Difference between revisions of "Draft Policies"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page is for policies that are likely to be formally added, but content is still being workshopped by staff. | This page is for policies that are likely to be formally added, but content is still being workshopped by staff. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
=Miscellaneous= | =Miscellaneous= | ||
| − | * Vampire: Risk implications of feeding | + | * General: In a situation requiring staff involvement, don't continue to add complications faster than staff can keep up. |
| − | * Shifter: Examples of what will reasonably draw a punishment rite, including risk escalation if needed | + | ** It may not be obvious to a player that they're doing so. Staff should tell them explicitly. |
| + | ** If the player keeps doing it anyway, staff will likely apply +policy dead horse. | ||
| + | ** Race wars would compound this problem, another reason why staff strives to avoid them. | ||
| + | * General: Repeatedly making unconfirmed and self-serving claims about what another person feels. | ||
| + | ** Even if you turn out to be right sometimes, this makes you look bad. Put the microphone down and let the other person speak for themselves. "Oh, they're super shy" is not an excuse. | ||
| + | * General: Making mountains out of molehills is drama. We don't want this. | ||
| + | ** Violating '+policy village idiot' is a specific and common form. | ||
| + | ** Pushing for a course of action that would potentially lead to a race war. | ||
| + | * General: When staff says they're discussing/working on something, don't continue to spam the job with justifications for your side. | ||
| + | ** The borderline between "I thought of a new thing" and spam is subjective and debatable. | ||
| + | ** At best, you'll get your way despite the spamming. At worst, you ''won't'' get your way ''because'' of the spamming. | ||
| + | * General: If staff feels that a decision could reasonably go either way based on staff discretion, they also feel that "you were so annoying that we're picking the choice you didn't want" is a valid way to pick a choice. Don't be annoying on the assumption that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"; sometimes the squeaky wheel gets removed/replaced instead. | ||
| + | * Vampire: Risk implications of feeding. | ||
| + | ** On a PC, without their IC permission: Yes, it's a form of assault. That doesn't mean everyone else wants to commit to a potential messy war of attrition over it. It's okay to avoid the location where it happened, and ICly tell the vampire to knock it off (if you ICly know who it was and how to reach them), but don't expect to get risk escalation above 1. | ||
| + | ** In another PC's domain, without their IC permission: If they ICly learn about it, this is reasonable grounds for ICA=ICC. | ||
| + | * Shifter: Examples of what will reasonably draw a punishment rite, including risk escalation if needed. | ||
| + | ** Renown crew will hopefully come up with a few good examples / general principles. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:11, 18 July 2020
This page is for policies that are likely to be formally added, but content is still being workshopped by staff.
Miscellaneous
- General: In a situation requiring staff involvement, don't continue to add complications faster than staff can keep up.
- It may not be obvious to a player that they're doing so. Staff should tell them explicitly.
- If the player keeps doing it anyway, staff will likely apply +policy dead horse.
- Race wars would compound this problem, another reason why staff strives to avoid them.
- General: Repeatedly making unconfirmed and self-serving claims about what another person feels.
- Even if you turn out to be right sometimes, this makes you look bad. Put the microphone down and let the other person speak for themselves. "Oh, they're super shy" is not an excuse.
- General: Making mountains out of molehills is drama. We don't want this.
- Violating '+policy village idiot' is a specific and common form.
- Pushing for a course of action that would potentially lead to a race war.
- General: When staff says they're discussing/working on something, don't continue to spam the job with justifications for your side.
- The borderline between "I thought of a new thing" and spam is subjective and debatable.
- At best, you'll get your way despite the spamming. At worst, you won't get your way because of the spamming.
- General: If staff feels that a decision could reasonably go either way based on staff discretion, they also feel that "you were so annoying that we're picking the choice you didn't want" is a valid way to pick a choice. Don't be annoying on the assumption that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"; sometimes the squeaky wheel gets removed/replaced instead.
- Vampire: Risk implications of feeding.
- On a PC, without their IC permission: Yes, it's a form of assault. That doesn't mean everyone else wants to commit to a potential messy war of attrition over it. It's okay to avoid the location where it happened, and ICly tell the vampire to knock it off (if you ICly know who it was and how to reach them), but don't expect to get risk escalation above 1.
- In another PC's domain, without their IC permission: If they ICly learn about it, this is reasonable grounds for ICA=ICC.
- Shifter: Examples of what will reasonably draw a punishment rite, including risk escalation if needed.
- Renown crew will hopefully come up with a few good examples / general principles.
