TOPIC: TTT Suggestion: Add Rule.

Server Name: TTT

Suggestion Title: Add the rule in the Rules specifying that detectives have to write in chat to get people to come to tester/use something. As users gets warned by staff for not writing in chat. Even though it doesn't specify in chat which would be hard for new users/users to understand.

How would it benefit the server: Clear things up, make less confusions and RDM.

Potential Issues/Exploits: None that i can think of.

Additional notes:

I'll bring it up in the lead team meeting

Surprised it's not already there.

Does it not already state in rule 2.2 that all warnings to players need to be in chat so that everyone can see them?

Miia wrote:
I mean within Detective kos'es. Like...

2.2b Detective Warnings/KOS Reasons.
As a detective, you may issue a warning to players to not do/use something, but you must still use valid KOS reasons, and not make up your own false reasons. Some examples of valid detective KOS reasons are;
-Refusing to go into the traitor tester after being asked multiple times.
- Using a health station repeatedly without permission.
- Refusing to cease fire.

well for new players it may not be direct for them to understand so i see where slanana got the idea from i do support this

Seargent44 wrote:
I mean Miia's got a point, But not the correct point. As that ain't within Detective KOS reasons. If you look at the one under.
Rule: 2.2b

BananaSlanger wrote:
Maybe i'm just assuming people have the common sense to see that rule 2.2 and 2.2b are connected, thus implying detective warnings should be treated the same.

Seargent44 wrote: Out of interest how many new players do you honestly think actually read the rules?

Miia wrote:
But it should still state on both, Cause i don't think the other one goes under the category of Detective. That one specifies of "Following" and "Traitorous acts". Not "Detective KOS's"

It's for users to understand it more, as a lot of people don't see them as connected which is my point. I think it should be specified to people to understand diffrence between Normal suspicius acts and Detective KOS's.

Miia wrote:
well for us players who know it are fine but its for those i am assuming who are new so they can understand better

Miia wrote:
I can see both points, but I would have to agree with Miia, the whole point of 2.2 and 2.2b would be that 2.2b would be seen as a follow-up of 2.2, therefore should be zero issue with that understanding. This is technically already a rule, and if people just aren't noticing that, it doesn't hurt to add a mention of the sort of it into 2.2b, but by all account, it's clearly defined in the rules.

Bezzy wrote:
Yes. But i mean for new players that may not know they're connected like i said. And Detective KOS's within chat should be specified in the Detective KOS reasons.

I think a !rules command should be a priority seeing as the new players have no clue about most if not all rules because i am seeing staff that send a link though text box which is not the most efficient way of doing things.

2.2 and 2.2b is connected hence the b next to 2.2 btw.

how many times has it been that people have asked for the !rules command to be fixed... It's taking too long already!

Rule 2.2b is just an extension to rule 2.2. Whatever is in rule 2.2 automatically applies to rule 2.2b.

To my understanding with ulx, it's pretty simple for that kind of thing to be added/fixed. As long as the actual command itself isn't completely broken to where someone would actually need to go into the text files to correct this manually, or the command itself just needs to be redone, but even then, this is the kind of thing that the server needs, and would not only help the staff with moderation, but it'll help teach the players, especially the newer ones about our rules that they're expected to follow whilst on the server.

It's a subsection of the regular warning rule, meaning it's already specified that you have to use the chat medium.

Raeker wrote:
I'll still stand with the fact it should be specified in Detective's KOS's aswell.

BananaSlanger wrote:
Overruled