Let's make "example pieces" to explain rules.

[Kotlol]

With the recent Roleplay Rule topic it helped clear up a lot of air surrounding some rulings and set the lines straight on a lot of things.

The thing is... It made me think (and seeing some other topics)

Why doesn't every rule just have an example scenerio to clear up ambigitouty on the rules?

For example (example of an example)
Escalation Rule on Roleplay:
Traitor pulls gun, kills you. <--- Not escalation.
Traitor approaches you, talks with you about "something you done they don't like", traitor pulls gun, kills you <--- Escalation.

By adding context on vague rulings or things people are confused by where the line is... No one can step over a line they cannot see.
Examples help to show clarity in the rules or even to explain situations.

I just think of having more stuff that "shows the player" rather then "TELLS THE PLAYER" will just help.

And yes I know "Ahelp if you aren't sure" but we can also just let players see what is ment. But we forget one thing when we ahelp. "It breaks the flow of the game."
And in some rounds, stopping to ahelp something and wait for an answer.. just stops your entire round.
"Is this funny thing I want to do okay with the rules? I am not sure. Ahelp." And then you sit there and wait 10 mins before you can be approved to go: "Yes this is funny you can do it" or "No, don't do it."
Sure you can do something else in the meantime.. but... it just disheartens you to play when you aren't sure.

So yea that's where this idea comes from as well. It's not that I do not want to bother the admins... but to bother the admins everytime you have an idea and you ain't sure how to rules apply to it, just makes you not want to do things over time.

So what do we all say to making example scenerios to explain rules better? So the players can infer what the rule exactly means?

[Lefinch]

I appreciate the sentiment, and sure I don't think basic, generic examples are helpful. I do not think they can account the complexity of context, nor the human capacity to take any example they're given and try and break and twist it as far as they can into a shield for otherwise dodgy behaviour because "Well it's not like the example" and then we end up relying on administrative judgement around whether you're being, politely speaking, disingenuous.

I am struggling a bit to see where the rules can be any more plain for the most part. Don't grief already has some basic examples, listen to the admins maybe but if we're struggling with discourse in a literal discourse-based game that seems like a bigger issue. No metagaming by its own virtue is going to have people trying to find ways around an example and the basic premise is pretty clear right: Don't talk outside of a round. So on.

The language rule, because language is what it is, is a hydra to exemplify (especially as English happens to be mutable so it regularly changes what things even mean as a funny joke/with the times) but it definitely seems (because I don't know for sure) to be the thing that catches most people out. Maybe here?

Are you regularly finding you have an idea that you can't see covered in the rules, having to ahelp it, and wait for a response? If you are, what sort of thing is it? Maybe there's a common theme to identify.

Do you have any examples of a rule that you, or you think others regularly would be helped by having a specific example? Not to make you do all the work sorry I'm just trying to picture how exactly this would work, or if there's something I'm missing in the idea.

[freedo5]

Monnkestation has along it's rules some boxes to explain the context behind them and they look pretty helpful to me, not just examples of interactions, but also the reasoning behind the various rules.

[Kotlol]

Do you have any examples of a rule that you, or you think others regularly would be helped by having a specific example? Not to make you do all the work sorry I'm just trying to picture how exactly this would work, or if there's something I'm missing in the idea.

Escalation rule in RP comes to mind mostly, but going through the rules I can safely say...


After you’ve selected a job, be sure to stay in your lane. While you are capable of doing anything within the game mechanics, allow those who have selected the relevant job to attempt the task first. As an example, breaking into medical and treating yourself when there are medical staff present is not okay. Choosing captain just to go and work the genetics machine all round is not acceptable.

While the captian example is good. It doesn't say what when it's "FINE" to go outside your lane. Cause in reality... a lot of people go outside their lane to do stuff.
For example when I do chaplain gimmicks, I try to include engineering but sometimes I gotta wait 15 mins before i get help. Sometimes I just grab tools from the storage and do it myself. It's not fully clear when it's outside lane there.
I have seen a lot of people go outside their lane since they got access to it and want to do their own thing preparing stuff. It's accepted.
I seen engineers build their own bars/cafe's and compete against the bartender, it's funny but.. are they also being outside their lane?
This is one of those rules that needs abit more enlightening. (it's never truely fine to go outside your lane, but sometimes you have to or else nothing gets done kinda deal)

And this is just one of my examples. Well I understand the rest fine, I know some people are like: "But that's not waht the rule says." (again mostly escalation rule comes to mind with this but I had it too with other rules like grieving I once had a debate with someone who wasn't grieving when I ahelped a griever.)

I like to say that I am "smart enough" to understand the rules. But I see a lot of players struggling with some rules saying it ain't clear.
Though in some cases they just feign stupidity like the language rule (seen that a lot of times)

So insted of going: "let's fix the rules I see struggled the most"
I am going with: "Let's just give perfect examples to everyone to make minimal confusion"

[Lefinch]

Thanks for replying, okay I can see where you're going with this a little better now which I appreciate!
I accept fully that if we can do anything to make a rule clearer, that can't be a bad thing, so if this would help anyone then great. I would only ask that as we already say quite a bit: examples aren't exclusive, as in "But it's not like the example" is not necessarily an excuse for bad behaviour. 

I have some feelings that would distract from your idea thread about "staying in lane" so I'll just go with saying I accept this is an area, especially with lower population where there are a lot of what seem like edge cases to me between "Making a reasonable effort to keep the station functional" and "denying others the opportunity to latejoin and do it" so I have to concede maybe some examples here would be good for me!