Discuss here, make your own article to formally propose your shit.

But constitution is already here :DD

  • No malicious griefing
  • No malicious griefing
  • Don't go around killing people at random and generally being a dick. See Battle agreements
  • Fuck Free Kovio

Main rules are already known. Fug the formal law, hurray for common sense. –t. Rosenmann

I agree though with him about writing down ban lengths for certain crimes, I mean caBst once banned me for 3 months for breaking a window. Also I'd like to see mods be punished too for breaking the rules, like Enton complaining in #chat about bans within minutes of banning others for complaining. — green kitten 2013/02/07 10:34

The nation/war/general pvp rules need fixings, so people can't complain about things they don't know, or things they do know that don't matter. Multicitizenship is a terrible idea. If smaller nations are allowed to exist, make stricter time limits for the wartime engagements, or include some kind of required interraction to maintain the actual war-ing. Fuck raids too. - Walrus

Greenkitten: you have a point, there should be a info page that would inform mods how to ban people properly. Walrus: Multicitizenship is a terrible idea indeed. Also war system is very hard to reform, because there are two groups of players who want different things, and having systems that makes two sides content is terrible hard. Anyway, feel free to submit your ideas. – t. Rosenmann

The war rules currently take into account both groups of players. The idea is that the 3 server rules apply generally, and signing agreements like the random pvp agreement or becoming a nation essentially forfeits some of that protection. New rules should follow these general guidelines, keep things contractual and spare builders from political autism. They could be reorganized, with some irrelevant shit thrown out, some better explanations given, and the vague bits elucidated and given more visibility. Most people don't understand the finer points of the war/battle/random pvp rules and fail to assert their rights of for example item return for the defeated defenders of a raid. I think an individual player should not be a citizen of more than two nations for nationhood purposes, and a citizen should not count toward nationhood requirements if there is no way to prove they have not contacted anyone in-game/irc/on the wiki for at least two months. — Sikandar 2013/02/07 20:58

I never did that greenkitten, that's some serious bullshit and I refuse to believe it. — caBastard 2013/02/08 01:09

I was also pissing you off with some bullshit and I'm pretty sure you were looking for an excuse to ban me. Later I got some other mods to lessen the ban, but if I didn't complain I would have had to be excluded for months. Its like that markuz guy was talking about this the other day, he was banned for 6 months when he was a noob because he 'griefed' which was probably an accident. I think mods are too harsh on noobs and like anyone they have personal grudges, I think setting a table which mods can adhere to might be a better way to enforce bans something like:

Ban reasion first second third
griefing 5 days 2 weeks Permaban
being homo whatever meh Permaban

Also maybe having a different table for older players because I know sometimes we get out of line. Its up to the admin's discretion on how it'd work but making it standardised across the board would help. Also another idea might be having a wiki page listing all the banned users, the reason why they were banned, the duration of the ban and signed by the moderator who banned them. I'm not sure what the ban list is like now but it seems like mods can only see the ban message a user gets when they try to join. And when you get lazy mods who just say “No” in their messages the other mods have to take the word of the banned user as to why they were banned if they complain on IRC. A more detailed ban list might be more useful, but its just a thought. — green kitten 2013/02/08 12:48

GK: Permabans in itself are a bad idea and should (if at all) only be given for duping or very grave crimes.
The 3 offense system is a bad choice if you get a permaban for some minor offense and its also inappropriate for judging older players who have spent at least a year on the server. Also in the past youd get instant permaban for griefing so 5 days is kind of low. We need a banrange for individual offenses but if the 3 offense system is going to be kept the offenses should atleast fade away after some time. — areteee 2013/02/09 15:11

Constitution

I'm not especially happy that the drafting of a constitution and of criminal law are being conflated here, those are two totally different things, have different scope, and shouldn't go in the same document at all. Anyway here are some ideas for the constitution:

Technicalities: There are two kinds of law: default and opt-in. Default law (“The Rules”) is approved by the admins and enforced by mods and admins. Every player is subject to default law the moment they join. Opt-in law (“user law”) is defined and enforced by the users. To be subject to user law, players must agree initially.

Core principles:

  • Players have the right to play without being harassed, griefed or killed. They can forfeit this right by violating the rules. User law can override these rights, but only if the player has agreed before.
  • Players have the right to organize in groups. What these groups can do is subject to user law.
  • Players can claim a reasonable amount of land. Groups of players can claim more land. Claims can be overruled under certain circumstances.

tetete 2013/02/08 16:57

The Rules (for players)

  • Don't grief.
  • Don't kill people.
  • When somebody wants to be let alone, let them.
  • Don't cheat or abuse bugs to the point of breaking the game for others or the game balance.
  • Rules 1-3 can be suspended/replaced by mutual agreement.

Questions, better wording, errata? — tetete 2013/02/08 17:13

The Rules (for mods and admins)

Admins: They run this shit and can make up rules or overrule others. They also occasionally do mod duties. If they do, don't try to overrule them. Main responsibilities are keeping the server alive and managing the mods.

Mods: They are there when the admins aren't, they enforce the rules and are the admins' eyes and ears. They have extended powers to be able to enforce the rules, these should be used responsibly. Their decisions can be appealed to the admins, the admins can delegate these appeals to the mod court. This institution doesn't exist yet/is dead.
What mods can do includes, but is not limited to:

  • rollbacks
  • player bans
  • usage of creative
  • usage of openinv
  • jailing
  • killing people officially
  • teleports
  • setting weather
  • cenotaph admin access
  • cleaning up leftover LWC protections

To make life easier for mods, users and admins, consistent modding standards should be defined.

Changes highlighted, it's up to you to fill the gaps. — tetete 2013/02/08 17:29

Proposal: Mod Elections

To make it easier for the admins to find new mods, players can be nominated for mod elections. The player should have been around for at least, say, two months. An election would look like this:

  1. Nominate a player: Create a wiki page, write some words of appraisal and why they should be mod. This can be yourself, but of course it looks better when somebody else nominates you.
  2. Let players vote one of pro, con or neutral (create separate sections for each position if you like, to make counting easier), and optionally give a short reason. Longer reasons should go on the discussion page. Basically, throw as much mud as you like at the candidate and see what sticks.
  3. After ten days, an admin will look at the discussion and the votes and decide whether the mod will be a good addition to the mod team or not, then act accordingly.

You can also put up an existing mod for reelection/impeachment, but the reasons given should be very good. — tetete 2013/02/08 18:18

Would you also consider extending voting rights to players on other proposals? Right now there have been various proposals that have been stagnant for months and most likely continue to be since some of these mods are indifferent or aren't active enough to care. It might help speed up the process and give you a better idea of what the users want. — green kitten 2013/02/09 06:33

  • User law is up to you, rule changes are easier lobbied by asking me in chat. — tetete 2013/02/09 15:37

Players should only be allowed to vote if they have been around at least 2, preferably 3 to 4 months. This way some newfriend cant just bring his whole clan of 14yo to vote for him whenever he wants to. I propose changing both voting and being voted for to 3 months. — areteee 2013/02/09 13:32

  • I don't consider the vote binding anyway. When a bunch of 14yo gamer buddies try to rig a vote, I'll most likely ignore them. It's a way for me to collect information, not a consensus. — tetete 2013/02/09 15:37
  • Eitherway, letting people vote for mods is pretty fucking stupid. You will have someone become a mod based on popularity and not competence. I tell you this from experience. The only time I suggested someone to become a mod he became a massive camwhore trap and started abusing powers like a fucking douchebag on roids. At the end he griefed TACO's Badfaceshire when he got mad at him. Then, the only time AlphaBernd let people to choose a mod for each nation we had an incompetent Red who never showed up (powers without obliation) and shit-for-brains dipshit who rollbacked the server for two days. Appointing mods is based on the admin's judgement uniquely. This is not a democracy. — caBastard 2013/02/10 06:10

Constitution Draft

Constitution Draft

Constitution Draft

1. The legal system of the server falls into two categories: the Admin Law and the Autism Law. The Admin Law prevails over the Autism Law, if Admin Law doesn’t explicitly say otherwise.

2. Main definitions:

a. player – an individual registered on the server

b. non-political player – a player who doesn’t want to take part in server politics. All players, unless they desire otherwise, are non-political players.

c. political player – a player who wants to take part in server politics. He consents to be bound by the Rules of Engagement, part of Autism Law.

d. moderator – a player, who has the obligation to exercise control over other players in terms of compliance with the constitution by the latter and have the right to take steps necessary to prevent and punish the breaches by the latter

e. admin – te3 and Bragzor; a player who oversees the moderators’ conduct and has the right to take steps necessary to prevent and punish the breaches by both players and moderators

f. griefing – a deed, which results in diminishing aesthetic value of other players’ creations, buildings and/or supporting structures, causing harm to and/or endangering a player, committed with malice aforethought consisting of:

• destruction of blocks in other players’ creations, buildings and/or supporting structures

• placement of blocks on/in other players’ creations, buildings and/or supporting structures

• interruption of existing/normal flow of water/lava

g. settlement – a single player who creates things, buildings and/or supporting structures or a community of two or more players engaged in the same activities. Settlements may claim a reasonable amount of land around their main buildings.

h. nation – a community of 5 or more political players, who create things, buildings and/or supporting structures and agree to be bound by the Rules of Engagement, part of Autism Law. Nations may claim a reasonable amount of land around their cities. — mazznoff 2013/02/09 20:11

The Admin Law

I – General Provisions

3. The players, their rights and freedoms are of supreme value. Their recognition, compliance with, defense of and enforcement are their own, moderators’ and admins’ responsibilities.
4. Players have the right to play without being harassed, griefed or killed.
5. Griefing is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed griefing must be limited by the Autism Law.
6. Killing players is forbidden, unless Autism Law stipulates otherwise. Cases of allowed killing of players must be limited by the Autism Law.
7. When a player wants to be let alone, let them.
8. Don't cheat or abuse bugs to the point of breaking the game for others or the game balance.
9. The Constitution must be amended if new legislation is passed.
10. New legislation may be introduced by players, moderators, admins. It has to be approved by the collective decision of moderators and admins in order to be passed.

II – Criminal Law

11. For a violation of the constitution, the moderators or admins may take one or several of following steps:
• le kick
• le confiscation of the items (only for cheating and/or bug abuse)
• le gaol
• le kill
• le ban
12. When determining ban longevity, a moderator / admin should take into account the following factors: the player’s political status, duration of the presence on the server, amount of damage done, previous ban history.
13. Ban longevity for political players attacking / griefing non-political players should be harsher. Ban longevity for non-political players attacking / griefing non-political or political players shall not differ from ban longevity for political players attacking / griefing political players not in course of war.
14. Grounds for being exempt from criminal responsibility: self-defence (being under attack), previous provocation by the victim.
15. The moderator should stipulate the ban reason in the language of the accused player [based on the country of his login].
16. A player may appeal a ban in the Mod Court. Grounds: non-existence of a breach of the constitution, excessiveness of the ban, failure to stipulate the ban reason, existence of grounds for being exempt from criminal responsibility.
17. The Mod Court may dismiss the appeal only if the grounds for the appeal are not present, may consider it and deliver its verdict. The moderator, whose ban is appealed, may not take part in Mod Court proceeding. If the claim is brought by one moderator / admin against the other moderator, they are both exempt from the proceeding. It may decide that the ban was lawful or unlawful. The decision is passed by simple majority of mods and admins votes. Admins’ vote prevail, should there be a deuce. Te3’s vote prevails, should there be a deuce between admins. If the ban was unlawful, the ban is considered void. In this case the Mod Court also issues an official warning for the moderator responsible.
18.

# of bans 1 2 3 45
Player’s exp
< 1 month 5 10 14 21 30
< 3 months 4 8 10 14 21
< 6 months 3 6 10 14 21
< 12 months 2 4 8 10 14
> 12 months 1 2 4 8 10

Excessive griefing – double the ban.
Every 6 months one ban expires and is disregarded for next bans.

II – Moderators

19. Moderators and admins should be guided by the Constitution, justice and humanism.
20. An existing mod may be put up for impeachment for a good reason, including two official warnings from the Mod Court. The final decision rests with the admins.
21. Players can be nominated for mod elections. The final decision rests with the admins.
22. Moderators are there to help players.

The Autism Law

I - the Rules of Engagement

23. After a maximum of five straight days of being declared war upon (the first declaration must be made in person from one government official to another, however the subsequent four may be made using signs unambiguously placed in the nation's town hall), a nation must make a choice:
• To accept the declaration of war
• To opt out of the war by paying tribute to the attacking nation
i. This fee will be determined by the active populations of the two nations: [128 *(defending population/attacking population)]
ii. By paying tribute, the defending nation may not be declared war upon by that nation for at least two weeks.
iii. If no legitimate evidence of provocation (land disputes, chat logs, etc) can be provided to mods or admins by the attackers, this fee is waived.
• To opt out of nationship for at least two weeks and return to a settlement. This will obsolete the declaration of war. If used as a stalling tactic, this rule will be amended.
24. Once in a war, after a maximum of three straight days of being asked for a sanctioned battle, a nation must make a choice:
• To accept that battle
• To accept something else (The parties can negotiate their own rules of battle if they want to. These will hold only as long as the Whatever and the war persist.) • To opt out with a fee of [64 *(defpop/atkpop)]
• To surrender the war with a fee of [128 *(defpop/atkpop)] plus any additional payment that was expressed to the other side before the war.
25. Lawful Battles
• In order for a battle to be officially and lawfully recognised, it must have the full agreement of both parties' governments and both sides must have agreed to be at a state of war
• Beds may be destroyed.
• There shall be no excessive griefing
• Any inventory loot attained by either side may be kept in an officially sanctioned battle as the spoils of war.
• The battle is won when one side is unequivocally absent from the battlefield.
• Violation of this treaty will result in capitulation of the battle, the war, or the status of 'nation.' Depending on the circumstances it could even warrant a ban from the server. Do not deviate from these rules.
• Alternatively and upon agreement by both parties involved, an alternate set of rules may be used.

26. Any side can surrender with the above stipulations at any time.
27. Raids may be conducted during a time of war. They have no greater impact on the war.
28. Lawful Raids
• A raid is categorised as any hostile military action taken without the consent of both parties, though both sides must have agreed to be currently in a state of war. • Beds may be destroyed.
• There shall be no excessive griefing
• All attackers are required to return any valuable loot at the request of the defenders.
• Defenders may lawfully keep any spoils they strip from the raiders.
29. After 3 total raids by the attackers they must ask for a battle to take place. After the battle the number of performed raids resets.
30. After winning three battles, a nation has the option of declaring victory and receives whatever reward was expressed upon at the beginning of the war (though in materials it may not exceed the equivilent of [256 *(defpop/atkpop)] unless first agreed to and in land it must be approved by mods or an admin if there is controversy)
31. Legal Assassination: the assassin, the to-be-assassinated and the payee should all be political players. The payee must announce to the to-be-assassinated that he has hired an assassin in due time before the assassination is performed.

III – Civil Law

32. The trade is free. The players must observe principle of good faith in their commercial relations, must perform undertaken obligations responsibly and in due time.
33. The contracts may be in written form on the wiki. Players may get a moderator to enforce the contract. In this case, upon failure to perform contractual obligations, the injured party has the right to resort to the moderator.
34. The subject matter of contract must be legal under Admin Law. Assassination contracts may exist.
35. Tournaments and totalizators may exist. These can be conducted with the help of mods (e.g. spawning mobs against a contending player)
36. Labour contracts may exist. The pay should be fair and reflect the nature of labour.


bold parts are updated, compared to the current Rules of Engagement. — mazznoff 2013/02/22 12:04

mazznoff: looks gud 5/5 –Rosenmann

Nice job Mazz.
I could write the Autism Law, is that okay? — Ranshiin 2013/02/09 22:16

please don't edit the draft itself, use other sections to comment on it. — mazznoff 2013/02/10 08:26


I can't see much wrong with those rules. I just have a couple things that should be changed.
12. When determining ban longevity, a moderator / admin should take into account the following factors: the player’s political status, duration of the presence on the server, amount of damage done, previous ban history.
May I also suggest factoring in the mental state of the player? I mean I have been banned while being far from sober a few times.
22. Moderators are there to help players.
I'd probably add a little note here saying mods are here to help not to be servants, you can't expect a mod to teleport noob1 to noob2 every 5 minutes because they lost them in a forest or keep dying
green kitten 2013/02/10 13:23

12 I think you are suggesting that drunk players should have shorter bans, but that devalues the amount of damage they might do. Also, there is no sure way of verification of the mental state of a player.
22 I agree entirely, but no good wording comes to my mind.
mazznoff 2013/02/10 13:39

15. The moderator should stipulate the ban reason in the language of the accused player [based on the country of his login].

Ban reason should be written in english so everyone can understand it, especially players following the events ingame. This will provide legal security. If a player cant understand a ban reason written in english he isnt welcome here anymore, this is the fucking /int/ server. Its not like he couldnt translate it himself in the worst case, and if he cant, well then he is on the wrong server anyway. — areteee 2013/02/10 14:23

I don't think the server is explicitly kc /int/'s. Other players are welcomed too. This rule is the basics of the criminal procedure, because the accused HAS to know what he is charged with.
But when we have the Constitution in English, I guess you have a point. Maybe the language requirement is excessive.
mazznoff 2013/02/10 14:45

Also, missing things: entities griefing, pets/cattle killing, usage of public farms, battles must be overseen by moderators, “outlawing” as type of punishment. Suggested: #15 → English language, #20 2 → 3, #22 → + 'within reason'.
mazznoff 2013/02/10 14:51

About 'Mod abuse'

About 'Mod abuse'

It should be noted, even if trivial, that moderators are still players, therefore bound to the rules that are mandatory in commound ground for everyone; This implies that the abuse of moderator powers is a punishable act of a certaint gravity. This makes necessary the creation of a list of reasons that define the infamous “Mod abuse”, such as:
1 -Wether the moderator uses his powers in a means to directly/indirectly damage another player/organization.
2 -The moderator uses his powers to give himself a militar/economical edge above anyone else, in case the moderator himself is a political player.
3 -The moderator banishes bans a player with no given reason, even if the banishment itself is of a ridicolously short time.
Feel free to adjust the above draft


Also, a wiki page to keep track of current bans and their respective durations. Maybe correlated with a few records for maximum ass devastation :–D
Ranshiin 2013/02/10 19:40

As the person who originally wrote the Rules of Engagement, I say with some embaressment that they were never intended to last this long. They were originally only meant to be a temporary solution to an emergency problem. For this reason, they are absolutely terrible. They're far too complicated and specific and inflexible. No math should be involved in this stuff. I wrote some updated rules that I think will be just as binding but will also be much easier to understand. In addition I posed a few more suggestions about possible rules on a new map. Click here to read :-----DDDDDV1adimirr 2013/02/23 01:23

I also posted something yesterday, you can compare it to v1ad's version. His proposition is more specific on battle guidelines (and probably better) than mine, which is also covering other topics like nation privileges. — Enton 2013/02/23 01:35

I was going to write some more about other topics, but what you've written is more or less what I was going to suggest. I support all of it. I think our positions on war are more or less the same with some minor differences. I don't think, as you say, we should ban all war for war's sake if both sides agree to it. However I like your part “During a war, players of a nation can kill members of its enemy nation on its territory at any time.” I would add that to my own suggestion. Everything else in there I support completely. — V1adimirr 2013/02/23 01:47

I drafted up a coherent constitution and rules of engagement here that made minor edits to this constitution by including some of the above and some other suggestions people have provided. I believe it to be both in the spirit of mazznoff's constitution while being perhaps more easily applicable to daily life on the server. Please comment and include any concerns you have on it, as I would like to make this proposal to te3 ASAP. Cheers. — V1adimirr 2013/02/23 22:24

  • talk/decisions/constitution_and_criminal_law.txt
  • Last modified: 2020/11/08 04:02
  • (external edit)