[Proposition]- RP levels into code/policy discussion

[FantasticFwoosh]

If Manuel & Sybil players are as divided as cats & dogs, the current situation with them brigading each other trying to impose their viewpoints onto generalist policy is going to eventually tear the community apart. So here's my input into what could be done to expand policy discussion, and i look forward to seeing if a initial first pass of this idea could be drawn onto coding discussion also.

My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other LRP matters

MRP Subforum: Manuel central

HRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a HRP server. And later any practical policy.

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.

[sinfulbliss]

This is honestly a great idea. 90% of the disagreements in policy discussion are MRP players and LRP players talking past each other because they both play very different games with completely different rules and policies. I don't think the "opt-in" mechanism is useful though, it's a little too much juju and will just make things more complicated. I also don't think the HRP subforum is useful since an HRP server doesn't exist on TG.

Currently five threads in the first page of the policy section have the [MRP] tag before them, so there's definitely already an impetus for something like this. But the main issue this would solve is LRP players and MRP players fighting tooth and nail over each and every policy, because the proposed policy change will affect their servers differently and may be suboptimal for LRP or MRP. I.e., a policy thread advocating against calling the shuttle for minor infrastructure damage etc. might be very welcome on MRP but would be very unwelcome on LRP.

[massa]

yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more

[BeeSting12]

just make the mrp policy discussion a subforum of policy discussion

[sinfulbliss]

yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more

How is that fracturing the playerbase? It’s admitting that policies differ on Manuel and LRP and separating their discussions so people know which is which.

People who play Manuel rarely if ever touch LRP servers, and vice versa. Let’s stop trying to pretend we’re all one giant server and admit they’re different servers with different playerbases and different rules and policies.

[massa]

yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more

How is that fracturing the playerbase? It’s admitting that policies differ on Manuel and LRP and separating their discussions so people know which is which.

People who play Manuel rarely if ever touch LRP servers, and vice versa. Let’s stop trying to pretend we’re all one giant server and admit they’re different servers with different playerbases and different rules and policies.

was to the op

[OscarTheSheep]

Silly, nonsensical, utter flimshaw, and you propose to put Sybil players next to the Terry players? You, sir, don't have all your candies inside your mason jar

[Mothblocks]

We have the base rules. Then we have MRP, which extends off those rules. Both servers share the base rules and so it is critical that both bring in their own feedback. People having differing points of views based on the server they play isn't a problem, it's the entire reason we discuss policies in the first place. It's like saying we need a separate thread for every job because a medical doctor will have different thoughts on a rule about not stealing insulated gloves than an assistant.

[FantasticFwoosh]

I laid off replying to filter some feedback, so here's some prepared responses.

Mothblocks (2 parts):

► Show Spoiler

We have the base rules. Then we have MRP, which extends off those rules. Both servers share the base rules and so it is critical that both bring in their own feedback.

Can't say any true'er than this, but i don't think anybody had not noticed.

People having differing points of views based on the server they play isn't a problem, it's the entire reason we discuss policies in the first place. It's like saying we need a separate thread for every job because a medical doctor will have different thoughts on a rule about not stealing insulated gloves than an assistant.

I can't really agree with you, and moreso dissapointed you're refuting the point on a basis of claiming I am being misleading. You yourself recently infracted another board user over "tribalism" occuring as of now as MRP and LRP players appear to have split into seperate playerbases, each starting to mark their threads with tags like (MRP) or complain about the other party's influence overtly. This reactionary thread is a matter of assisting how policy discussion is used, not only as asset to players being able to gather a interested audience without alienating the community at large, but also administrators being able to juristdicate the nessecary overlapping MRP & LRP topic discussions fairly.

---

The example you offered is a easy farcical distinction to make, and im not sure why you suggested it when the draft works on the loosest sensible comparison between the two mean points of policy distinction, in that they are LRP and MRP.

Silly, nonsensical, utter flimshaw, and you propose to put Sybil players next to the Terry players? You, sir, don't have all your candies inside your mason jar

If you read my reply to mothblocks, id apply more or less same answer, RP level is the most basic distinction to matter between them both used for the draft.

---

Massa & SinfulBliss:

► Show Spoiler

yeah bro let's fracture the playerbase even more

How is that fracturing the playerbase? It’s admitting that policies differ on Manuel and LRP and separating their discussions so people know which is which.

~snip~ Let’s stop trying to pretend we’re all one giant server and admit they’re different servers with different playerbases and different rules and policies.

Sensible reply Sinfulbliss, i dont have much to add onto that so ditto.

This is honestly a great idea. 90% of the disagreements in policy discussion are MRP players and LRP players talking past each other because they both play very different games with completely different rules and policies. I don't think the "opt-in" mechanism is useful though, it's a little too much juju and will just make things more complicated. I also don't think the HRP subforum is useful since an HRP server doesn't exist on TG.
~snip~

I think i probably am a dinosaur for suggesting such a thing as usergroups, as back in my day it was used for pooling access in and out of certain boards, but much of the functionality has been retired. Also coupled with that people may wish to advertise they're in the MRP or LRP main groups as identifable lapel badge rather than just guessing the audience where you last meta-saw their static before throwing a untrue accusation at them.

As for HRP never say never, but perfectly fair its a little over the top for the draft.

[Archie700]

There is literally not enough separation in policy to justify 2 different subforums.

[sinfulbliss]

People having differing points of views based on the server they play isn't a problem, it's the entire reason we discuss policies in the first place.

There is a reason people who play MRP and LRP have very different views about lots of policies. It's because their servers will react differently to them. One ruling might make the game better on Manuel, and worse on LRP servers, or vice versa. Discussion between LRP and MRP players about policy isn't useful at all, because they want different things out of the game entirely. This would be largely solved by splitting up the subforum into MRP and LRP IMO.

There are base rules and policies that apply equally to both MRP and LRP, but those usually aren't controversial and won't spark much discussion or debate anyway.

[Mothblocks]

There are base rules and policies that apply equally to both MRP and LRP, but those usually aren't controversial and won't spark much discussion or debate anyway.

Nearly every policy discussion applies to both LRP and MRP players. The one's that aren't are basically always prefixed with [MRP].

LRP players not including themselves in those discussions will absolutely hurt them.

[FantasticFwoosh]

There are base rules and policies that apply equally to both MRP and LRP, but those usually aren't controversial and won't spark much discussion or debate anyway.

Nearly every policy discussion applies to both LRP and MRP players. The one's that aren't are basically always prefixed with [MRP].

LRP players not including themselves in those discussions will absolutely hurt them.

The intent of the draft doesn't distinguish to keep them from interacting, but rather clarity and sanctity of the discussions, in excluding LRP for "hurting them" you extract a knowledge base of player insights usually in practical gameplay mechanics (MRP still have to physically use the station if not a emphasis on efficiency, rather than style if you want to be stereotypical in application).

Off Topic

Section removed by Domitius for being offtopic and provoking.

[Domitius]

No, this would purely be a waste of time on needless bureaucracy. Mothblocks summed it up perfectly well why this is not necessary.

[ABearInTheWoods]

My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a LRP server. And later any practical policy.

MRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other MRP matters

HRP Subforum: Manuel/Campbell central

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.

FTFY

[FantasticFwoosh]

Off Topic

Thanks for removing the additional posts Domitus. Not so thanks about the other stuff.

~snip~

FTFY

Ehh, it took my eyes a moment to adjust but uh, that's interesting. Is this a serious-post? Or?

[oranges]

My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a LRP server. And later any practical policy.

MRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other MRP matters

HRP Subforum: Manuel/Campbell central

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.

FTFY

support

[TheFinalPotato]

Hard true

[Pandarsenic]

My Draft

Within each there is a list of all the servers that abide by these rules that are updated as circumstances change.

LRP Subforum: No practical server usage as of writing, but mainly open to convene on the ideas and theory behind a LRP server. And later any practical policy.

MRP Subforum: Sybil, Terry, and other MRP matters

HRP Subforum: Manuel/Campbell central

Anything that doesn't conform to the three can be put normally in policy-discussion, but it has to be agreed to be polled appropriately as not to exact a "feeling" of the audience in potentially misguided faith and be empirically usable data.

To post on any of these also, you have to opt in via your user group. The main purpose of doing so is to remove fallacies about "crypto-server users" or misinformation about player's activities and audiences. A MRP visitor retains the right to question LRP or HRP policy, but they must remain on topic for the bracket or take it to broader policy discussion or back to their respective subforum.

FTFY

support

With possible exception of Terry as LRP/NRP quarantine hell, let's do it, let's gooooo

[ABearInTheWoods]

Off Topic

Thanks for removing the additional posts Domitus. Not so thanks about the other stuff.

~snip~

FTFY

Ehh, it took my eyes a moment to adjust but uh, that's interesting. Is this a serious-post? Or?

In my mind, sybil/basil/terry are suppose to sit perfectly between lrp and mrp, at the mid way point, and manny/campbell sit midway between mrp and hrp.

Limiting antags and limiting lane departures stands slightly on the hrp side of thing, but we try not to over do it.

Limiting the validing of antags to IC justification is a mrp thing, but we try not to overdo it on the mainline servers.

etc.