REword Rules, Rule 2

[SengornLeopard]

Here is my following suggestion, feedback is helpful.

#2 Cheating is not allowed. The abuse of glitches and mechanics that significantly alter gameplay in an unfair manner is forbidden. If you have concerns about a mechanic, ask first. This includes X-ray, cheat clients, duping, and unsanctioned methods to locate bases & structures. [Insert link to currently banned methods]

[Burger]

That is probably better. I believe there is already a link at the top to the full rules, but since Rule 2 is the only rule that will ever be enforced, I agree it should be moved to where you suggested.

[sev2worlds]

I think this is a little better, I support

[Yukar9]

Thanks for bringing this up, I think it'd be good for us to change the wording of the rules if doing so can make it clearer to new players.

Some thoughts:

It's 5 lines ingame using the default font, versus the 3 of the current wording. At that size, /rules will barely be able to show #2 and #3 at once, and #1 won't be visible without scrolling.

I think it should include the word "hacking". While it may not be the right term, that term is better known by the average minecraft player, and if the rules doesn't have it then somebody is sure to complain that they misunderstood the rules.

Similarly we may want to add the word "exploits", as some people have recently been complaining that the rules doesn't say using exploits is forbidden (even though IMO it's clear that's not allowed.)

Instead of saying ask first (ask who?) - maybe some way of saying exploits are not allowed unless listed on https://simplicitypvp.net/w/Legal_Exploits - to be in line with the policy change from the AntHand case.

I think the list of examples should include flymod, as that's probably the most common thing we ban for.

[Yukar9]

For an easy reference, the current ingame wording is:

Hacking/cheating is not allowed. This includes: Flymod, X-ray, and any mod or abuse of glitches that confers a significant advantage. Violation will result in a permaban/jail.

What are your thoughts on it no longer specifying the punishment?

[MisterStrawman]

Crazy idea, and I know it will be a pain for some new people but maybe instead of /rules showing the rules, we only show the link to https://simplicitypvp.net/w/Rules, and add https://simplicitypvp.net/w/Allowed_mods and maybe https://simplicitypvp.net/w/Legal_Exploits all on one page. I think one part of the problem might be that with the limits of space that we want for /rules, there isn't enough room to explain everything that needs to be explained, yet I'd assume most people would read what /rules currently shows, not look any further and assume what they've read is good enough. Having anything other than the link will basically make people not click the link.

Furthermore, if we do that, we can use that page alone as the official rule set, and have it include things like announcements of clarifying statements, such as spelling out directly that the clay patch exploit isn't allowed. I think even with all of that on it, it's still not too long of a read and would give a more fair introduction to the server. Also people wouldn't have to rely on familiarity with the server culture, word of mouth, or the forums when it comes to anything controversial, and such issues could be resolved by pointing to just one source.

[SengornLeopard]

I love the suggestion made by MisterStrawman. Concerning people not clicking the link, I have noticed how the /on mechanic paints large words in the center of the screen. Perhaps something similar could occur to new players at spawn commanding them to check the rules? Chat can be missed especially with 30 active players talking.

[Yukar9]

Yeah we could do that. Just need to write the message that appears when you run /rules. I think it would probably still make sense to have a summary of at least #2 in that message. Also wouldn't hurt to go over the wiki rules and clean them up or clarify them.

Spawn has signs in all directions telling people to read the rules in addition to the motd. But I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on having it tell people to do /rules similar to /on.