Rule Suggestion Restrict on the spot "rulings" to SSL+

["Recker"]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove?
This completely removes the ability for Server Leadership (except SSL+) to make rulings on the spot. Instead, rulings must be made via edits (as intended) to the existing Staff Rulings thread on the forums, or modifications to the existing rules. Verbal rulings will no longer be allowed.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?

https://civilnetworks.net/community/threads/site-admin-site-affairs-rule-or-ruling.24470/

My suggestion is different because it removes the ability for normal SL to issue verbal rule clarifications, some of which may be completely contradictory to what is listed on the server rules.

Possible Positives of the Suggestion (At least 2):
- Less confusion. Everyone here has experienced a time where SL has made a ruling that is either completely contrary or completely different than what is literally listed on the rules sheet. Some people even get warned due to these "rulings".
- More bureaucracy (which in this case is a good thing!). The Staff & SL team must work together to get staff rulings or rule changes approved as to just doing it on their own volition.

Possible Negatives of the Suggestion:
- Nothing! I sincerely think every CN player would thoroughly enjoy this change.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted?
I think this is a shot in the dark on whether or not it will be accepted, but I as well as tons of other CN players have came across times where we've been pulled to a staff room and told "You can't do this". We make the argument of "Well the rules and staff rulings thread doesn't say that" and get told "Well I'm SL and I'm making a ruling on it right now". However, this is not written down anywhere. This leads to some of the same staff involved warning others for rulings that are quite literally not listed on the rules that we're supposed to follow.

While I enjoy my time here in Civil Networks, this is the only community I have been in that has had so many verbal changes to the rules by SL, it's incredibly hard to follow. One my ask - why not just adjust the staff ruling thread? Why not add/remove rules from the rules list? Every single other community manages to do this yet we do not see Civil Networks do it. If you look in the changelogs channel on Discord there has been 5 rule adjustments since early February, 3 of which revolve around the new SCPs. This is despite staff insisting there are new rulings in place "behind the scenes".

Overall, this should be accepted because we simply cannot follow rules we don't know about, and I think a lot of us are being tired of being pulled to sits for something an SL says is against the rules, but is not literally written down on either the Staff Rulings thread or the SCP-RP Server Rules.

@Starling6 (@'ing you because I know you'll like this suggestion lmao)

 

[Pod]

+Support

 

[The Guardian]

I think this really encapsulates a lot of the community's opinion on SL rulings, SL say something in passing that only 5% of the player base knows about, the other 95% gets warned for it.

Not defending staff here, but this one was actually put into staff rulings (for once.)

 

[cityismy]

Not defending staff here, but this one was actually put into staff rulings (for once.)

They didn't though, they in fact put the exact opposite into rulings

 

[Emilia Foddg]

interesting - the general premise makes sense, however;

- Nothing! I sincerely think every CN player would thoroughly enjoy this change.

you forget that this makes rulings less flexible and able to adapt to circumstances where players figure out some kind of technicality or something else that should otherwise be clarified as a ruling, but it is not covered, leading to either abuse, confusion or both - even though the current way of doing things is less transparent and more unfair, it allows for certain issues to be dealt with quicker; there are a lot of things that people feel staff are slow on in the first place and serving to slow them down even further may potentially make this worse

additionally, this would require staff to regularly edit the staff rulings post, as you mentioned with the bureaucracy part - what you fail to realise is that, on top of the additional overhead with having them regularly micromanage the staff rulings post to make it as transparent as possible for everyone to reference, this would very likely mean that staff rulings becomes a massive block of text, which can be information overlord, esp. for new players trying to get into the community, would make it hard for them to understand the rules and properly integrate into the community (that being said, the current situation with what are effectively 'hidden rules' also similarly accomplishes this); among other issues

ultimately, this is a very complex topic to pick apart and i believe that it will ultimately be denied, with high likelihood that it's for some of the reasons i've outlined above

that being said, i do agree that there is a clear need for changes as to how the rules are accessed and presented. i don't know the exact solution, but i'm not of the inclination to believe that staff are actively doing nothing on this front. again with the bureaucracy point, the way staff is is already a bureaucracy (which is why it's 'more bureaucracy' in the OP), and unfortunately, these are large, slow-moving machines

-/+ Neutral
i don't see this being accepted exactly as written, but i believe the denial will mostly be some kind of general reassurance from SSL+ on how they plan to change/improve the existing rules system going forward

 

[Cartoonjunkies]

interesting - the general premise makes sense, however;

you forget that this makes rulings less flexible and able to adapt to circumstances where players figure out some kind of technicality or something else that should otherwise be clarified as a ruling, but it is not covered, leading to either abuse, confusion or both - even though the current way of doing things is less transparent and more unfair, it allows for certain issues to be dealt with quicker; there are a lot of things that people feel staff are slow on in the first place and serving to slow them down even further may potentially make this worse

additionally, this would require staff to regularly edit the staff rulings post, as you mentioned with the bureaucracy part - what you fail to realise is that, on top of the additional overhead with having them regularly micromanage the staff rulings post to make it as transparent as possible for everyone to reference, this would very likely mean that staff rulings becomes a massive block of text, which can be information overlord, esp. for new players trying to get into the community, would make it hard for them to understand the rules and properly integrate into the community (that being said, the current situation with what are effectively 'hidden rules' also similarly accomplishes this); among other issues

ultimately, this is a very complex topic to pick apart and i believe that it will ultimately be denied, with high likelihood that it's for some of the reasons i've outlined above

that being said, i do agree that there is a clear need for changes as to how the rules are accessed and presented. i don't know the exact solution, but i'm not of the inclination to believe that staff are actively doing nothing on this front. again with the bureaucracy point, the way staff is is already a bureaucracy (which is why it's 'more bureaucracy' in the OP), and unfortunately, these are large, slow-moving machines

-/+ Neutral
i don't see this being accepted exactly as written, but i believe the denial will mostly be some kind of general reassurance from SSL+ on how they plan to change/improve the existing rules system going forward

The fact that it would be information overload even when written down shows just how ridiculous the concept of rulings in their current state are. Because currently, you just have to remember them. And as has clearly been seen, there’s a lot, and they’re very rarely communicated.

If staff rulings are so common and abundant that they would be an unreadable mountain of text that would be too big for the staff to manage or players to read, expecting people to remember them all let alone be able to follow them is an insane prospect.

 

[The Guardian]

They didn't though, they in fact put the exact opposite into rulings

People just keep saying the gate is the base

 

[Shark]

its funny that this has to be a suggestion. in my opinion, this server has been the worst when it comes to rule transparency. i understand the "want" of reducing rules page size but we have CTRL-F and sometimes you have to do what you "need." I've had to write down unwritten rulings along with screenshots/clips proving they're real so that people can use them in sits as they need. i don't know why as a player base it's in our hands to record the staff team's every whim because they can't be bothered to record it on the page specifically provided to them.

+SUPPORT

 

[Pyro]

Personally, I don't think "On the spot" rulings should even exist, it causes confusion within the Staff Team & Community as 99.9% of the Playerbase would be unaware of said "ruling" unless it was mentioned publicly in an announcement channel.

 

[J. 'Eidolon' Shekelstein]

+ Support
Fun fact on US, you are not allowed to spawn vehicles during a raid!
Fun fact, you couldn't camp vents as per a rule but then they changed their mind a week later and told no one!
Fun fact, they made a ruling where you couldn't place anchors down during CI raids unless there was a TB confirmed, then they changed their minds!
Fun fact, they made a ruling saying you could use PAC to find DCs but then changed their minds 3 days later!
Fun fact, D-Class can't use 914 until 10 minutes after nuke or restart! Its FailRP!
Fun fact, if Foundation gets everybody out, they can nuke a CI raid!
Fun fact, you could kidnap on NHU but then they changed their minds a week later!
Fun fact, its not basecamping if they look at you! (Not joking)
Fun fact, you can metagame surface medics/chefs! (this is a good one)
Fun fact, you remember the D-Class 914 ruling, that was never written down when it was made!
Fun fact, they made a ruling saying you could ask for an entire group of people during interrogation, then changed their minds a week later after it affected CI!


I have a lot more of these!

Fun fact on US UNGOC can bomb their own base when being raided!
Fun fact using shields to create pixel peeks is not allowed! (good one)
Fun fact it is FailRP to instantly begin info breaching as CI or GOC after failing a Main Raid! (another good one)
Fun fact Calling out a fake with the reason being there being more than ONE Commander or LTCOM is not Metagaming!
Fun fact it is NOT metagaming to call out a Jr. Researcher disguised person that has a Sr. Researcher keycard! (if they have the same model)
Fun fact CI can use dimensions to get into SCP-008 but cannot use dimensions to exfiltrate syringes out of the CC.
Fun fact 22415 cannot beam any SCP's unless there are combative doing the same nearby! (who did this?!?)
Fun fact 22415-3 cannot use his main ability to throw SCP's into teslas / turrets (the whitelist is usesless now)
The funniest fact of all!! SL can enforce rules that aren't written on the forums even if you have no clue they existed!! (ruled by senior admin)

Do staff on the US just not respect the rulings?

and

If they don't then are they not punished by senior staff?

 

[ToasterStrudels]

Do staff on the US just not respect the rulings?

and

If they don't then are they not punished by senior staff?

most of the time it's your word vs theirs when you argue rulings. we're expected to clip literally anything other staff tell us and it's ridiculous.

 

[Canoon]

This matter is currently being reviewed by Network leadership.
This shall be locked for now and a response will be posted shortly.

 

[Canoon]

The matter has been reviewed by the Network Leadership Team.

In relation to decisions made by the Server Leadership Team in game for specific issuse, they should be respected at the time, and if you disagree with them, you should file a complain on the complaint forum to allow for futher review.

For anything more generalized or persistent issues, they will be recorded in the staff ruling threats. Staff Ruling threads are ran by the Senior Server Leadership team.