Feedback Clarity in regards to the *additions* to rule 4.
#2
That's almost never a cause for bans though.

"For reference I haven't been bwoinked or in any admin related incidents to the topic in game, so I'm not sure on the exacts of how this is enforced."

Pretty mildly. Usually a simple warning of "hey, don't", not a ban.

The gist of the rule is this:
The game needs to have security players. Security is part of the gameflow. Traitors need an adversary.

We don't want the players behind those needed roles getting berated and compared to fascists, called 'pigs' or having their gameplay compared to irl police brutality and police abuses. It's just gonna make them feel like shit for playing a role the game needs.

Of course there's always gonna be a ton of overlap between any form of science fiction and critiques of real world policies and societal and technological trends. Y'know, the Problems of Today made Worse Tomorrow!


Honestly a lot of it has to be Vibes Based, which is hard to codify.

"Fuck the Law!" - fine. classic sass. no notes
"Fuck you pigs!" - bit too abusive and irl-baggage-loaded towards the player playing the assigned role
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Clarity in regards to the *additions* to rule 4. - by Cogwerks - 06-13-2025, 08:33 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)