Rule Suggestion Invisible Ruling Clarifications & Changes

[grunger]

What does this suggestion add:
Clarifies, with the judgement of NL, whether the following unwritten or unclarified rulings are valid:
Unlikely Rulebreak
Needs Clarification
Verified Rulebreak

1. FailRP: Trading items to teammates to provide an unfair advantage (weapons to siege D-Block, cyanide in a hostage situation)
2. Bug Abuse: Use of the ECT mechanic to delay the decay of a TYPE-BLUE
3. FailRP: The unprovoked killing of a defender of a base within the confines of their base constitutes the beginning of a raid
4. Metagaming: The use of voice chat to suspect, confirm, or disprove the identity of personnel
5. Metagaming: The use of class-specific weapons to suspect, confirm, or disprove the identity of personnel
6. FailRP: The use of spawn loadout chemical grenades to combat raids
7. FearRP: The consumption of chemicals or (1.19 states no suicide via chemicals) bleach under FearRP (2.06 stipulates pacifist chemicals only)
8. Bug Abuse: Having more than 480 bullets or 96 pistol ammo holstered in one's pockets
9. Body Blocking: The use of reality bending abilities that make the user effectively invincible to body block players or SCPs
10. FailRP: The use of SCP-914 to aid in an infiltration mission
11. Hitbox Abuse: Players may only jump once within each combative engagement.
12. Hitbox Abuse: Players may not repeatedly crouch and uncrouch within a combative engagement, unless ducking behind cover. Without cover, players who crouch must remain crouched for the duration of the engagement.
13. Metagaming: Raid defenders may not use the player list to determine which SCP containment chambers to respond to.
14. FailRP: The use of "brain rot" in any roleplay capacity; documents, images, in-game communications.
15. FailRP: The order, authorization, or use of remote mechanics (tactical tablet, SLAMs, raid authorizations) while in a sit room to influence gameplay outside of the sit room.

EDIT 1:

1. Metagaming: Knowing how many infiltrator slots there are to confirm the conclusion of a deep cover/assessment raid.
2. Metagaming: Whether certain information may be considered "common knowledge" across all lives to classes that readily keep up with said information per their job (i.e. an Epsilon-11 operative dies to an SCP and "knows" where it is, even if they haven't been properly told in the new life)
3. 2.03 Real World Trading: Digital art and PAC3 commissions are exempted and may be freely traded for any currency, real or in-game.
4. FailRP: Deployable Shields may not be placed within walls or shooting windows (i.e. D-Block airlock).
5. 3.07(c) Revive Kidnapping: Revive kidnapping defined as the revival of (from: "the use of a defibrillator to revive") a player after death, ECT exempted, with the intent of that person being kidnapped is prohibited unless done in conjunction with a gamemaster conducting an event.
6. 2.09 Reviving FailRP: Reviving after death from Cyanide/SCP-008/SCP-049-2/SCP-096 is FailRP.
7. 6.01(a): Surface SCPs may not enter any Faction base unless they have been captured by relevant personnel. They may enter the initial compounds of the bases if they are shot at from inside, and may chase personnel into the confines of the base if they first attacked the SCP player outside. Once their targets are killed, they must make reasonable attempts to leave.

EDIT 2:

1. 1.20 Sampling Limit: For the purposes of sampling, each MC&D Salesman may sample their own 3 litres from any single SCP every 30 minutes.
2. 3.08 Surface CMissions: All surface and infiltration CMissions allow players to ignore raiding reasons, cooldowns, and NLR rules regarding returning to a location after combat.
3. 1.18 Spawn Camping: As a rule of thumb, players should count at least 10 seconds between a target leaving their base and being able to engage in combat with them.

Credits go to @Bohemia for these:

1. FailRP: Spawning vehicles during a raid by a defending group
2. FailRP: Stationing defenders, surveillance devices, or traps inside the vent entrance on surface to inform of a raid
3. Metagaming: Employing the use of Scranton Reality Anchors during raids without explicit knowledge of the presence of a reality bender based on past or common knowledge during the current players' life
4. Powergaming: The use of differing PAC3 outfits to suspect, confirm, or disprove the identity of personnel
5. 1.18 Spawn Camping: Elaboration on what roleplay interaction warrants combative action against personnel who have just left the confines of their base (being talked to, being aimed at with a weapon, being spotted and actively watched without apparent hostile intent)

And for every ruling on the list that is deemed valid to be added to either the SCP-RP Rules page or the SCP-RP Staff Rulings page.

With the objective of rule clarity for future situations, rules that are not written nor are intuitively discernible (i.e. may obviously classify under the umbrella of FailRP) may only be punished with a verbal warning, after which the participants or staff ruling over the situation may make an appeal for the perceived violation to be added to the SCP-RP Staff Rulings as intended.

Please suggest more as I know this is not an exhaustive list. I will add more to the list up until the suggestion is reviewed.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
There have been many suggestions advocating for singular rules to be added, including this one regarding on-the-spot clarifications, but this suggestion collates all esoteric rules, past and present, and seeks to determine their validity as official rules that can be cited for punishment.

Possible Positives of the suggestion:

• Reduces frustration and perceived unjustness when being punished for an offense that is not explicitly stated nor intuitively determinable to be a rule violation

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• Adds many new rulings which may overwhelm newer players

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Invisible rulings are universally disliked and are an avenue for frustration, bias, and negativity towards staff members, particularly those responsible for rule determinations that may be quickly reverted. Flip-flopping rules lead to even more confusion and animosity against the player base, leading to a perception of poor communication and judgement among senior members of server staff. If these rules were to be written in stone, there be concrete reference for both players and staff to go off of, alleviating frustrations of differing rulings and the potential of rulings influenced by the interests of staff involved.

 

[Starling6]

Bug Abuse: Having more than 480 bullets or 96 pistol ammo holstered in one's pockets

Genuinely didn't know this was even a ruling lmao
+support, please clarify

 

[Dark Soldier]

+Support​

 

[Merrick Travolta]

The point of a lot of these is just a case of, We don't want the rules page to be 3x longer than it is, A lot of this is common sense for gameplay loops.

FailRP: The order, authorization, or use of remote mechanics (tactical tablet, SLAMs, raid authorizations) while in a sit room to influence gameplay outside of the sit room.

This should not be happening at all. Please write a complaint or contact a staff member about people doing this.

1. Hitbox Abuse: Players may only jump once within each combative engagement.
2. Hitbox Abuse: Players may not repeatedly crouch and uncrouch within a combative engagement, unless ducking behind cover. Without cover, players who crouch must remain crouched for the duration of the engagement.

These are already covered in the rule for hitbox abuse.

2.08 Hitbox Abuse & Body blocking - Spamming crouch, jump, crouch jump, or head glitching to manipulate hitboxes is prohibited. You may only body boost with (1) other person. In terms of body blocking, unarmed players or immortal SCPs may not Body Block. Riot Shields may be used to body block players, however not SCPs.

 

[Niox]

idk any of this except for that brainrot is failrp

 

[grunger]

These are already covered in the rule for hitbox abuse.

The issue is that the rules do not explicitly state (as petty as you might think this is, players do pursue it) how many times you may jump after entering combat. It just states that you may not "spam": as always, the frequency of "spam" is subjective here.

Additionally, I've seen people complain about ducking and unducking to shoot from behind cover as it often enables hitbox abuse when used in tandem with third person.

The point of a lot of these is just a case of, We don't want the rules page to be 3x longer than it is

I'm of the opinion that the main rulings page should be short and sweet, covering most situations that arise as a result of standard gameplay. On the other hand, the staff rulings page should be long and detailed, not necessarily friendly, serving as a secondary basis for staff decisions when the main rulings may not suffice.

 

[Merrick Travolta]

I'm of the opinion that the main rulings page should be short and sweet, covering most situations that arise as a result of standard gameplay. On the other hand, the staff rulings page should be long and detailed, not necessarily friendly, serving as a secondary basis for staff decisions when the main rulings may not suffice.

and we have that.

 

[Change Z. "Somebody"]

What does this suggestion add:
Clarifies, with the judgement of NL, whether the following unwritten or unclarified rulings are valid:
Unlikely Rulebreak
Needs Clarification
Verified Rulebreak

1. FailRP: Trading items to teammates to provide an unfair advantage (weapons to siege D-Block, cyanide in a hostage situation)
2. Bug Abuse: Use of the ECT mechanic to delay the decay of a TYPE-BLUE
3. FailRP: The unprovoked killing of a defender of a base within the confines of their base constitutes the beginning of a raid
4. Metagaming: The use of voice chat to suspect, confirm, or disprove the identity of personnel
5. Metagaming: The use of class-specific weapons to suspect, confirm, or disprove the identity of personnel
6. FailRP: The use of spawn loadout chemical grenades to combat raids
7. FearRP: The consumption of chemicals or bleach under FearRP (2.06 stipulates pacifist chemicals only)
8. Bug Abuse: Having more than 480 bullets or 96 pistol ammo holstered in one's pockets
9. Body Blocking: The use of reality bending abilities that make the user effectively invincible to body block players or SCPs
10. FailRP: The use of SCP-914 to aid in an infiltration mission
11. Hitbox Abuse: Players may only jump once within each combative engagement.
12. Hitbox Abuse: Players may not repeatedly crouch and uncrouch within a combative engagement, unless ducking behind cover. Without cover, players who crouch must remain crouched for the duration of the engagement.
13. Metagaming: Raid defenders may not use the player list to determine which SCP containment chambers to respond to.
14. FailRP: The use of "brain rot" in any roleplay capacity; documents, images, in-game communications.
15. FailRP: The order, authorization, or use of remote mechanics (tactical tablet, SLAMs, raid authorizations) while in a sit room to influence gameplay outside of the sit room.

Credits go to @Bohemia for these:

1. FailRP: Spawning vehicles during a raid by a defending group
2. FailRP: Stationing defenders, surveillance devices, or traps inside the vent entrance on surface to inform of a raid
3. Metagaming: Employing the use of Scranton Reality Anchors during raids without explicit knowledge of the presence of a reality bender based on past or common knowledge during the current players' life
4. Powergaming: The use of differing PAC3 outfits to suspect, confirm, or disprove the identity of personnel
5. 1.18 Spawn Camping: Elaboration on what roleplay interaction warrants combative action against personnel who have just left the confines of their base (being talked to, being aimed at with a weapon, being spotted and actively watched without apparent hostile intent)

And for every ruling on the list that is deemed valid to be added to either the SCP-RP Rules page or the SCP-RP Staff Rulings page.

With the objective of rule clarity for future situations, rules that are not written nor are intuitively discernible (i.e. may obviously classify under the umbrella of FailRP) may only be punished with a verbal warning, after which the participants or staff ruling over the situation may make an appeal for the perceived violation to be added to the SCP-RP Staff Rulings as intended.

Please suggest more as I know this is not an exhaustive list. I will add more to the list up until the suggestion is reviewed.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
There have been many suggestions advocating for singular rules to be added, including this one regarding on-the-spot clarifications, but this suggestion collates all esoteric rules, past and present, and seeks to determine their validity as official rules that can be cited for punishment.

Possible Positives of the suggestion:

• Reduces frustration and perceived unjustness when being punished for an offense that is not explicitly stated nor intuitively determinable to be a rule violation

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• Adds many new rulings which may overwhelm newer players

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Invisible rulings are universally disliked and are an avenue for frustration, bias, and negativity towards staff members, particularly those responsible for rule determinations that may be quickly reverted. Flip-flopping rules lead to even more confusion and animosity against the player base, leading to a perception of poor communication and judgement among senior members of server staff. If these rules were to be written in stone, there be concrete reference for both players and staff to go off of, alleviating frustrations of differing rulings and the potential of rulings influenced by the interests of staff involved.

I like the idea of staff rulings getting updated but most of the examples you used are dumb or just common sense.
like holstered ammo and voice chat confirmation

 

[YandereMuffin]

The majority of these seem fairly simple to me, I'll go through the ones that fulfil that to me:

First List:
1. FailRP - You cannot teleport an item into someone elses pocket, it simply doesn't make sense in RP, so you cannot do that during an active RP scenario.
3. FailRP - As it is a raid to shoot a person who is inside their base, without auth it would be a Fail Raid, meaning FailRP
4. Meta - Using the voice to recognise someone is meta because you're using an OOC factor to recognise them
7. FailRP? - Using bleach under FearRP is not FailRP, there is no reason for it to be unless you're stripped (as long as the suicide is otherwise reasonable)
10. FailRP - I see no reason why this would be FailRP, you're breaking into a base and are planning to run hidden around there is no reason not to 914 as long as you know about it in-character and are aware of it.
13. Meta - The player list is OOC, OOC things cannot be used in-character
15. FailRP - Using an IC item during an OOC situation to gain an advantage

Second List:
3. Not Meta? - As long as the reasoning for using the scranton isn't "I see they have a TB online" then it is not meta, it is reasonable against someone like CI (and even GOC) that they would use a reality bender during a raid.

I haven't mentioned many of them, not because I find you wrong but simply because I'm not 1000% sure. Every one I have listed bar the few italic ones are obvious rule breaks for the reasons - and the italic ones are ones I don't see how they would be rule breaks unless something more specific occured?

 

[grunger]

I like the idea of staff rulings getting updated but most of the examples you used are dumb or just common sense.
like holstered ammo and voice chat confirmation

When NL rules over SSL rules over SL rules over common staff members? Have you not seen enough to realize how much frustration could be avoided by adding rulings to a page, specifically separated from the main rulings, as to prevent flooding the main rulings page?

 

[Arthur 'Deadhand']

-support I understand some rules are nice, however too many rules can easily ruin RP and fun within the server. Playing with nothing but fear of rules leads to a very bad experience

 

[grunger]

-support I understand some rules are nice, however too many rules can easily ruin RP and fun within the server. Playing with nothing but fear of rules leads to a very bad experience

Just because these rules aren't written down doesn't mean they aren't fully enforced. That's like saying you would constantly live in fear of breaking every law, statute, and ordinance because there are so many of them. You wouldn't, and ignorance of the rules, written or otherwise, wouldn't save you in either case. Would you rather break a rule that you couldn't have known was a rule or have loose but definite knowledge on rules that you wouldn't ever break in the vast majority of proper roleplay scenarios?

 

[DarkSun]

+support. I think it’s super annoying when one person isnt getting a punishment when I had previously been punished for the same thing but because of the case by case, and subjectivity of the admins in these not entirely defined rules.

I think any vague rule that can be better defined or quantified should be. Maybe a second rules page that is just the original rules but with finer details that isn’t just the staff available version

 

[Dinklesprinkle]

i think until fixed it could be clarified that medical are allowed to metal cuff stonified people to fix it as theres no current other fix (as it is infact a bug abuse method and its only verified via he said she said)

(for clarification this does not also work on the GM stonification thing they can do)

 

[Speff]

When NL rules over SSL rules over SL rules over common staff members? Have you not seen enough to realize how much frustration could be avoided by adding rulings to a page, specifically separated from the main rulings, as to prevent flooding the main rulings page?

the amount of rdm warns i wouldve gotten removed if i had, when gotten the warn, requested for a SSL member to come to the sit room is insane. there needs to be clarification so that all mods know the same rules, so we dont have to act like karens because the senior mod online doesnt follow the same set of rules as the superadmins.

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

 

[Emilia Foddg]

There's a lot of weird fluff surrounding 096's somewhat esoteric breach conditions that I think feels too confusing for anyone but myself - Which is a problem because that also includes staff.

I personally would like crystal clear, in text clarification on 096 being considered breached when all of these following conditions are met:

• The picture is spawned and has been spawned for at least 60 seconds (The player on 096 has access to this information at the top of their screen (Although IMO for this purpose, a timer for how long it's been spawned would be helpful - Which would only show all the time 096 is not enraged))
  
  
• 096 is not enraged & there are no targets
  
  
• All doors leading outside of the chamber into HCZ are open

And thus, 096 may wander. This should be a very simple yes or no. The answer I have been consistently told when I played, is yes. Yet oftentimes when I raise it, I feel like there's some level of consternation surrounding it. Why is this the case?

 

[Emilia Foddg]

This has been brought to my attention:

Class-Fing a D-Class TB to be your personal hitman (That has been stated to be Indirect RDM)

Well, it's more that I stumbled on it myself, but - IMO, it's not intuitive that Class F falls under realistic equipment use type restrictions; Because Class F is so difficult to make, valuable and rarely seen, I feel like the intuitive take is that "Oh hey, brainwash juice, I can basically do whatever I want." Especially given that Class F has this sort of dedicated rule governing it, 1.14, the rules on misuse of it feel separate and distinct.

Of course, IMO it's a given that if you say, randomly Class F someone to go on an MRDM spree, that not only are they probably going to get an MRDM warning (Because even though they were brainwashed, since the premise of the brainwashing was itself FailRP, they did not have a valid RP reason to kill anyone), but the Class F'er is probably also going to get a FailRP warning at minimum - Which makes sense, because you're just using the Class F as a vehicle for MRDM. But I could understand if someone didn't see it. It feels like a strangle opening.

I have heard a story before in which A-1 on US Class F'd a D-Class TB into being basically an A-1 TB for a little bit? I think that kind of scenario is fine, that seems fun. That's funny. I like that. That doesn't seem all that harmful to me. And of course, I intuitively thought it was okay to Class F a D-Class TB into being your personal hitman until Kake claimed that it wasn't, and now it has me questioning the kosher use of Class F (Although IMO, I don't see a problem with Class F'ing a D-Class TB into being your personal hitman unless it's like... You make them start MRDMing, idk. Before it gets to that point, I feel like it's an IC issue more than anything).

And I've come to the conclusion that not only is it not really clear, I think it's addressable very minimally, by combining 1.12 and 1.14 - Move the text on brainwashing restrictions itself to the text of 1.12, make it make a bit more sense overall, then add any pertinent examples of FailRP uses of Class F as an additional spoiler under 1.12.

In fact, making "Realistic Equipment Use" into "Realistic Equipment & Chem Use" like this may also enable easier addressing other chem related abuses that may also be unclear, as well as provide easier coverage for any future chems that could be abused. Although I think things like completely random use of say, amnestics or 106, should be more of an IC issue than a rules issue. Ruleplay should not restrict roleplay.

 

[TheKupKake]

Class F someone to go on an MRDM

I wasnt talking about that, Mainly talking about People kidnapping random people that have done something small, and getting the TB to head pop them.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

I wasnt talking about that,

Oh yeah, no, I was giving MRDM as an example of something that would make sense to be like "Don't use Class F to do this or you will be punished"

Mainly talking about People kidnapping random people that have done something small, and getting the TB to head pop them.

See, this even further confuses me. Unless I'm understanding something horribly wrong, this just sounds like good RP unless it's being done in excess - Like if one side of SC is doing this, it's for the other side to find out and be like "Hey, what the hell is happening? *3 Hour ISD War That Disrupts The Entire Server*" ...Okay, maybe not that last part, but why on earth is this being penalised?