team to obtain another intel if it's not the game-winning intel which also wastes their time

At the end of the day, you can't only think about how you can have fun but how everyone can have fun, especially when you're around, I love it when people enjoy my presence IMO, it makes me feel like I belong somewhere. Doing the opposite is just ruining the game for others and is basically the sole reason why we ban others in the first place.

 

[KillerZebra]

The argument can go both ways. The more specific the rules are the more people can get away with. The more rules we have the less likely people are to read them as well.

Here at Skial we try to have as few rules as possible in order for everyone to read them fast and ensure fun. Our rules cover pretty much everything, and it isn't open for interpretation. Not capping the Intel easily falls under the rule "refusing to help your team advance"

 

[Le Fedora Master 69]

I didn't say the rules are hard to follow, I said they sometimes are. Which is true, because, as I said in the original post (and I stand by this) they aren't specific enough. I get your point about fun and how everyone has fun differently, I do, and I don't find it fun to make other players annoyed so I would have stopped had anyone said anything or you know, something like that. I had the intel for a minute, I guess that's why I thought the rules need to be specified. I don't really think 1 minute qualifies as an extended period of time, but the admin did.

I've worked with PR and all that shiznit for a few years now and I know a thing or two about different interpretations of something and how it can have a huge impact on the end result, which was why I used the Birdman ending as an example. Whoever wrote the rules should ask 'What will people reading this infer from this phrasing?'', ''does this come off clear enough?'' etc. I've heard endless discussions about the rules on the server I play on the most (The 2fort US server) and it all comes back to people arguing whether they are in the right for trying to voteban someone or not (or votemute or whatever, you get the idea) because they are understanding the rules incorrectly.

At the time of writing this, there are a few examples that come with some of the rules. That's great, except that due to the broad definitions of the words used, it can be (read; not always, like I said, not been banned before this) difficult to follow sometimes. So maybe instead of just using examples, actually specify each rule with a list of sub-rules that follow that main category. That's a suggestion, in PR you should always assume the target audience are idiots in order to make it come accross as clearly as possible (there's something called communication noise which is basically things such as my arguments listed above). People can be idiots, even normal players. I was an idiot today, but I may not have been if the rules had not been clearer.:blush:

 

[KillerZebra]

It would take way to long to list every example of every rule and in the end no one would read a list that long.

And "griefing" isn't stated in the rules but it is in the rules under "Harming your team" because almost every single kind of griefing harms your team.

 

[Le Fedora Master 69]

Example:

No spamming:
Examples: Mic spam, text spam
[Click to show all subcategories]

No hacking:
Examples: Aimbot, lmaobox
[Click to show all subcategories]

This provides one simple explanation of the rule, as well as an in depth one for those who want to read the complete list. It doesn't have to be hard, but it seems like you guys want it to be and have no interest in even try to see it from a different perspective, so I'm gonna leave it at that. You already have my opinion on this matter, so there's no reason for me to waste any more time doing this little back and forth. Like i said in the original post, see you in a day sexy people.

 

[Blade D_Hero]

I think that's a pretty neat idea. Admins always say "if we list specific things people will complain and try to find loopholes." I don't think that's true if that "click to branch out categories" thing is used.

For example, say:
-Harming your team for an extended amount of time (including but not limited to)
Intel griefing/assisting an enemy spy
[click to show more categories]

That way not every base has to be covered, but people have a general understanding of what they can and can't do. Granted, many won't read every single thing, so keep the frequently banned actions as the more important examples, and list outliers in the subcategory page.

 

[Meowcenary]

The rules are very common sense based. Very few people complain about them because they're not complex to understand.

They don't need tons of examples because of that. I guarantee you no one is going to say "well it says no hacking...but it doesn't say no aimbot, lmaobox, ESP hack, no bullet spread, infinite bonk hack, 100% crit hacks, trigger hacks and chams. Those must all be allowed!"

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

I think that's a pretty neat idea. Admins always say "if we list specific things people will complain and try to find loopholes." I don't think that's true if that "click to branch out categories" thing is used.

For example, say:
-Harming your team for an extended amount of time (including but not limited to)
Intel griefing/assisting an enemy spy
[click to show more categories]

That way not every base has to be covered, but people have a general understanding of what they can and can't do. Granted, many won't read every single thing, so keep the frequently banned actions as the more important examples, and list outliers in the subcategory page.

Woe to Bottiger, if he has now type all of this up.

 

[Hessian]

Rules are there to communicate expected boundaries with the community, not to tie the hands of moderators. The idea that offering more specific examples to a rule somehow reduces your ability to enforce it is absurd. When a player is being disruptive enough, an admin is going to make a judgement based on that situation, rule or no rule. The best part is this being a skial 2fort server, where the majority of players doing everything BUT advance the game and constantly harass the "tryhards" who attempt to play it correctly.

 

[Renegade]

When a player is being disruptive enough, an admin is going to make a judgement based on that situation, rule or no rule.

They're not going to just mute/gag or ban a player just because they're being disruptive. If they're being racist/homophobic, then it's a mute/gag. If they're hacking, exploiting, etc, it's a ban. If a player is just pissing people off or saying "you got shrekt m8" over and over again, the admins aren't going to do anything. They are here to enforce the rules that were set in place by the owner.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

I think Meow summed it up best. Let me put it to you this way.
If you wouldn't say it/do it in real life, don't do it here.

 

[Bottiger]

There are already examples for rules that some people seem to want to get around or supposedly don't understand.

We are not going to be making a gigantic list of examples because I guarantee you someone will act like this "you didn't list X, it isn't against the rules, unban me".

We already had someone who complained that we didn't say "no hacking" and we only had it in a list.

 

[Hessian]

While we're on the topic of rule clarity, there is one of particular interest to me.

Abusing the vote-menu
Example: using votemenu when it isn't warranted, even on yourself.

The example provided here does nothing to further clarify what constitutes as abuse or warranted use of the vote menu. Is this a scenario where we're expected to exercise common sense?

My personal stance is this: use the mic all you like to communicate with other players but nobody wants to hear screaming and random noises constantly coming out of your mouth. I think we all know the kind of people that I'm referring to.

A few people think client muting is the perfect solution for every player, as if there's actually anyone on the server that wants to hear these people in question. But who wants to bring up their menu in the middle of combat or whatever they're doing and try to find this guy's name in a list of players (multiply that effort by # of players on the server) when it only takes one person to initiate a convenient voting process they can use with minimal interruption? A popular vote lets the offender know where they stand with the community and could influence that person's behaviour in the future. What other reason do you think a vote menu might have been added to the game?

Last night I had been playing on a server for a few hours when a player started mic spamming incoherent noises over all talk. A vote to mute him was called and after a stream of "Yes" responses start pouring into the chat, he starts repeatedly stating, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'll stop", etc. He narrowly avoided the mute but remained quiet for several minutes before he started screaming into his mic again. This time a 30 minute ban was offered and passed quickly and rather unanimously. He had acknowledged he was wrong and promised to stop in order to avoid the lighter penalty, but ended up receiving a time out in the end because he couldn't control himself. Was justice served or did I violate the rules?

A few moments later, Meowcenary joins the server and another player begins making weird noises in their mic, similar to those from the first guy. This player witnessed the entire episode with the previous player, he knows how everyone feels on the topic, but having just joined, Meowcenary is likely unaware of what has previously transpired. I bring up the vote menu and immediately start receiving threats from Meowcenary if I finish calling the vote. Dude has been on the server for 3-4 minutes not knowing anything and decides to white knight for the babbling 8 year old before I can even finish calling it. Holy shit. I understand kids catch a lot of flak on here, but I guarantee I'd be doing the same if it were a grown ass man like the one that was just kicked. Does this guy need to be warned after witnessing what happened to the first? It shouldn't be a crime to police yourselves with an admin present, it's not like they're in any danger of losing control to the vote menu (I know this because the only time I actually tried to call an unwarranted vote, Meow wasn't listed). Spammer and admin left a couple minutes later. Good save there buddy.

Obviously abuses do occur and there is a need for this rule, but there could be no harm in more clarity. A good place to start: what concern did Meowcenary have when issuing that warning?

 

[Meowcenary]

While we're on the topic of rule clarity, there is one of particular interest to me.

Abusing the vote-menu
Example: using votemenu when it isn't warranted, even on yourself.

The example provided here does nothing to further clarify what constitutes as abuse or warranted use of the vote menu. Is this a scenario where we're expected to exercise common sense?

My personal stance is this: use the mic all you like to communicate with other players but nobody wants to hear screaming and random noises constantly coming out of your mouth. I think we all know the kind of people that I'm referring to.

A few people think client muting is the perfect solution for every player, as if there's actually anyone on the server that wants to hear these people in question. But who wants to bring up their menu in the middle of combat or whatever they're doing and try to find this guy's name in a list of players (multiply that effort by # of players on the server) when it only takes one person to initiate a convenient voting process they can use with minimal interruption? A popular vote lets the offender know where they stand with the community and could influence that person's behaviour in the future. What other reason do you think a vote menu might have been added to the game?

Last night I had been playing on a server for a few hours when a player started mic spamming incoherent noises over all talk. A vote to mute him was called and after a stream of "Yes" responses start pouring into the chat, he starts repeatedly stating, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'll stop", etc. He narrowly avoided the mute but remained quiet for several minutes before he started screaming into his mic again. This time a 30 minute ban was offered and passed quickly and rather unanimously. He had acknowledged he was wrong and promised to stop in order to avoid the lighter penalty, but ended up receiving a time out in the end because he couldn't control himself. Was justice served or did I violate the rules?

A few moments later, Meowcenary joins the server and another player begins making weird noises in their mic, similar to those from the first guy. This player witnessed the entire episode with the previous player, he knows how everyone feels on the topic, but having just joined, Meowcenary is likely unaware of what has previously transpired. I bring up the vote menu and immediately start receiving threats from Meowcenary if I finish calling the vote. Dude has been on the server for 3-4 minutes not knowing anything and decides to white knight for the babbling 8 year old before I can even finish calling it. Holy shit. I understand kids catch a lot of flak on here, but I guarantee I'd be doing the same if it were a grown ass man like the one that was just kicked. Does this guy need to be warned after witnessing what happened to the first? It shouldn't be a crime to police yourselves with an admin present, it's not like they're in any danger of losing control to the vote menu (I know this because the only time I actually tried to call an unwarranted vote, Meow wasn't listed). Spammer and admin left a couple minutes later. Good save there buddy.

Obviously abuses do occur and there is a need for this rule, but there could be no harm in more clarity. A good place to start: what concern did Meowcenary have when issuing that warning?

Assuming you were that one guy on 2fort earlier, some kid said a couple of sentences and then everyone started telling him to shut up and you were bringing up the votemenu. The kid wasn't breaking any rules and he wasn't doing anything that we would consider to be mic spam.

I put out a message in chat to client mute him instead of using the votemenu since he wasn't breaking any rules. And for the record, that admin message was directed at everyone, not just you. When some kid talks and people start bringing up votemenus I always put up a message to everyone to client mute them if they dislike it since people love votemuting kids with mics when they aren't breaking the rules.

I only started referring specifically to you when you started to argue with me about what justifies calling the vote which I explained to you at least twice what is and isn't allowed.

 

[mittens]

Skial doesn't have very many rules to begin with which is pretty great in my opinion. If you narrow down the list it's basically... "don't be a douchebag." And even then you can still do things like spawn camp or play battle medic or even call an admin a dumb shit motherfucker. These things would get someone permabanned on a lot of other servers...

The other great thing about Skial is that if you truly don't get it your first ban is for only 24 hours, so you have a day to figure it out. 80% of the time you aren't even banned. You are just freakin' muted. Second time is only for 3 days... holy shit! Skial gives people so many chances to figure out that they were being an asshole it's incredible.

All these long drawn-out arguments and even this entire thread is just so damn pointless when you consider those things.

 

[Sheev_Palpatine]

The more rules and the more specific you get with them, the more people will try to find loopholes. Just look at Jailbreak. Skial gives you so many chances to learn what not to do, and most of it is common sense.

 

[Renegade]

Like the admins stated, the more rules there are, the more loopholes people will try and find. If you have a question about the rules, you can always PM an admin and ask. That said, if you have to question yourself whether you should do something or not, you probably shouldn't do it.

 

[Hessian]

Assuming you were that one guy on 2fort earlier, some kid said a couple of sentences and then everyone started telling him to shut up and you were bringing up the votemenu. The kid wasn't breaking any rules and he wasn't doing anything that we would consider to be mic spam.

I put out a message in chat to client mute him instead of using the votemenu since he wasn't breaking any rules. And for the record, that admin message was directed at everyone, not just you. When some kid talks and people start bringing up votemenus I always put up a message to everyone to client mute them if they dislike it since people love votemuting kids with mics when they aren't breaking the rules.

I only started referring specifically to you when you started to argue with me about what justifies calling the vote which I explained to you at least twice what is and isn't allowed.

They weren't "sentences" and it should be obvious from my tale why everyone started telling him to shut up... he was continuing the obnoxious behavior we just got away from. You discouraged self-moderation of a server and began threatening me over baseless assumptions that he was being targeted for his age, which I had assumed was the reason but didn't know until this post. That's how good of a job you did explaining yourself. I can excuse your ignorance in having just joined the server, but now you're implying that I've lied while simultaneously patting yourself on the back over a fabrication and still failing to clarify the rule in question.