Rule 4

[TheRex9001]

I think this is an important one, what do you think about rule 4? Does it need to be changed or is it good as it is?

Personally I think its good as is, I would prolly reword it a bit since "solo antagonists may pursue any goals they wish, in any way they wish" is a bit worse than "solo antagonists can do what they want" personally.

[kinnebian]

I remember getting into an argument about this in bus a while back, I eventually settled on it being good the way it is. I appreciate the way you reworded it, I'd be wary of changing it because I think its one of our most important rules to the gameplay on this server. When you get antag, you should be brainstorming and coming up with some unhinged deadly gimmick, not wondering if the admin is going to shut you down or not.

[xzero314]

I think Rule 4 is fine.
An important aspect of being "The Bad Guy" is the ability to do whatever you want. Barring obvious no cross lines like Rule 8. When you are "The Bad Guy" You are not obligated to act with a morale code.
If any changes to rule 4 were needed for just MRP. An MRP rule could do the job. If an issue on LRP that required rule 4 to see changes pops up then concerns and discussion about it would be raised by admins and players who play on LRP first.

[RaveRadbury]

I think there's a path to improving Rule 4 in a way that makes the people who value it like it even more while also satisfying those who have concerns. Gotta explore it and have some convos with people to see if it could actually happen or if it brings anything to the surface that we can use to improve the state of things.

I discuss this more in my campaign thread as BritGrenadier had asked my opinions on R4.

[Maxipat]

Rule 4 is CRUCIAL to keep /tg/'s LRP be /tg/'s LRP. I think it's our main selling point in comparison to other servers, and i'd hate to see it go. Antags should have freedom in how they act ICly, they're the Big Bad Evil Guys of the round afterall. I don't believe in it's sanctity though, especially the "you can do whatever to antags as non-antag" part. I myself went against it once, when i noted a player for killing a restrained and deconvertable cultist only to make other players putting effort into deconverting the cultie upset. Technically the killer was allowed to do anything to the antagonist at hand, but I think it broke rule 1 towards other players involved in the situation, hence the note. Admins should feel empowered to handle such fringe cases and not have to have an hours long argument with other admins and possibly the appealant just because they did something they believed is good for the server's health.

[Jackraxxus]

I find restricting antags just scares the fun players away from doing fun things. Lame players will find a way to be lame.
If there was 1 single change I'd maybe be interested in, it'd be to add a line like "Making things very unfun for others by spamming the same lame strategy round after round will get u hit w/ a smite (or maybe noted / banned in extreme cases)"
But I don't know enough to want make this change without bigly support. More along the lines of "if other headmins want it I won't say no."
Tho iirc this is already a rule 1/0 kinda thing so idk if it needs changing for any reason other than to tell ppl.

[iansdoor]

To be honest, depends on the vibes of a shift and the population of a shift. If its too low on one or the other, then the antagonist round is not so sacred and breaches on the rule 1. Example being a murderboner popping off with plasmafire and they recall the shuttle to murder some more folks, that just rubs salt in the wounds and I don't appreciate those rounds.

The wording itself is clear, the only thing I would add is a subrule to it that if they are obligated to make attempts to call the shuttle when the death toll is getting too far.