The (UNOFFICIAL) Vanilla Doctrine
Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 12:13 am
Alright, I'm going to be a dick and salt the old wounds the limit caused. Mainly because anti-limit partisans (including myself) brought up the "Vanilla Doctrine" in their defense. Now, many used this for the "we strive for the vanilla game" in our forums homepage. However, others, some of which being pro-limit partisans, confused "vanilla" with "absolutely no plugins". Now, in hopes of actually having a Vanilla Doctrine to show to those people, I was wondering if we could craft one of our own, so if the limit, or ant other plugins (hell, even the multi-world) pop up, we can use this as a defense. This is in no way official, and this thread is made for the sole purpose of having an actual doctrine for us to use. I will edit this post to work on the doctrine itself, but for now, I'll post what I think it a good idea.
1. In no way should the plug-in force a player to follow the plug-in in question. (as in, if a player doesn't follow the plugin, they will not face punishment, or get a bonus another player cannot receive in the vanilla game)
2. For plug-ins that are obviously not vanilla, it is encouraged to be both simple and not cause any sort of exploitation that doesn't already exist in the vanilla game.
3. Anti-hacks (and any measures to stop hacking), admin-centric plugins, and anything voted in by majority vote is exempt from this doctrine.
1. In no way should the plug-in force a player to follow the plug-in in question. (as in, if a player doesn't follow the plugin, they will not face punishment, or get a bonus another player cannot receive in the vanilla game)
2. For plug-ins that are obviously not vanilla, it is encouraged to be both simple and not cause any sort of exploitation that doesn't already exist in the vanilla game.
3. Anti-hacks (and any measures to stop hacking), admin-centric plugins, and anything voted in by majority vote is exempt from this doctrine.