[Staff Report] Either Rules need specifying, or Chosendemon needs to be less creative.

[Valdrec]

Your Steam Name: Valdrec
Your Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:42437591
Your Character Name (If Applicable): Jimmy Longfellow


Admin being reported: @ChosenDemon


Reason for Report: I, and others (most recently Steve Lays) have been issued warning points for rules that do not exist, sometimes even contrary to what other staff are enforcing. I like to think I follow the rules very well, to the letter if possible, even ensuring my friends stay informed too, but every report I have had handled by Chosendemon has resulted in a warning, for rules that are not specifically written, and technicalities, like being RDM'd and getting a warning, being told the rules are one way (in the case of that thread) only to be refuted by another staff member.

The most recent issue to me personally, is the set-up pictured in the screenshots that I always use, in order to prevent minges running in and grabbing my crops, hiding causing havoc etc, initially, I had my props deleted without a word - eventually a staff member was kind enough to tell me that although the rules did not specify, crouch jumping counted as fully blocking. A compromise was made - provided a player could walk through the gap, it was allowed.
Even despite this, days of having my base overseen and approved by staff of all ranks, Chosendemon will still repeatedly toss my props aside, or delete them, and when I happen to catch him, he will keep quoting that rule to me, ignoring my protestations that I could prove a player could fir through it.

Essentially me and others are racking up warning points for rules that do not exist, or being told to follow unwritten rules. While I appreciate that there is a rule in place that a staff member may have final say on the interpretation of the rules, my personal opinion is that Chosendemon is taking this to an extreme - responding to, as what I can tell, warning points for all sits, regardless of content.

While the thread in question did appear to lead to a clarification in the rules, I am finding that there either needs to be a further clarifcation on the rules that Chosendemon is operating from (It seems a fair request that we don't get warned unless it's specifically written - otherwise what is the point of having them.) or we need Chosen to be scaled back.

I want to obey the rules, I don't want people punished for unwritten ones.


Time of Occurrence: 00:45 GMT for most recent occurrence, but ongoing
Evidence to support your claim: Witness report of Steve Lay, myself, This thread, This image, also this one.
Additional members involved/witnessing: Steve Lays, Samuel Smith.

 

[Nick]

Doesn't seem to be a point other then you have dealings with chosen, If you have no actual point to report other then you've received warning points and aren't contesting a decision of sorts then this isn't a report its a random complaint that cant be made formal..

 

[Valdrec]

This is the most formal setting I was able to use. I find a staff's conduct improper, I am reporting said staff member for said reason.

 

[ChosenDemon]

I have not even given you a single warning point today, i'm not sure what you are talking about.

 

[Valdrec]

You haven't warned me today, but you have in the past. Today you warned Steve Lays.

You also moved my props again.

 

[ChosenDemon]

Also, what do you mean in the past im not even sure who you are?

 

[Valdrec]

Well that's not information I have a record of, so we can't treat that any more than my word against yours, but I'm hoping that others can testify situations they've had in which they've been warned for non-existent rules.

I don't dislike you, I just either want the rules you enforce to be rules, or for you to enforce the current ones. This halfway situation is giving me a headache.

 

[ChosenDemon]

4.7 You must not disrupt/direct player movement in a building, do not build a 'maze' like defense, this is discretional by an administrator, however, can be over-ruled by a higher up.
4.8 You may not block off any entrances/exits to your building. All entrances need to be accessible.

 

[Valdrec]

My entrance, as pictured, was accessible. Initially players could crouch-jump over, and while that is not specified in the rules (I consider jumping over a valid way of entering personally), I complied and made it so that players could walk through, again, pictured.

You are the only staff member (and that includes founders, such as Lola.) Who has seen this and had a problem with it, therefore, as I noted in my OP, this is an issue with your interpretation of the rules.
If the gap being just the length of one person is too small, then to destroy this entrance would mean the rules should reflect the issue with that length. However this would make all single doors also against the rules.

Any player can enter through the props. Even when there was no walking area, and it still required a jump, it was not blocked. Any player could enter.
Blocked means to completely impede traffic,
to block one's exit; to block up a passage.

 

[ChosenDemon]

I had a senior admin and a couple of moderators look at the pictures you have and they agree it is limiting player movement.

 

[Valdrec]

I can build it for you again and you can feel free to walk through the gap to prove that is is in fact, not blocked, and accessible.

 

[Thy]

To be fair, I have talked to @Valdrec about the setup pictured, and I did tell him that I did not have an issue with it and that I believed it to be fine. As long as a player can unhindered walk through the opening in a straight line and as few props are used in the picture it is okay imo.
I don’t think he should be warned for that setup since to his knowledge it was okay.

Now keep in mind, I am ONLY talking about the setup posted in the pictures above.

Disclaimer: This post can not be used as an argument for any other setups, regardless of how well they fit the description I have posted.

 

[Valdrec]

Thank you for specifying.

Now that we've established that, are we able to tackle the main issue here, the disconnect between the enforcement and the wording of the rules?

 

[Thy]

Thank you for specifying.

Now that we've established that, are we able to tackle the main issue here, the disconnect between the enforcement and the wording of the rules?

How would you suggest that we write the rule then?

4.7 You must not disrupt/direct player movement in a building, do not build a 'maze' like defense, this is discretional by an administrator, however, can be over-ruled by a higher up.

 

[Valdrec]

Something like;

4.7 You must not block player movement in a base you own, such as dead-ends, or jump hurdles. You may make scattered cover, which must still allow for plenty of movement, or entranceways that cannot be narrower than one player, exterior walls cannot be multiple props deeps, and do not build a 'maze' like defences with multiple levels and turns. Detailed base defences may need to be approved by staff.

That way we've got some degree of clarity about construction. Can't go deeper than walls, can't restrict more than existing doors already do, can't litter the area with levels and levels of props.

But that's just written from my perspective of what the intention seems to be. I have seen small rooms build (for example a casino had a bathroom, but that was just the one, it was in the corner, and not terribly complex.) The vibe I'm getting is that props should be used to cover small issues in the base, such as my gate, which allowed us to process who went through more easily, without absolutely preventing an attempt to get in.

The other issue, which while I would side with Chosendemon, it still not written as a rule, which essentially would be

You cannot market an item in place of it being dropped while being mugged, raided or kidnapped.

My issues further back than that are generally about interpretations at the time, that do not seem big enough to warrant a complete change, but I do think we are on the right page with clarifying these existing ones.

 

[ChosenDemon]

You cannot market an item in place of it being dropped while being mugged, raided or kidnapped.

If someone markets an item instead of dropping it during a mugging or etc its failRP, which is pretty common sense, but yes we need it written somewhere for the "it's not written in the rules" people.

 

[Valdrec]

Common sense is a decent argument for some of the more general rules, but a seasoned role-player might interpret convincing someone to buy the gun instead as playful banter... there are probably more compelling cases, but I feel it should be possible to shape most of the rules so that you can both obey them, and be creative, such as in the props conversation.
It can often seem like "well that wasn't a rule." But with large rules like RDM, anti-abuse, driving laws etc, we can shape an environment that needs less interaction for the nuanced issues.