Rule 3/"OOC in IC" enforcement guidelines?

[Vekter]

The recent appeal about saying "Cult is going to win" being OOC in IC kind of brings up an important point about where to draw the line as far as OOC in IC. There's some obvious situations where it applies (strictly OOC memes like skibidi, talking about validhunting, referring to admins IC), but there are also a few things like this specific example where it could go either way. I think some additional guidance from headmins would be nice here.

Specific points:
- At what point do you feel like the line between OOC and IC has been crossed?
- Are there any specific terms that would automatically result in crossing the IC barrier, such as "game", "win", "round", "antag", etc?
- What constitutes an appropriate admin response? Should admins be noting for this, even if the specific case isn't egregious? Should we only be noting if the player in question refuses to comply or is unable to understand the difference?
- What can admins do to better correct players towards using more IC dialogue over OOC terminology without it looking like we're nitpicking?

[Timberpoes]

What exactly are they going to win?

If it's the battle or the fight or the war, fine.

If it's the game or the round or the shift, bad.

When the context doesn't make clear that the player is saying they're about to win the battle or war or whatever, the assumption is probably going to go to winning the round, shift or game.

[Vekter]

I'm locking it until that appeal is finished

E: It's finished

[Itseasytosee2me]

I will echo what I said in the aforementioned peanut thread.

The dialog being questioned: "guys i think the cult is gonna win any second now" is not an example of using meta-terminology or out of character information. "Realism" is not a metric we currently judge in rule three, and it is generally a foolish metric to try to pursue.

It is however bad dialog, and I would enjoy a higher standard for our captains and emergency shuttle calls.

I propose an amendment to rule 5, "Players in vital job roles require a minimum amount of effort," that says that heads of staff or other players in leadership positions, captains especially, are expected to place some effort towards playing a character into their mass communication. This is not a requirement to play a certain type of character, like being a stereotypical hard-ass or putting some kind of flamboyant flourish on your message, but it does oppose announcements that are both dull and unfitting of the situation of the round, or otherwise low effort. The emergency shuttle call is often a narrative turning point of a round, and should be treated with the gravitas it deserves.

[conrad]

Like easy I'll say what I said in the peanut thread:
"guys i think the cult is gonna win" is fine, who cares.
The inclusion of "any second now" is the curveball that knocks the teeth outta the batter 'cos it goes from "fuck they're beating us" to "oh hey soon they'll trigger the condition that ends the round.

While I do not agree with the headmin's overturning, it being a note or not being a note sorta has the same outcome in the end and I think it might depend on note history. Even if Vekter shits when someone mentions this appeal on "it's revs", it'll likely end in a subjective headmin review which a rule change or headmin ruling etc., in my opinion, will scarcely matter or influence the outcome.

tl;dr vibes

[Itseasytosee2me]

I believe these kinds of very low quality speeches or announcements are a result of how we have chosen to combat occ in ic on our server. We seem to have a pattern of discouraging specific phrases, like "its revs' or words that contain meta context like antag or admin, but this kind of enforcement doesn't really address the core issue of low quality chatroom style speech, it just leads to people censoring themselves. They just replace a couple words that don't pass the "out of character" filter and then continue on with whatever sentiment they were saying.

it's revs -> there are revs
the culitists will win any second now -> the cultists will summon any second now
this round-> this shift
i'm talking to the admins -> i'm talking to the gods/centcomm
Joe Tider antag -> Joe Tider bad

The censored messages are hardly improvements from their original messages. This kind of enforcement is simply not effective in encoraging a higher standard of roleplay. If we really want to avoid this low quality slop, its going to require some head on combating by making rules that explicitly discourage low effort communication. On of the easiest and most obvious places to enforce this kind of thing would be on heads of staff (piggybacking off of rule 5,) specifically for announcements. Much like how poor communication from security can void meta protections, and can result in administrative intervention in particularly bad cases. The metaprotections and implied respect wielded by heads of staff could be qualified by their continued effort to talk like how they might imagine a person in their scenario would, and particularity bad cases could be met with administrative intervention.

[Timberpoes]

We don't actually have that many standards of IC speech on even our MRP servers, but they're kept in check by a discretion for admins to intervene whenever something might impact the quality of the MRP experience.

The LRP servers are even less because admins do not infact have the discretion to intervene whenever something might impact the quality of the LRP experience. Our LRP's quality floor is 0, there is no LRP experience to ruin except ruining LRP by bringing it up to a higher RP standard than LRP.

That leads to what little we do ask of players, for the sake of the setting and universe and any remotely small level of immersion in the game world they're playing, to not act like they're playing a video game.

However, keep in mind that too much of our playerbase are poisoned by being terminally online. Low quality lobotomite chatroom speak is the peak of their RP, because that is how they communicate IRL too. They're not professional actors, they're not capable of inhabiting a game universe that isn't just [present year] but in space and filled with your social media buddies you share all the most contemporary memes with. That is the peak limit of their willingness to put effort in. They're not here for the roleplay. They're here for action. To get into fights. Hunt valids. Maybe do a little bit of grief on the side. But above all else, to flex on other players with or without their favourite metabuddies.

And it's all from this huge grey area of RP level where what players say can be ambiguously OOC and IC at the same time. So our LRP servers are not Low RP as in we expect everyone to RP by engaging with the game ICly but they don't have to put much effort in. It's the definition of nu-LRP - where because we allow players to roleplay we're not NRP, even if little or no roleplay actually happens. And if we're not NRP, all that's left is LRP and higher.

So we have to permit that low effort communication, which makes the not-acting-like-you're-in-a-video-game part of the rules pretty much a polite suggestion more than an actual enforcable rule. As long as it's not explicit and obvious OOC in IC, you're fine. Unintended OOC in IC is permitted - if you didn't intend it to be interpreted as OOC in IC, you can say OOC things in the IC channels. Or do it intentionally with ambiguous context, since the two are exactly the same.

Since we have to permit that low effort communication, we have to allow that grey area. Put some lipstick on it and act like it's all fine.

It's ironic, really. The most roleplay we find across the entirety of tgstation's LRP community is pretending that our LRP servers actually have a low level of roleplay as the expected minimum. I think it would be better if the community actually did that level of effort in their roleplay in-game instead of their roleplay outside it.

[dendydoom]

the difficult part about overturning this note is fighting the preconceived notion amongst admins that any overturn is a loud trumpet call that signals a change in enforcement - but that is entirely not the case here.

the actioning admin did nothing wrong at all. not logically, reasonably or procedurally. we had absolutely no criticism for them when we discussed our decision to overturn. we don't want a change in attitude or direction for OOC in IC enforcement. we like that admins are doing it, and want to encourage it to continue.

we simply disagreed on an interpretation of a very ambiguous statement in an extremely minor situation.

we came to this conclusion because we identified that there are both IC and OOC stakes in the context of saying someone is winning. the greater implication on the OOC side is that winning means to win the game, whereas the IC implication is that they're about to win the conflict against the crew. both are perfectly reasonable interpretations.

the sentiment is that admins will want to see the ruling upheld because it reinforces a sweeping mandate to continue with that same enforcement. but on the other end, the player has no obligation to be the example to justify that enforcement. they want their situation addressed in a vacuum, and the context of their actions to be examined unimpeded by any greater dictation of the direction of policy.

we chose to give this to the player. without comment on the greater context of OOC in IC enforcement, we found that what was said was ambiguous enough that it couldn't determine beyond any reasonable doubt that their actions were in breach of the rules and should be documented permanently on their record.

unfortunately, there is no "they were both right" button for appeals, so this is what we end up with - an essay from me saying that while we overturned this one extremely specific situation because of its ambiguous context, we don't want any further change to admins' general enforcement of rule 3. it's why half my post in the appeal was clarifying the importance of it. we want admins on lrp to restrict OOC language and encourage good IC language. it was good of that admin to discuss it with the player, because subsequent shuttle call announcements were much more certifiably IC. we just didn't feel that the initial instance warranted a permanent note when the inciting incident was so ambiguous.

for admins to assume that we want a turnaround on rule 3 enforcement on lrp is the absolute worst takeaway possible from this situation. it is just the case that we chose to address this very small, very minor situation without the surrounding context of setting a precedent for admin enforcement. we just gave the player a fair shake for a minor note, and intend to go on business as usual with no changes to the current enforcement.

[Lacran]

I think the primary issue with that note from my perspective is establishing a player history of rule 3 breaks based on something totally ambiguous.

Overall rule enforcement shouldn't start with failing a 50/50 coin toss, and then having that result affect how other admins determine that ambiguity in the future.

For me, that sort of creates a self fulfilling prophecy of rule breaks, based on something totally innocuous that snowballs into being less and less generous to the player simply for being unlucky.


The goal should be to curb immersion breaks from clear cut violations, not become grammar police micro-managing player phrasing.

The bar needs to be "I can't find a reasonable ingame way to interpret the statement you made" not "I can find a reasonable ooc way to interpret that statement you made"

[TheBibleMelts]

the way this has been historically seen and enforced was to push the spirit and idea of immersion. you should not be doing things that take other, more immersed people out of their spacemans just because you do not take the in-character aspect of ss13 as seriously - there are others servers that cater to this mindset. this was a server founded off of a ttrpg forum and the philosophy of buying into the universe was a core assumption that we all enjoyed and were here to do, and I think over time it's been forgotten.

[conrad]

this was a server founded off of a ttrpg forum

XEMO knows his HISTORY

[Itseasytosee2me]

Good sentiments reflected by our headmins and ex-headmins, but its very difficult to argue that our current rules reflect this. An amendment is necessary.

[TheBibleMelts]

Good sentiments reflected by our headmins and ex-headmins, but its very difficult to argue that our current rules reflect this. An amendment is necessary.

i've been thinking on if an amendment would be necessary at all for this vs just a stern reminder of the standard we would like to the team. we learn and set our standards by what our immediate peers are enforcing, so if nobody's being assed to maintain that standard, nobody else will be inclined - especially when one pokes their head out to try and enforce it and has their note overturned. it will be easier to suss out when a note for this is appropriate or not when we're enforcing above the line of bare minimum outright ooc in IC breaking.

[BrianBackslide]

"Cult is gonna win" versus "Cult is gonna succeed" feels kinda pedantic. Asking players for higher standards of dialogue is well and good, but shouldn't miss the understanding that this is a realtime game and that not all players are going to either be as verbose or even have the knowledge level of English to improve their dialogue.

Would really suck for someone who is not a native/fluent speaker to get bonked because they don't have a strong grasp on English.

I think words that are mechanically distinct (like "antag") that cannot be contextualized within the round are fair game for OOC/IC. "Win" in this case, has context within the round, even if it chafes the verbally gifted.

[Itseasytosee2me]

Good sentiments reflected by our headmins and ex-headmins, but its very difficult to argue that our current rules reflect this. An amendment is necessary.

i've been thinking on if an amendment would be necessary at all for this vs just a stern reminder of the standard we would like to the team.

An amendment would be a direct message to the players, and empower admins to have something to quote when tackling these kinds of cases. Why not both?

[Vekter]

words

For the record, the intent of this thread wasn't to directly challenge any decision from the appeal, but to try and set an acceptable bar as far as what we do and don't note for in this situation.

[GPeckman]

I mean, I think the bar is "is there a sensible IC interpretation of the statement." If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't bwoink the person. If the answer is no, then its OOC in IC, bwoink away.

[Vekter]

I mean, I think the bar is "is there a sensible IC interpretation of the statement." If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't bwoink the person. If the answer is no, then its OOC in IC, bwoink away.

The problem is that you could argue "It's revs" has an IC interpretation because "revs" is just short for "revolutionaries", but we've established in the past that saying "it's (gamemode)" is an inherently OOC statement. It's not as clear-cut as you might think.

[Lacran]

I mean, I think the bar is "is there a sensible IC interpretation of the statement." If the answer is yes, then you probably shouldn't bwoink the person. If the answer is no, then its OOC in IC, bwoink away.

The problem is that you could argue "It's revs" has an IC interpretation because "revs" is just short for "revolutionaries", but we've established in the past that saying "it's (gamemode)" is an inherently OOC statement. It's not as clear-cut as you might think.

It's revs is saying something is revs. I can't think of what could reasonably be revs aside from the shift, unless specific context is added.

A guy runs up to you, says "it's revs" and leaves, which reasonably only leaves "it's a rev round"

If there's a mutiny and someone asks "what caused the mutiny" saying "it's revs" has a IC interpretation now, it's revolutionaries that caused the mutiny.

[warbluke]

However, keep in mind that too much of our playerbase are poisoned by being terminally online. Low quality lobotomite chatroom speak is the peak of their RP, because that is how they communicate IRL too.

I believe that you could survive on Manuel for years with a vocabulary consisting only of one word responses like "Sad" and "Real"
Saying revs or tot or what have you might not be great but I'm much more frustrated when it comes to general speech like that. We're in space dammit at least slap "That's" in front of the monosyllabisms. But like you said people really type in such a manner so it can't be policed in the same way.

[ekaterina]

the assumption is probably going to go to winning the round, shift or game.

It shouldn't.

the actioning admin did nothing wrong at all. not logically, reasonably or procedurally.

Yes, he did, and you yourself identify it later on in your post. He, in the face of ambiguity, assumed the situation least favourable to the player. You shouldn't have had to determine that "what was said was ambiguous enough that it couldn't determine beyond any reasonable doubt that their actions were in breach of the rules" because the admin should've determined that himself and not placed the note to begin with.

[big cope about the state of LRP]

I did not expect to see Timber have an evil arc and blatantly disdain at least part of our LRP community. This is how your post reads:
Players having fun: I consent
Other players: I consent
Timberpoes (uninvolved): I DON'T
Your elitist vision of what LRP "should" look like does not and should not outweigh the wishes and fun of those who actually play on it. Frankly it reads like you think you're inherently better than them.

The bar needs to be "I can't find a reasonable ingame way to interpret the statement you made" not "I can find a reasonable ooc way to interpret that statement you made"

He said it all.

It's revs is saying something is revs. I can't think of what could reasonably be revs aside from the shift

It's revs... who are flashing people. It's revs... who are causing a ruckus. So on. Of course that requires context and not blurting it out in a void.

[kieth4]

It's very hard to define because it depends on the situation. There are no banned words per se, it's vibe based- for that reason we have to say it's case by case than being able to really solidfy anything via words of even phrases because it's largely contextual.

Dreary has a good post, there is no overhaul to enforcement at all.