Rule Suggestion Remove Invisible Rules.

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
J4ckP0T

J4ckP0T

Member
Aug 10, 2026
15
2
11
What does this suggestion change/add/remove: Removing Invisible Rules

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: Idk, search feature dosent really for me. Its really hard to use btw

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2): A Better understanding of the rules. More transparency with server & player community.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion: More rules, meaning someone will have to type it into the rules and that process could be long and tiring.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted: I'd like to start out by saying this post is heavily inspired by Ganch's Suggestion, where he talks about the invisible rule on TG (which i didnt know about and i play tg) And i think just in general it would be good for the server to have invisible rules made visible, seeing as people like transparency, and alot of people are on Ganch's Suggestion typing -support, because of the fact, that they want it removed. ( i also did it ) So this post is solely for those people who actually want the invisible rules removed/added to the real rule list, so they're easier to follow, and we dont get punished for something we didnt know

THIS SCREENSHOT IS FROM GANCH

1787139476156.png
 
Upvote 25 Downvote
Zen said:
Another major one: you're not allowed to repair things while in a dimension. This has been the case since dimensions were added, and is a pretty major thing given how useful it is, but there's no way to know until you get pulled after you've already done it.
Click to expand...
i could post that as a suggestion, but why dont u do it?
 
Some of these are just meant to be common sense aka TG using abilities wouldn't make sense due to the Scranton but since it's a stationary Scranton it is somewhat weaker letting you use weaker abilities. And some of the SL clarification were probably meant to be added to the staff rulings part of the forums but were just simply forgotten probably idk tho most of these have just been placed under failrp tho which is I guess kinda stupid
 
I do agree that some frequently used or incredibly specific SL Clarifications should be public that's fair enough but not all of them due to the fact that if EVERY ruling is released then there will be people who just barely don't break rules and "because it's SL clarified" they can get away with it which imo would just cause more problems than solutions. It would also lead to so many loopholes that at some point practically everything would have a rule that could be broken even just entering medbay before 5 minutes are up from stricter NLR rulings and such.

Overall negative in what could happen.

-Support
 
Cill said:
I do agree that some frequently used or incredibly specific SL Clarifications should be public that's fair enough but not all of them due to the fact that if EVERY ruling is released then there will be people who just barely don't break rules and "because it's SL clarified" they can get away with it which imo would just cause more problems than solutions. It would also lead to so many loopholes that at some point practically everything would have a rule that could be broken even just entering medbay before 5 minutes are up from stricter NLR rulings and such.

Overall negative in what could happen.

-Support
Click to expand...
Just release them all and deal with it. Either they make sense and then people stop complaining about being surprised by them, or they don't and they should get removed.
 
I am going to add a quick thing here, I appreciate peoples thoughts but it is simply unfeasible to put EVERY single incident of rule issues on a page, some parts are common sense, some are the fact that its not a common enough occurance to need logging on the rulings, as otherwise you would enjoy ruleplay x10 of having to read the server rules then also read the staff clarifications for every incident.

To quote the page:

This thread gives detail of staff rulings on various rules across SCP-RP.

Anything listed on this page has been confirmed to be against the rules by two or more Super Admins, or a member of the Network Leadership team. It is not an exhaustive list of what is against the rules, but serves as a way for common misconceptions to be cleared up by the staff team.
Click to expand...
This is a way to clear up common misconceptions, rules are not rulings, the difference between them is a rule is a statement of what is not allowed, Rulings are clearing up misconceptions or areas that are likely to result in misunderstandings.

As such we only update the page when there is a requirement, otherwise you are all going to enjoy a list longer than your arm and spend more time second guessing, if an incident isn't common sense, then it can be argued and likely avoid punishment, but some people scream "invisible rulings" in bad faith for clear violations of server rules and feigning ignorance such as finding ways to become invincible for significant periods of time and then trying to hide how it is done, this for example is textbook abuse.

I will however speak to SSL and the rest of NL to make sure we keep the list up to date for common misconceptions that are frequently caught up on, but we aren't adding every variation of what "could" be failrp as that list is too exhaustive and I am not writing a EULA document for our rules.
 
if someone breaks one of these rulings, i don't believe they should be punished on the first offense, again, people get punished for stuff they don't know and have no way of knowing. this or make the staff rulings page the same length as the normal rules. in my case, why am i the one punished with a 2 week ban if it's not even my fault? the gm that made the scp knew what they were doing by making one of the effects pure invincibility. why and how am i supposed to know that using cortico to extend an EFFECT is bug abusing. i have also found out that using a different invinciblity effect would have prevented its extension with cortico, however said effect was not used in the gm swep. using the argument of "oh this is common knowledge" is just not working, i am a ci, that weaponized an scp, and in consequence i got banned for "ruining server health for 6 minutes". unfortunately my case is one of many, it has happened a lot of times in the past and will keep happening if nothing is done about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Banks, Rosalyn 'Vrda', Silvia Venefiera and 1 other person
+ Support, every other Job makes its rules public, Countries make their laws public, and other servers post rule clarifications publicly.
It doesn't have to be anything complicated, you can just put out a monthly FAQ with the already existing news going over SL rule clarifications at the bottom or something. This would allow prompt clarification and archiving of said rulings, Warhammer does something similar for its tabletop ruleset since they can't afford to edit the published rule book over and over.
 
Driver said:
if someone breaks one of these rulings, i don't believe they should be punished on the first offense, again, people get punished for stuff they don't know and have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...
+Support
whole heatedly agree with Driver because 99% of the time its not common knowledge like I didn't even know this TG ruling was a thing so I've been using destabilize bullet freeze ETC

The fact I can be warned and banned for a ruling I didn't even know existed under the guise of its common sense is frankly kind of silly
 
what bill and driver said, i agree with yeke that its not foreseeable to put every single rule in one place, and this makes sense...

but at the same time getting punished for said invisible rulings that exist elsewhere is absolutely insane, of course only if they are not obviously a rulebreak to begin with.

the issues that (most) invisible rulings cover are rather niche, but if they show up they should be dealt with with just a quick "hey btw you can't do that", not "you shouldve guessed it was failrp, banned"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rosalyn 'Vrda'
Driver said:
if someone breaks one of these rulings, i don't believe they should be punished on the first offense, again, people get punished for stuff they don't know and have no way of knowing. this or make the staff rulings page the same length as the normal rules. in my case, why am i the one punished with a 2 week ban if it's not even my fault? the gm that made the scp knew what they were doing by making one of the effects pure invincibility. why and how am i supposed to know that using cortico to extend an EFFECT is bug abusing. i have also found out that using a different invinciblity effect would have prevented its extension with cortico, however said effect was not used in the gm swep. using the argument of "oh this is common knowledge" is just not working, i am a ci, that weaponized an scp, and in consequence i got banned for "ruining server health for 6 minutes". unfortunately my case is one of many, it has happened a lot of times in the past and will keep happening if nothing is done about it.
Click to expand...
This. Most "Invisible rulings" get you warned instantly, Without even knowing that it's something against the rules. I understand if it's just common sense that you shouldn't be doing someone, AKA using powers under a scranton, Or something of that sort, But simply using things in ways that SL didn't think of is a moronic way to get a warning. It stifles creative thinking among the player base, they get too scared to experiment with stuff because SL might instantly warn you for something.
 
Oh also these "Invisible rulings" are not some special rules that staff only see. They are clarifications on existing rules such as FailRP, FearRP, RDM, etc and what is and isn't allowed either because it's frequently asked or done for balancing reasons i.e
"Can ERT be FearRP'd?" - "No" [FAQ]
"Do you get FearRP'd when a turret from an AVL is pointed at you?" - "No" [Balancing/FAQ]
 
Cill said:
Oh also these "Invisible rulings" are not some special rules that staff only see. They are clarifications on existing rules such as FailRP, FearRP, RDM, etc and what is and isn't allowed either because it's frequently asked or done for balancing reasons i.e
"Can ERT be FearRP'd?" - "No" [FAQ]
"Do you get FearRP'd when a turret from an AVL is pointed at you?" - "No" [Balancing/FAQ]
Click to expand...
If they're already decided on and written down somewhere - which they are - then they might as well be public so that people can see them before they break something in that list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back