Rule Rewording Suggestion

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

In rule #18, "Abusing an exploit to gain an unfair advantage" is categorized as not allowed. To me, while the rule itself is reasonable, the wording feels ambiguous and unclear. I move we add an extra note explaining exactly what would be considered an unfair advantage and in what context, helping players to not be punished for breaking a rule they didn't see on the list.

[Naomi]

What would you suggest for a reword? Personally I think the rule is fine, but I'm interested in what you think would be more concise

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

Thank you for responding.
I think it would be clearer if there was a note next to it saying something like, "Unfair advantages include: glitching through a wall or door to avoid pvp combat/death, glitching through a wall or door to get access to someone's base when access was denied", or any explanation of whatever falls under the parameters of unfair advantage.
This is a relatively minor issue, but I'd rather it be fixed than not, if it wouldn't take too much time and effort on the part of the staff/community.

[Cbddallas]

I don't see any way of defining this to include every scenario personally.  We could give examples such as "including but not limited to x", but if you're looking for an inclusive list I don't think that's workable.  The game constantly changes and staff need to maintain discretion to interpret the rules in the context of new game mechanics and exploits.

[Daypath]

I think the current wording is good since it can target any malicious behaviour without having silly loopholes, plus it seems clear, I don't know what you could screw up on 

unless if you can think of something that might be strange

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

I'm not looking for a strict, all-inclusive explanation as much as I am a brief and general set of guidelines that outline the type of thing this rule is against. The role the staff play in these cases wouldn't change.

There is one occurrence I have in mind regarding this rule. Because I did not consider it to be an advantage or disadvantage of any sort, and because the other player involved did not display opposition, I used an exploit to go through locked doors and explore a base that I was teleported to.
Of course, if the rule is considered a certain way, this action can/should be considered wrong. But how the rule itself should be considered feels ambiguous to me, and I want to change that.

Again, this situation isn't particularly prominent, but I'd personally rather be safe than sorry regarding the player experience and things that affect it.

[CRH244]

I displayed opposition to you glitching through my base by getting staff involved lol.

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

In local chat, he was quite clearly unphased by my actions. If you ask me, he's just trying to portray me in whatever way gets me in trouble and gets the staff to take his side.
I won't ask you to ignore CRH, but I will ask you to listen to me as well as him. Please keep an open mind here. Please enact community and fairness via impartiality. Thank you.

[CRH244]

If I was acting "unphased," it was to make sure you glitched again while staff were watching so they had proof and knew how you got through the rest of the base.

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

Staff would've trusted you anyway. What seems more likely to me is you were trying to manipulate the situation to give yourself leverage and power over me. If you're insecure, if you have issues, it's fine to take time out of your life to help yourself through them. But letting them influence your actions in ways that hurt other people is childish.
For the sake of keeping this post on track, I won't keep engaging in the manifestations of your troubled psyche that you leave here. There's a legitimate discussion here that I'm willing to work around your interruptions, and I hope others are able to do the same.

[CRH244]

Staff would've trusted you anyway. What seems more likely to me is you were trying to manipulate the situation to give yourself leverage and power over me. If you're insecure, if you have issues, it's fine to take time out of your life to help yourself through them. But letting them influence your actions in ways that hurt other people is childish.
For the sake of keeping this post on track, I won't keep engaging in the manifestations of your troubled psyche that you leave here. There's a legitimate discussion here that I'm willing to work around your interruptions, and I hope others are able to do the same.

Staff specifically told me they needed to see you doing the glitch to do anything about it. Stop thinking you're some Light Yagami ace detective and take the loss.

[Cbddallas]

Staff have clarified that we consider using the pet plugin to bypass locked doors to be against this rule.  Did you have other questions?  Seems clear to me that a locked door indicates they don't want you entering. 

[Daypath]

Light yagami lmaoooo

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

It was clarified in the parliament post, yes, but not in the rules spreadsheet. I'm suggesting that it also be written in the spreadsheet, where everyone will see it and there will be less room for confusion. Not everyone is involved with the forums, and punishing them for breaking a rule they didn't know existed feels wrong to me. If you don't want to fix it, then don't. I'm not demanding, only suggesting.

[Cbddallas]

How were you punished? I believe the situation was explained to you and you were asked to stop doing it.  I will of course bring your concern with the wording of the rule to the Senate for discussion.

[Wyatt408 (OP)]

Maybe "punished" was too strong of a word. What I wanted to emphasize more was that it was treated like a violation of the rules when it didn't feel clear that it was.
Thank you for offering to bring it to the Senate. I'd be fine if it didn't go through though, or if no one else found it worthwhile. I don't want to make too big a deal out of this.