What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Removes Staff Ruling 4.01 D-Class Termination - D-Class may be terminated past the main airlock door without warning if D-Class are non-compliant, however, the attacker may be subject to arrest for violating Foundation policies, players should ensure they are attempting to roleplay with D-Class.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not as far as I am aware of
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Clears up the nonsense of the staff ruling
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Idk, it makes no sense
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The Staff ruling states that D Class may be terminated without warning if they are non compliant. How are they supposed to be non-compliant if they aren't told anything? It doesn't make sense. It also just says that people may be punished in roleplay, which doesn't really make much sense for the rules/staff rulings
Removes Staff Ruling 4.01 D-Class Termination - D-Class may be terminated past the main airlock door without warning if D-Class are non-compliant, however, the attacker may be subject to arrest for violating Foundation policies, players should ensure they are attempting to roleplay with D-Class.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not as far as I am aware of
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Clears up the nonsense of the staff ruling
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Idk, it makes no sense
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
The Staff ruling states that D Class may be terminated without warning if they are non compliant. How are they supposed to be non-compliant if they aren't told anything? It doesn't make sense. It also just says that people may be punished in roleplay, which doesn't really make much sense for the rules/staff rulings
Donator
