Talk:Rules and Policies

Names Rules

The Rules section could probably use a link to Name Rules. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor (Talk), Community Manager (Talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion List Policies Placement

I am not sure the Discussion List policies need to be here. The discussion list has its own page, where these policies are already laid out. This is duplicating information, which should be avoided. If we still feel that it's important to note that the discussion list has rules and policies, then we should link back to that page so the reader can get the full details. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a centralized location is best. I copy-pasted the discussion list rules over because they were short and the main Discussion List page was lengthy and the rules could be potentially overlooked within it. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor (Talk), Community Manager (Talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of duplicating the information, why not provide an emphasized link to the Discussion List page? It would ensure that there is no duplication and also ensure that one of the two does not get outdated. AJ 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I use the central location so that a repository of all aspects is kept in one spot instead of just a repository of links to other pages. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Dueling Rule

Due to the big kick up on the DList of 12/08/09, I suggest the following be added to the Other Policies section: Duels are serious business -- not a sport. As such, Dueling Guilds/Groups, that use game mechanics, to duel are against the rules. Dueling Guilds/Groups that use RP are perfectly fine as long as game-enforced duels are NOT used. Marc J. 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And *why* exactly is that? -Chénier 18:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I too see problems with this rule. It takes legitimate IC potential and limits it OOC for no real reason. If pompous noble fop A, who thinks he's hot 'stuff' with a sword wants to duel pompous noble fop B, who also things he's hot 'stuff' with a sword, then who cares? they take their knocks through in game provided injuries, deaths and perhaps even breaking realm laws. I find it entirely likely that dueling clubs existed back then involving arrogant bored noble fops without the hang-ups of things like morals and empathy to want to brag about their mighty skills and test them against anyone who opens their mouth. A rule like this makes OOC of things that are easily dealt with IC and with game mechanics. Seems to me to be an arbitrary and heavy handed rule.-Balewind

Placeholder Position Holders

Can we get an emphasis for all positions as well? I'm sure that players will try to weasel around saying that the statement says only for rulers and not other positions which is the actual intent of the rule. AJ 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't say its just for rulers. But I will add a sentence anyway in the pursuit of clarity. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 07:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I really hate this recent trend to want to add rules where none were needed. Was this seriously a problem anywhere? If so, where? Having all deviant or non-norm behaviour banned will make for an increasingly predictable, narrow-minded, and limiting play. -Chénier 13:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Most likely this rule will be removed and replaced with game mechanics disincentives. It will then be allowed, but you will have to suffer the consequences of doing it. --Indirik (talk), Editor (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There already *are* game mechanics against it, which is why it irritates me so much. If you step down from a position, you lose honour/prestige, and that is already enough to make people not want to step down for government positions, and at least keep the title 'till the next election. You get region damage if the guy you appoint doesn't have a claim (which placeholders likely won't have). Just add an EXTRA h/p loss for stepping down if you just got it recently, easier fix than some rule likely to create tons of conflicts and frustration among players. -Chénier 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As I am told, Marshal positions are not included in this. Can we change the description then, which currently clearly says, and I'll quote: This applies for all positions.? --Gryphon 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rules

Where do they all come from, and *why*? -Chénier 04:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tom's words on the d-list or dev list and talking to Titans about recent cases. As you know, there was no record of the rules that were expected to be followed. As such, we are collecting that information as best as we can and making a central record. We, like anyone else, do not recall every specific rule off the top of our heads and so it takes time to be reminded when certain issues come up for the Titans, we come across an old Tom quote from d-list archives, or Tom mentions something on the dev list as bad. As for why, the reasons vary depending on the exact rule. And as you should know, the ultimate reason for all rules is Tom said so. --Ethan Lee Vita (Talk), Editor and Community Manager 09:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been known to change his mind... Take friendly secessions, for example. If you can split in a friendly way why not merge in a friendly way? What if the hated people who had made the split are all gone, and the rest just want to be back in the big family. What's "as equal entities"? Could you at least check with Tom to make sure he still stands by all these rules? It really seems like you're enforcing the common play, but banning every possibility of deviances (typically 1 deviant act is enough to keep people occupied for a while, and things being unpredictable are what makes a game fun). -Chénier 15:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest this all looks to me like what happens 'when the lawyer types get talking', as Tom's put it in the past. Compromise and and nit pickiness at the cost of the game. The Inalienable Rights are paramount, we all know this. Why all this other stuff? -Balewind