What Should Star Army's Rules Include?

[Wes]

I was watching a video recently about roleplaying games and roleplaying forums and one of the things that was mentioned is how the rules of the community are one of the most important things and a key place that many potential new players are going to look at before they register. People want to know what's okay or not in the community before they join. The current set of Star Army rules hasn't been updated much in the last 15 years and times have changed a little. I want to rewrite them to be more clear, while keeping things positive, and making sure Star Army stays a fun and safe place to do your roleplaying. In particular I'd like to see better/clearer rules for stopping harassment including if it happens offsite, and ways to promote a positive atmosphere for everyone.

Before I start on a draft I think it's a great idea for me to get some feedback from the people who matter most: You guys, the active members of Star Army. So if you were able to write the rules of the site, what would those look like and what items/text would you like to see included?

 

[Ethereal]

If there's a two-way administrator ruling, remember that it's two way and not just for your benefit - don't try to do things that you'd report the other person for. That's bad faith.

Oh, and don't ever edit other people's character pages without their consent.

 

[Damaske]

OK OK, So I want to say something here, I am really really upset that people are RULE PLAYING here instead of ROLEPLAYING. What does that mean? That means that you are looking at the rules and then trying to "FIT" them into your point of view, in an attempt to make an unfavorable thing into your way. this is not roleplaying this is meta to the highest degree.

The rules brought forth by Andrew I agree in full, I agree with the rules that Wes is suggesting, I Agree to what Raz is saying and i fully back Dana, and I agree with the ruling of what Amethelina is saying But wish to add to it.

As for the Non-Contact Oder (NCO) it should be a two-way thing. I have had it used against me to kick me out of roleplay threads on a past site. It was also later found out that the one that did the NCO against me was lying but the damage was done.

If someone has an NCO against a certain player that means that BOTH people can not post in a thread that the opposite person is currently in WITH THE EXCEPTION of special event Open roleplay threads.

PLEASE NOTE: I am fully aware that this is a highly unlikely event on this site but lately past events have got me worried that is "might" happen here.

​

 

[Kylindra]

OK OK, So I want to say something here, I am really really upset that people are RULE PLAYING here instead of ROLEPLAYING. What does that mean? That means that you are looking at the rules and then trying to "FIT" them into your point of view, in an attempt to make an unfavorable thing into your way. this is not roleplaying this is meta to the highest degree.

The rules brought forth by Andrew in full, I agree with the rules that Wes is suggesting, I Agree to what Raz is saying and i fully back Dana, and I agree with the ruling of what Amethelina is saying But wish to add to it.

"rule playing" - haven't heard that in years, and frankly, I think this is really kinda silly.

But anyway, I think I've said my bit about why I don't like the metagaming rule. At the very least, I'd appreciate clarification on "outburst" and more documentation somewhere about the Star Army and other factions approach to civilian targets in wartime, and what they consider warcrimes, and if they follow the modern Western military principle of not obeying illegal orders.

And secondly, as i've said elsewhere: expecting GM's NPCs to not get questioned is kinda.. foolhardy? I dunno. I get that maybe I'm misreading this, but it really reads to me as if it's intended to stop that *too*. Some clarification would be nice. If there's a rule that basically is "At the staff's discretion, we can say something is too much", I'd like at least a hint as to where the line is.

 

[Damaske]

I would also like to suggest that we do a roleplay over rule-play mentality, If there is something that is questionable finish the roleplay being true to your character and do not break it to bring up rules, I feel that this is almost as bad as meta.

 

[Andrew]

Outburst - When someone busts out into a chat with slander, harassing words, inappropriate language, and encouraging others to join the bandwagon against someone. This has nothing to do with silencing players from giving constructive critique, suggestions, or asking questions.

"rule playing" - haven't heard that in years, and frankly, I think this is really kinda silly.

But anyway, I think I've said my bit about why I don't like the metagaming rule. At the very least, I'd appreciate clarification on "outburst" and more documentation somewhere about the Star Army and other factions approach to civilian targets in wartime, and what they consider warcrimes, and if they follow the modern Western military principle of not obeying illegal orders.

And secondly, as i've said elsewhere: expecting GM's NPCs to not get questioned is kinda.. foolhardy? I dunno. I get that maybe I'm misreading this, but it really reads to me as if it's intended to stop that *too*. Some clarification would be nice. If there's a rule that basically is "At the staff's discretion, we can say something is too much", I'd like at least a hint as to where the line is.

 

[Kylindra]

That makes sense, what I'm asking if we can put that in the rule in some form to be crystal clear.

 

[Charmaylarg Dufrain]

I like what's been posted so far but will respectfully disagree with this instance of referencing politics and laws. It's something I don't think you can separate ooc from IC for reasons that shouldn't need a 5,000 word rant or needing to argue it or push a case better than Frost did and that some us are more politically minded the same way some of us like some more hard scifi or more realism or know/like more about weapons or mecha or fighter jets or etc. I just dont want to be hindered by what will obviously become a meta rules-lawyering thing because someone doesnt like that I apply politics in my interactions.

Stop applying real-life politics and laws to roleplay

Also, I still remember the Glimmergold planning session and what happened in the discord OOC and it was the closest I have ever come to leaving this community-I was genuinely so mad and disappointed by the community, the staff, and by everyone involved. It was a very low point of this community especially because it came from a part of the community (including staff) that you already cannot talk back to or against without censure who already circumvent or cherrypick rules to follow and this rule would just be one more arrow in the quiver to be used by them to browbeat the minority of the community and make this a less inclusive or welcoming place in my opinion. I would very much like to avoid that happening again or giving them or anyone some rule that allows an entire part of the community to dictate that my RP is wrong and to not only continually insult me and other players but get away with it and be condoned to do so by staff and other community members who also participated because I did something like have one of my characters say "Genocide is not the Nepleslian way".

Sorry to put such a sour light on all that and to keep doing little edits. But its something I feel very strongly about and that affected me in a very personal way here.