Record Rules Update - For Community Discussion

[Strongy]

Hello fellow gamers!

Before the boring stuff:

New Record Category!
To provide a fresh challenge for the community, Smiles has developed a ruleset for a new category of Bounty Records. This is a trial category whilst we gain feedback on whether people enjoy it or not. In particular, we encourage Second/RTA submissions given the shorter nature of the record - but that's for the community to decide!
Good luck and have fun with the new category!

Now for the Rules update:

I haven't been a mod for too long, but in my short tenure there have been several occasions where I think we all wish the rules had been more clear and were more prescriptive about the admin of the site.

In the below Google Doc, I have attempted to refine the rules to improve clarity and put more structure around the site/changes.
This draft is for Community Discussion. This means:

• I invite as many people as possible to read and critique, in a respectful way.
• When providing feedback, please be clear what clause you're referring to and suggest an alternative solution/wording and why it is better.
• Think broader than the rules listed (i.e. let me know if you think there are bits missing / things you think we should include)
• Please provide your feedback in as few posts as possible.
• Please take this in the spirit of what I am trying to achieve and don't take anything personally. I don't write T&Cs for a living so I expect I have made some mistakes/overlooked key things and this is not intentional.

It's quite a long document, so I will summarise the changes here:

• Clarify rulings on specific actions (e.g. Disconnect)
• Clarify completion triggers for all areas
• Clarify /age requirements and that this clause must be applied at all times going forward
• Renaming "Minute/Second" to "In Game Timer/Real Time Attack"
• Clarifying approach to different connection speeds to an instance
• Introducing a structured, formal way to implement further changes to GWSCR.
• Creating a new "Approver" role. This will sit lower than a Mod, with primary responsibilities of only approving records as the rules are written. "Mods" will then be responsible for managing escalation of issues, maintaining the site admin and resolving disputes

Next steps are:

• I will action/respond to all feedback in a timely manner
• After a period no shorter than 2 weeks, I will issue a "Final draft" for Community Review and approval. A further minimum period of 2 weeks will then take place for any last bits of feedback
• Please be aware, that opinions may differ between players. If I don't accept all your individual feedback, it will likely be because the wider community has a different opinion to yours, but I will be clear with why any feedback received hasn't been actioned.
• If it is accepted that a new "Approver" rank should be created, all existing Mods will become "Approvers" and I will organise Polls for re-"election" of existing Approvers to Moderators.
• If proving successful, I'll add the Bounty Record rules into this rulset to keep them all in one place.

I look forward to the onslaught of feedback - and thanks in advance of any/all engagement on this matter (positive is welcome too)!

Rules Suggestion - Google Doc

[Rafe]

Aside from my previous comments in the other thread about removing what is now being called IGT entirely from certain areas/missions/etc I have nothing further to add and support the changes as written, keeping in mind the new approach to proposing more specific amendments in the future.

Thank you for the work on this Strongy!

[Strongy]

Thanks Rafe, appreciate the feedback.
I am marginally concerned of the lack of feedback so far with whether people have seen this post or not.
If anyone is alive out there - really keen to hear feedback (good or bad). If you dont care - thats also good to hear and know!

[BackTwoBaySix]

It would be useful to highlight the changes to the google doc so people can see clearly what has been added and removed.

Also I don't really think its a good idea to add a "remain respectful at all times to everyone using this site" when we have people saying stupid things and obviously trolling / throwing fuel on the fire.

I think you should add some criteria for voting for change processes, similar to how we have a minimum voting age in real life and how previous votes were. We don't need dumb asses that have just created their gwscr account and submitted 1 record to have a say in such matters.

[Strongy]

Have highlighted the new sections. In a perfect world i would have used Track Changes, but the changes are a little too fundamental for that so in my opinion its still worth reading in full so you get all the context.
I added a clause to the change process saying that you must be a member of the site from before the original post of the poll. For significant changes, this criteria may be made more strict. I don't necessarily want to add further restrictions than that by default, but Mods can always apply judgement to the distribution of voters for significant/material changes.
In reality, I don't suspect there are many fundamental/significant changes likely to happen in the future, and even if that happens any rules we create now may not cover the exact scenario that unfolds, so my suggestion is to keep it loosely worded for now and we can refine at the time its necessary.
If you have a different opinion and solution let me know!