Difference between revisions of "Draft Policies"

From City of Hope MUSH
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(11 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.
  
=Assume Good Faith, aka Hanlon's Razor=
+
=Extreme=
The principles of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy] are equally valid here.
+
<div style="float: right; background-color: lightgray; padding: 10px">
 +
Extreme content includes (but is not limited to)
 +
{{collapse top|title=<span style="color:red">(TRIGGER WARNING)</span>}}
 +
murder, torture, rape (statutory or otherwise), incest, cannibalism
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Hanlon's Razor says "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity". Going further, never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by them (or you!) simply not knowing all the details of the current situation.
+
The following are generally not considered extreme content:
 +
* Combat including at least one PC, even if lethal
 +
* Plot-relevant, broad-strokes description of the aftermath of extreme content
 +
* Assault and battery
  
=Dead Horse=
+
Please discuss with staff about unlisted or ambiguous situations.
Occasionally, a specific topic of RP may cause so many headaches that staff may dictate how it gets resolved and insist that it not be pursued further.
+
</div>
  
This is a drastic measure and not to be used lightly. Examples of what will justify it:
+
This is the high-octane version of creepy. While these things do ICly happen, staff has agreed that they shouldn't be played out on-camera, as they OOCly upset players in much greater numbers and severity than they are OOCly appreciated by other players.
* Severe OOC rudeness
 
* Attempting to barrel at high speed toward violation of another policy
 
  
Actual past example, of the 'super rude' variety: Player #1, feeling ICly scorned by #2 and #3, wanted to abduct them for a scene, show #2 video of #3 being killed, then reveal that the video was faked and vent about their feelings before letting them go. Had they OOCly explained up front (at least to staff) and been polite, it probably would have proceeded as desired. Instead, they yelled at players and staff alike that they needed to log into the game and do his thing Right Now. Staff intervened, declared that the relevant events had already ICly occurred as desired, and ordered everyone to drop the subject thereafter.
+
Any on-camera RP of these things is restricted to closed scenes (+policy containment).
  
=Drama=
+
Any discussion of these things (including both IC and OOC, but excluding discussion with participants and/or staff) must be extremely vague: 'this was a private scene', 'yeah we "took care" of that guy'. If your PC has a good reason to ICly communicate more detail (e.g. being questioned by their superiors), then just handwave that they did so, without actually OOCly posing specifics.
  
=Edgelord=
+
(Update with references to this policy: Antagonist PCs, Creepy, ERP, WoD Content / Trigger Warning)
We don't want edgelords here. They are a net negative to the game, and should leave immediately and stay gone until/unless they stop it.
 
 
 
Creating PCs who are ICly racist/sexist/whatever '''can''' set up the following perceptions:
 
 
 
* You yourself are OOCly racist(/etc.) and get off on being ICly the same
 
* Staff condones all of this
 
* Any claims/reassurances to the contrary are blatant lies
 
 
 
Please do not put yourself or staff in this situation lightly.
 
 
 
Some of these things are more expected of certain splats (e.g. sexism from Black Spiral Dancers), and you should bear that in mind before apping a target who belongs to that splat. Fade to Black, Avoidance, and other relevant policies are still a thing.
 
 
 
=Entrapment, aka Casus Belli=
 
Sometimes, Alice decides:
 
 
 
* Bob is a person of interest, but we're not sure what level he's on.
 
* Let's do X, and if and only if Bob responds by doing Y, then we intend to escalate (and possibly risk-escalate) to Z.
 
 
 
Provided that Alice has reasonable IC motives and legit IC info, this is okay. However, the following is almost certainly '''not okay''':
 
 
 
* Alice and/or one of her buddies tries to set things up so that Bob thinks that '''not''' doing Y will screw him over.
 
 
 
This is not measured threat response, this is just '''bullying'''. Bob, upon realizing his situation, may just OOCly quit without Alice and company needing to go any further.
 
 
 
Z may include not only obvious direct measures like 'kill Bob' or 'lock Bob up', but also indirect measures like 'blackmail Bob into leaking more IC info'.
 
 
 
=Jumping the Gun=
 
If you +request something and staff hasn't done it yet, then don't RP as if it was done, even if you're absolutely sure that it will be approved.
 
* You may turn out to be wrong.
 
* Another player or staff unaware of the +request may notice and perceive wrongdoing.
 
 
 
Example: You want to join a faction and then RP with an existing member at one of their hideouts. You can still RP with them, just somewhere else.
 
 
 
If staff has done part of it but not all, then it's okay to RP the part that's done, unless staff advises otherwise.
 
 
 
=Let's You And Him Fight=
 
 
 
=Multi-faction=
 
Each PC can only have one Faction on +sheet. This is intentional and will not change.
 
 
 
Many PCs effectively participate in more than one faction, e.g. a Tradition mage who's also Garou kinfolk.
 
* This is okay, but one still needs to be selected as primary.
 
** You may base your choice on which one you RP with more often, and/or which one you would more likely choose if they came into conflict.
 
* You can be OOCly granted access to the hideouts/bboards/channels of your secondary faction.
 
** If it has PC leaders, one of them needs to vouch that you're ICly in good standing with them. (If this appears to have been skipped, it probably just happened quickly enough not to incur an obvious delay.)
 
** This does not affect +census or +roster.
 
 
 
See also: +rules multiclass (and vice versa)
 
 
 
=PVP=
 
 
 
=Slap Fight=
 
The following type of thing is considered acceptable:
 
 
 
* Alice and Bob (Gaian Garou) would enjoy the challenge of a fight with Charlie and David (Black Spiral Dancers).
 
* However, Alice and Bob don't particularly care ''which'' BSDs they're fighting, just the greater variety of powers/items/tactics (rather than a ST having to create and direct NPCs). They have no vested OOC interest in ending Charlie or David's RP, may not even ICly know that they're BSDs, and don't want it to affect future social RP with them.
 
* Charlie and David feel the same way in the other direction.
 
* The four of them agree in advance to apply NPC substitution: For the purpose of Alice and Bob's RP, Charlie and David represent Wyrm NPCs who just happen to have Charlie and David's stats and items, and any followup investigation will lead to more NPCs (not to Charlie or David or their buddies). Similarly, for the purpose of Charlie and David's RP, Alice and Bob represent Gaian NPCs.
 
  
 
=Miscellaneous=
 
=Miscellaneous=
* General: In a situation requiring staff involvement, continuing to add complications faster than staff can keep up.
+
* 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.
 
* General: Repeatedly making unconfirmed and self-serving claims about what another person feels.
* Vampire: Risk implications of feeding on a PC
+
** 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.
* Shifter: Examples of what will reasonably draw a punishment rite, including risk escalation if needed
+
* 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 13:35, 29 September 2024

This page is for policies that are likely to be formally added, but content is still being workshopped by staff.

Extreme

Extreme content includes (but is not limited to)

(TRIGGER WARNING)

murder, torture, rape (statutory or otherwise), incest, cannibalism

The following are generally not considered extreme content:

  • Combat including at least one PC, even if lethal
  • Plot-relevant, broad-strokes description of the aftermath of extreme content
  • Assault and battery

Please discuss with staff about unlisted or ambiguous situations.

This is the high-octane version of creepy. While these things do ICly happen, staff has agreed that they shouldn't be played out on-camera, as they OOCly upset players in much greater numbers and severity than they are OOCly appreciated by other players.

Any on-camera RP of these things is restricted to closed scenes (+policy containment).

Any discussion of these things (including both IC and OOC, but excluding discussion with participants and/or staff) must be extremely vague: 'this was a private scene', 'yeah we "took care" of that guy'. If your PC has a good reason to ICly communicate more detail (e.g. being questioned by their superiors), then just handwave that they did so, without actually OOCly posing specifics.

(Update with references to this policy: Antagonist PCs, Creepy, ERP, WoD Content / Trigger Warning)

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.