/tg/Station 13

i propose a change to rule 1 and 2 of our current security policy, in order to facilitate less 'judge, jury, and field executioner' security playstyles, and to allow antagonists to feel they may be more capable of playing out gimmicks or sticking their heads out without immediately being flatlined upon discovery due to security being included in the 'treat antags how you want' policy.

CURRENT POLICY

1. Rule 1 of the main rules applies to security.
The only exception is that security is generally considered to be armed with non-lethal methods to control a situation. Therefore, where reasonably possible, security is expected to use non-lethal methods first in a conflict before escalating to lethal methods.



2. Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.
Security are not exceptions to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists.

The 'act like an antag, get treated like one' part of Rule 4 of the main rules also applies to security.

Stunning an officer repeatedly, using lethal or restricted weapons on them, disrupting the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals, or damaging the brig, are examples of behaviour that may make you valid for security under Rule 4. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an antag, when in doubt, err on the side of caution as poor behaviour on the part of security will not be tolerated.

PROPOSED CHANGE

1. Rule 1 of the main rules applies to security.
In addition, security is held to a higher standard during conflict resolution and during arrests - and should utilize non-harmful methods to detain or subdue criminals before resorting to harmful means, where reasonable.


2. Rule 4 of the main rules does not apply to security.
Security are the exception to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists. When possible, security is to subdue, detain, and process criminals as expected of an employed security team aboard a corporate-ran station. However, there are exceptions where extreme violence may be overlooked, such as against criminals who stun an officer repeatedly, use lethal or restricted weapons on them, or disrupt the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an existential threat and, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.

with this, security will still be able to deploy force against both shitters and rampaging antagonists, but otherwise should be held to a higher station of responsibility in allowing a subdued antagonist to be processed as opposed to killed the moment that they're rendered stamcrit by a baton.

OPTIONAL BONUS: want to bake a 3-year old headmin ruling into this so that we don't have to drag a crusty ass thread out of the pile when its relevant? put this line into rule 2's adjustment as follows. from the thread here - viewtopic.php?p=632580#p632580

creating...

2. Rule 4 of the main rules does not apply to security.
Security are the exception to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists. When possible, security is to subdue, detain, and process criminals as expected of an employed security team aboard a corporate-ran station. However, there are exceptions where extreme violence may be overlooked, such as against criminals who stun an officer repeatedly, use lethal or restricted weapons on them, or disrupt the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an existential threat and, when in doubt, err on the side of caution. Security standards can be applied to anyone acting as security, not just roundstart security officers.

the intent of that is to cull the "well i guess i'll just grab security gear as an assistant to valid hunt" crowd arguments, which are addressed in that thread itself by timberpoes.

Absolutely 100% in favor of this. It was one of my initial ideas to change sec policy in a way like this in my Headmin Campaign, but the idea never made it out of the oven. I believe this is much more applicable now than ever.

So we want to make it so that sec, on lrp servers, is specially excepted from the KoS rule for antags? I feel like terry would hate this. If you want to make policy to curtail the rampant killing on manuel this needs to be a roleplay rule rather than a global rule.

This is great for MRP, and we need to stop buckshot arrests and summary insta-executions.

You might as well ban all terry sec players. Very much against this!!!

I do agree with grenadier here. Sounds like this would be a tough sell for lrp but is otherwise good sounding policy.

In the opening segment of the proposed change, you changed "non-lethal" to "non-harmful".

Can I please get some clarification behind this? What counts as "non-harmful" and what is the specific intent behind this portion of the proposal?

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:48 am In the opening segment of the proposed change, you changed "non-lethal" to "non-harmful".

Can I please get some clarification behind this? What counts as "non-harmful" and what is the specific intent behind this portion of the proposal?

lethal is unclear. someone could argue lasering people into critical to be nonlethal - they didn't die, after all. harmful is a more clear term that is consistent with the rest of our policy in its definition.

shotgun enjoyers might have to be the fringe exception with this version, but the current version is already riddled with enough fringe lawyering and exceptions that I still think this terminology is overall more serviceable.

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 6:13 am

Imitates-The-Lizards wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:48 am In the opening segment of the proposed change, you changed "non-lethal" to "non-harmful".

Can I please get some clarification behind this? What counts as "non-harmful" and what is the specific intent behind this portion of the proposal?

lethal is unclear. someone could argue lasering people into critical to be nonlethal - they didn't die, after all. harmful is a more clear term that is consistent with the rest of our policy in its definition.

shotgun enjoyers might have to be the fringe exception with this version, but the current version is already riddled with enough fringe lawyering and exceptions that I still think this terminology is overall more serviceable.

Does lung punching someone with the krav maga gloves count as harmful? It does oxygen/suffocation damage.

Shouldn't we focus on the overarching implementation before getting into the details?

oranges wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:09 am Shouldn't we focus on the overarching implementation before getting into the details?

The whole point of the thread is to discuss proposed changes. They proposed a change, I'm asking for clarification on a portion of the changes.

Hans wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:34 am You might as well ban all terry sec players. Very much against this!!!

Not sure why anyone would play sec on terry if this went through

kieth4 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:40 am

Hans wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:34 am You might as well ban all terry sec players. Very much against this!!!

Not sure why anyone would play sec on terry if this went through

If your worried an entire class of players will stop playing because of being told to not kill other players as soon as allowed by the rule book perhaps it's fine to lose a few of those

EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:47 am

kieth4 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:40 am

Hans wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:34 am You might as well ban all terry sec players. Very much against this!!!

Not sure why anyone would play sec on terry if this went through

If your worried an entire class of players will stop playing because of being told to not kill other players as soon as allowed by the rule book perhaps it's fine to lose a few of those

pershaps not the best time for this sentiment considering Semi Recent Events

EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:47 am

kieth4 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:40 am

Hans wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:34 am You might as well ban all terry sec players. Very much against this!!!

Not sure why anyone would play sec on terry if this went through

If your worried an entire class of players will stop playing because of being told to not kill other players as soon as allowed by the rule book perhaps it's fine to lose a few of those

I do like my terry players and would very much like to keep them; so no it is not fine to lose them.

Security as a role is already under heavy scrutiny in everything they do; rasing it will drive more players away from it- and this would hit lrp hard.

Why are you proposing it for Terry of all things

I like this change, but I worry about it if there isn't also a change to limit the lethality of antags on LRP.

So do we just ignore non-sec lynchings of antags and antags being unrestricted and able to do anything in LRP

This feels more like nerfing what security can do against any antag while ignoring lethal antags who just go wild and non-sec being just able to walk up and stab the antag to death in front of everyone without punishment.

You would want to nerf these with rules but at that point it becomes much closer to manuel

EmpressMaia wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:47 am

kieth4 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:40 am

Hans wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 5:34 am You might as well ban all terry sec players. Very much against this!!!

Not sure why anyone would play sec on terry if this went through

If your worried an entire class of players will stop playing because of being told to not kill other players as soon as allowed by the rule book perhaps it's fine to lose a few of those

There's one big issue with that logic, proposed change still allows to kill other players as soon as allowed by the rule book, just not for sec for some reason? If anyone should be disallowed to kill other players randomly just bcs book allows them to, it should be non-sec players (since they aren't already held to higher standard under secpol rule 1.)

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 3:46 am OPTIONAL BONUS: want to bake a 3-year old headmin ruling into this so that we don't have to drag a crusty ass thread out of the pile when its relevant? put this line into rule 2's adjustment as follows. from the thread here - viewtopic.php?p=632580#p632580

creating...

2. Rule 4 of the main rules does not apply to security.
Security are the exception to the rule where non-antagonists can do anything they want, as per rule 4, to antagonists. When possible, security is to subdue, detain, and process criminals as expected of an employed security team aboard a corporate-ran station. However, there are exceptions where extreme violence may be overlooked, such as against criminals who stun an officer repeatedly, use lethal or restricted weapons on them, or disrupt the arrests or sentences of dangerous criminals. Make sure players deserve it when you treat them as an existential threat and, when in doubt, err on the side of caution. Security standards can be applied to anyone acting as security, not just roundstart security officers.

the intent of that is to cull the "well i guess i'll just grab security gear as an assistant to valid hunt" crowd arguments, which are addressed in that thread itself by timberpoes.

In this case, why even have rule 4 anymore if you're gonna carve out such a broad exception?

(disclaimer: i am level 1 iq)

I see the vision, but I think this is a complex way to solve an issue that better enforcement of rpr rules would solve easier. An admin was told that they did no wrong by noting someone for using relatively minor excessive force on someone who deserved it (even if the note was lifted). Also this should be accompanied with a larger scale secpol rework instead of solo thats like having dinner but you can only eat the peas and mashed potatoes first.

We can have a perfect ruleset but it wont matter if the enforcement is not there.

I don’t like this. I think its very much in character for corperate security goons to circumvent due proccess in an area of space with very limited government oversight. These are not common crimals, but game ordained infiltrators who are given the express purpose (in cannon not just in mechanics) to subvert the company.
This is harmful to roleplay because it both
A) Restricts the range of permissable character behavior.
B) Applies unneeded scrutiny to players, including those who follow the rules.
C) Gives meta-protection to antagonsists, creating a gamey and rules lawyering atmosphere as opposed to one of free form roleplay.

Same spirit as the comment above, but:

'When possible, security is to subdue, detain, and process criminals as expected of an employed security team aboard a corporate-ran station'

Is totally dependent on an admin's personal interpretation of the setting, which is primarily headcanon.

putting in my -1 against this for several reasons:

1. it's poorly thought out and dishonest. you're rewriting rule 4 but calling it a security policy change. if you don't agree that it's a rule 4 rewrite, then why does it affect security AND people acting as security?.. which would be dealing with antagonists. literally any interaction intended to stop antagonists is acting as security. Like what

2. the wording is confusing and the implementation is confusing (see point 1)

3. you're giving metaprotections to antagonists which otherwise are allowed to do whatever they want. Bruh moment

4. is this supposed to be only for MRP? because if so: we already have this written in policy. it's called "deal with criminals in proportion to their crimes"

This is, quite possibly, the worst policy proposal I have ever read.
Nobody will want to play security after this. Terry would be doomed to exist with no security officers, forever.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 2:03 pm I like this change, but I worry about it if there isn't also a change to limit the lethality of antags on LRP.

We do not want this. We do not want you to copy and paste Manuel's ruleset onto Terry.

Oh wow that subtle change to the secpol precedent for rule 4 is terrible.

Can ya stop hamstringing sec through policy and instead correct them through adminning? The current rules work fine and changing them won't make someone not following them magically start following them.

I'm seeing a lot of admin complaints and sec note appeals recently and not enough assistant main shittery getting punished.

It's like y'all are allergic to adminning griefers.

ekaterina wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:40 pm This is, quite possibly, the worst policy proposal I have ever read.
Nobody will want to play security after this. Terry would be doomed to exist with no security officers, forever.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 2:03 pm I like this change, but I worry about it if there isn't also a change to limit the lethality of antags on LRP.

We do not want this. We do not want you to copy and paste Manuel's ruleset onto Terry.

A change like this would only work with a change to limit lethality on LRP.

I did not say "we should copy and paste MRP ruleset onto Terry"; quit putting words in my mouth.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:54 pm I did not say "we should copy and paste MRP ruleset onto Terry"

So true, you only said "we should copy and paste a central difference between the LRP and the MRP rulesets, which is limited escalation against antags, onto Terry"

Itseasytosee2me wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 4:53 pm I don’t like this. I think its very much in character for corperate security goons to circumvent due proccess in an area of space with very limited government oversight. These are not common crimals, but game ordained infiltrators who are given the express purpose (in cannon not just in mechanics) to subvert the company.
This is harmful to roleplay because it both
A) Restricts the range of permissable character behavior.
B) Applies unneeded scrutiny to players, including those who follow the rules.
C) Gives meta-protection to antagonsists, creating a gamey and rules lawyering atmosphere as opposed to one of free form roleplay.

Couldn't put it better myself

My problem with the proposal has far less to do with the intent, which I already think is a good idea because I already think the roleplay rules are the correct improvements to the base rules and this is just that but specifically for security.

It has a lot more to do with the fact that security is disproportionately restricted compared to the rest of the station's actions. Which means random non-sec are capable of doing whatever they want to antagonists, but security are lumped with restrictions. And if the player only gives a shit about killing antagonists, they'll probably do it as a tider. Nothing compels sec to handle tiders, and tiders killing antagonists are not treated as security because they're not acting as security.

These are common sense restrictions for a role meant to arrest and detain, but I think the restriction should be on non-sec, rather than security itself, if you're looking to limit roles in any fashion. Alternatively, if you're choosing to engage with antagonists, force them to be treated as acting as security and held to that standard.

I don’t understand this proposal, can someone translate it to spessman terms?

ekaterina wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 9:01 pm

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:54 pm I did not say "we should copy and paste MRP ruleset onto Terry"

So true, you only said "we should copy and paste a central difference between the LRP and the MRP rulesets, which is limited escalation against antags, onto Terry"

Yup, that's definitely exactly what I said

Please stop quoting me, you're not doing anything helpful

doesn’t this take away HoS’s ability to authorise executions without a captain present? you should fully list all of the exceptions where extreme violence is allowed.

I think, instead, there should be a leaderboard and a laggerboard, of who brings in subdued antagonists to Centcomm at round end both least and most often, and it gets included in the round-end report. It serves a concrete datapoint to mock, harangue, and derogate the character of Valid Kill security officers. It also lets antags in a given round know that they'll probably have more leeway for non-lethal tomfoolery if they see that one of the Security players (or several) tends to bring in antags as captured criminals rather than corpses and new loot in their backpack.

Metek wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 9:08 am I think, instead, there should be a leaderboard and a laggerboard, of who brings in subdued antagonists to Centcomm at round end both least and most often, and it gets included in the round-end report. It serves a concrete datapoint to mock, harangue, and derogate the character of Valid Kill security officers. It also lets antags in a given round know that they'll probably have more leeway for non-lethal tomfoolery if they see that one of the Security players (or several) tends to bring in antags as captured criminals rather than corpses and new loot in their backpack.

i actually really like this idea, thanks for sharing it!

the roundend reports gives antags a dopamine hit with greentext. greentexting is literally meaningless to the game, but people pursue it to see their name up in lights. adding a crew "greentext" by giving them valueless funtime points with a list of antags they brought in custody to centcom might be a much better incentive rather than being punitive and arm twisting people through threat of punishment.

obviously this is outside the scope of policy and becomes a code solution but i think this was a cool suggestion by metek.

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 2:13 am I already think is a good idea because I already think the roleplay rules are the correct improvements to the base rules

Well, the entirety of the Terry playerbase does not. Which is why we play on Terry, and not on Manuel.
People who think that way already have Manuel. People who don't already have Terry.
There is zero point to alienating one half of the playerbase by making its server into the other.

If you read the rest of my post, ekat, it does not work as proposed.

NecromancerAnne wrote: ↑Tue Mar 18, 2025 1:49 pm If you read the rest of my post, ekat, it does not work as proposed.

I don't agree with the rest of your post either, I just took the opportunity to highlight how it makes no sense to forcefeed Terry (part of) Manuel's ruleset.
People who want that kind of rule already have Manuel, all this does is ruin the game for the people who don't.

Sec is a lot more fun when there aren't admins on your ass like a hawk constantly, more rules is just more minor bullshit for greytide sympathizing admins to spank you over. If an antag can't do espionage correctly and gets caught that should be on them, just like how if I go in maints as a secoff without a man destroyer I will most likely get skinned alive and stuffed in a locker.
Also very funny how my harm batong appeal immediately made them change wording from non-lethal to non-harmful.

The counter for Security using lethals/execution should be Sec/AI conflict and we should be encouraging AIs to not pull punches and lockdown/constantly hamper a known-lethal security team.

We already have a lack of Terry Sec players, and Security is a role that becomes exponentially less fun the fewer other members there are. Adding more rule restrictions (especially ones that directly lead to frustration) will only make the issue worse. You'll either see more apathetic job players that ignore mass murdering, or else an uptick in vigilante greytide that gets to skip the Security restrictions.

Anyway, if you're doing a gimmick, it should be on you as the antagonist to social-engineer your way into making it work. Plenty of Captains will wave a blind eye if what you're doing sounds cool or funny and you can IC-explain away any suspicions. Extra OOC protection for Mr. Gonna-Muderbone-But-Hasn't-Attacked-Yet is not helpful.

I can already see the endless streams of admin bwoinking Terry sec players will have to deal with.

Vekter wrote: ↑Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:54 pm
A change like this would only work with a change to limit lethality on LRP.

Part of the reason for MRP servers was to limit lethality for antag-crew interaction for more roleplay in general.

If you're limiting lethality on LRP for sec and antags, then you need to limit crew validhunting as well as it won't work if non-sec crew can just kill off any antag. At that point it's just MRP-lite without the "stay in your lane".

Nothing about this policy suggestion was well thought out.

I look back at tg from my long break from it and seems nothing has changed in the policy suggestion front.
This is a bad change and will only lead to confusion and lot of shit bans/bwoinks
MORE RULES DOESENT LEAD TO BETTER RP!!!!!

A policy gun pointed at your head forcing you to play a certain way isn't the way to go about this, it's a code issue that security lacks a carrot guiding them to detain antagonists. There is no reward and therefore no decision making. Minimize the time you spend dealing with a threat so you can move onto the next one that is lurking in the corner of your eye gathering power. That is the only line of thought at the back of a security officer's mind and it's realistic given the circumstance. You arn't paid to detain criminals, you are paid a salary, and you survive by maintaining peace and order.

The ability to detain someone is less of a job expectation and more of a tool security can use to get someone out of the picture without as much escalation. and possibly use that person later since you are controlling where they are so you have consistent access to them, their knowledge, and their abilities.


Compare it to jailer in town of salem, you jail people not because you are rewarded by a third party for doing it, but because you personally benefit from the act by putting someone in a vacuum where you can interrogate them and prevent them from doing anything, the ability to jail is a tool that you personally use to meet a short term goal you made for yourself in order to reach the long term objective.

TLDR: There needs to be more consistent rewards for detaining antagonists outside of personal/situation/circumstantial scenarios where you can benefit from it. Otherwise detaining itself isn't your job, it's a tool that you might pull out of the drawer in order to do your job.

Stabbystab wrote: ↑Thu Mar 20, 2025 1:27 am MORE RULES DOESENT LEAD TO BETTER RP!!!!!

The truthiest truth that has ever truthed.

I keep seeing people, especially now that it's election season, talking about "raising RP standards".

Matter of fact is nobody knows how to fucking do it.

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 10:53 am Matter of fact is nobody knows how to fucking do it.

The problem is that policy and rules are prescriptive: they exist to be complied with. That creates structure, but it also creates rigidity.

What we need more of right now is the descriptive side: cultural guidance that explains the why, not just the what. Descriptions help players understand the spirit behind the expectations, not just the letter.

If we want to raise RP standards, it won’t come from another rule: it’ll come from better articulation of what good RP looks like, what behaviors support it, and what kind of stories we’re trying to foster. All of that should be rooted in community discussion. We have to stop assuming players will infer the goal from enforcement alone.

That's not something we can just write down and expect people to follow, we need buy-in from community members who share in the group's vision. Ideas spread because people learn them from each other. Some people are better at it than others.

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Sun Mar 23, 2025 11:51 pm

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 10:53 am Matter of fact is nobody knows how to fucking do it.

The problem is that policy and rules are prescriptive: they exist to be complied with. That creates structure, but it also creates rigidity.

What we need more of right now is the descriptive side: cultural guidance that explains the why, not just the what. Descriptions help players understand the spirit behind the expectations, not just the letter.

If we want to raise RP standards, it won’t come from another rule: it’ll come from better articulation of what good RP looks like, what behaviors support it, and what kind of stories we’re trying to foster. All of that should be rooted in community discussion. We have to stop assuming players will infer the goal from enforcement alone.

That's not something we can just write down and expect people to follow, we need buy-in from community members who share in the group's vision. Ideas spread because people learn them from each other. Some people are better at it than others.

I agree with Rave here.
Policy and rules are nice when you don't have eyes on the ground. But we do eyes and feet on the ground, and every rule that demands more of a change from what the normal understanding, causes stress. The best thing to be done is having our community follow good examples and spread a fair assessment of each other. Changing the norm starts with admins and veteran players, and their interaction with the individuals to mould that relaxed vibe.

From being a Terrymin and my own Terry security experience, I always needed to see some investigation work from security players to gather some real evidence. This is part of that roleplay that is required to pursue their rule 1 and main rule 4.
-1 for the proposed changed as it is.

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Sun Mar 23, 2025 11:51 pm

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 10:53 am Matter of fact is nobody knows how to fucking do it.

The problem is that policy and rules are prescriptive: they exist to be complied with. That creates structure, but it also creates rigidity.

What we need more of right now is the descriptive side: cultural guidance that explains the why, not just the what. Descriptions help players understand the spirit behind the expectations, not just the letter.

If we want to raise RP standards, it won’t come from another rule: it’ll come from better articulation of what good RP looks like, what behaviors support it, and what kind of stories we’re trying to foster. All of that should be rooted in community discussion. We have to stop assuming players will infer the goal from enforcement alone.

That's not something we can just write down and expect people to follow, we need buy-in from community members who share in the group's vision. Ideas spread because people learn them from each other. Some people are better at it than others.

i attempted this when I rewrote space law in a diagetic way that informed how we would like security to conduct, and made sure to do so in a way that was not punitive for people who didn't want to adhere strictly to. it ended up being reversed as policy at some point either this term or the last.

TheBibleMelts wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 3:36 pm i attempted this when I rewrote space law in a diagetic way that informed how we would like security to conduct, and made sure to do so in a way that was not punitive for people who didn't want to adhere strictly to. it ended up being reversed as policy at some point either this term or the last.

I found the thread where you did the rewrite. Can't seem to find the thread where it was reverted.

Comparing this thread to the old one I think that the old one had a better reception and was tapping into something. I dunno if Kieth's opinions have changed between then and now but if they've remained the same then his reaction is a pretty sturdy bellwether.

Maybe your rewrite was before its time. I'd be interested to hear if people would prefer it to this current proposal.

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Mon Mar 24, 2025 4:25 pm I found the thread where you did the rewrite. Can't seem to find the thread where it was reverted.

Comparing this thread to the old one I think that the old one had a better reception and was tapping into something. I dunno if Kieth's opinions have changed between then and now but if they've remained the same then his reaction is a pretty sturdy bellwether.

Maybe your rewrite was before its time. I'd be interested to hear if people would prefer it to this current proposal.

I mean, it's pretty obvious to me why this proposal is getting so much more flak: it's because it's adding a huge carveout to rule 4.

RaveRadbury wrote: ↑Sun Mar 23, 2025 11:51 pm

conrad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 22, 2025 10:53 am Matter of fact is nobody knows how to fucking do it.

The problem is that policy and rules are prescriptive: they exist to be complied with. That creates structure, but it also creates rigidity.

What we need more of right now is the descriptive side: cultural guidance that explains the why, not just the what. Descriptions help players understand the spirit behind the expectations, not just the letter.

If we want to raise RP standards, it won’t come from another rule: it’ll come from better articulation of what good RP looks like, what behaviors support it, and what kind of stories we’re trying to foster. All of that should be rooted in community discussion. We have to stop assuming players will infer the goal from enforcement alone.

That's not something we can just write down and expect people to follow, we need buy-in from community members who share in the group's vision. Ideas spread because people learn them from each other. Some people are better at it than others.

I like this as a theory, but this isn't a solution.

You can note then jobban people for playing in an idiotic way and have people not banned lead by example for new players and for when those people are unbanned. That's how I see "improving RP standards".

An example is people like Lisa Green playing really good sec and captain or Bob Stange playing really good CMO, and people trying to emulate this.

If there is a third way, please educate me.

And in either case. adding more rules isn't the way. Most people don't even read the rules, they gloss over the rules page, catch the general gist of it, and play like a normal person.