Should Rule 1 Be Changed?

[Lumdor]

Most shit i've seen I belive it say's what I meant.

All of the shit that people have said means nothing about what everyone has said. Still, I believe rule 1 should be changed, but we've had multiple people try and defend it.

Staff, fix the issue, please.

[Corocan]

multiple people are getting in trouble for stuff that is 18+ going on between two adults that isnt (ERP, something to elicit a sexual response), but is what the rule calls marine bravado.

The rule needs to be changed, and it's disgraceful how it's being used to nit-pick things.

The rule's fine as is, imo. The language is clear and concise (ie, things that are erotic in nature are not permitted). You cannot change how people choose to perceive it (ie, cup checks and groin scratches, which I fail to see how either of those are erotic in nature), though. As for the, 'It's happening between two consenting adults.', I find this irrelevant as it's really unrealistic to assume we can accept people at their word for their age as well as the fact that despite not being involved, younger audiences may be witness to these erotic actions.

Overall, I'd rather have strict ERP rules than looser ones. The former is can be a buzz kill and is unfun sometimes, but the latter can make your community a seedbed for unsavory degenerates who seek to use your playerbase to groom them into making very poor decisions for the benefit of one and detriment of the other.

[MasterShakeEZ]

I hate that saying suck my d can get you banned when its an insanely common insult and doesnt have anything to do with sex. Other than that dont really care.

[ThesoldierLLJK]

Honestly I say context matters.

You should be able to tell someone suck my dick as its a insult and not ERP.

[ChengChan]

Posting porn links, pictures, etc should be ERP not the one saying "suck my dick or about sexual in game.

Example. An MP gave a marine NJP for removing his clothes and let him clean the areas, is that still even ERP? What's the purpose of marine law if you're banning that guy MP. The problem in game is.. marine law are useless.

[Loco52]

Problem is everything starts with a small joke and ends up with someone getting carried on and saying something very fucked up.

That's why ERP has to be exterminated from the root

[Justicer3792]

I think several examples of rulebreaks need to be added to each rule, otherwise there are a lot of assumptions new players can make that are false.

[Tharinoma]

How would you reword the rule?

[forest2001]

As with all our rules it's completely circumstantial. Context can completely change how something is interpreted. That being said however, a large factor for our No 18+ rule is indeed legal conforms. The game is widely accessible across the world to minors and is itself not an 18+ game, nor does it have any checks in place with account registration that would waive this as the BYOND minimum age is 13.

From my personal standpoint, I hit ERP and breaches of R#1 very hard. I am also completely fine with uses of insults such as SMD and the like because it's extremely common and while it's a sexual reference that is not it's intended context. I do not believe we require a rewrite of the rule, but a more standardised approach to it may be beneficial in regards to how staff handle the situations and determine what is a breach and what isn't.

[NoahKirchner]

The rule does not seem to be enforced as written.

Rule 1. No Erotic Role Play (ERP), erotic content, or 18+ sexual content - Roleplay intended to elicit a sexual response from the receiver(s), including but not limited to writing stories (WGW) or posting links to adult content.

If people say something that does not elicit a sexual response from the receiver, I don't see why it should be against the rules. 18+ content, in my mind, is content which semi-graphically describes some sort of sexual act. Saying that you're "gonna jerk it" after the op is obviously bravado, it elicits zero sexual response and holds within no explicit 18+ content. Being descriptive about it, though, would make perfect sense for a ban because when you get into description territory, that can be argued to be sexual content. People speak like this on the daily with no sexual connotation, and I think the rule as it's written now does a good job at setting a line between what should and shouldn't be allowed. I think the issue is with the enforcement of the rule and what is and is not sexual content, enforcing this as if ANY MENTION to sex or genitalia is sexual content completely defeats the purpose of the subtext of rule one,

This is not to be confused with distasteful but acceptable marine bravado such as scratching your crotch or cup-checking.

Which is important, making reference to genitalia or sex without explicitly describing it is not inherently 18+. Furthermore, there are no legal ramifications for distasteful jokes, so I see absolutely zero reason why this shouldn't be enforced 100x looser than it currently is.