Step 3: Who gets to vote + DRAFT

[Flo]

@Ether
Edited some stuff in the first post, not sure if I caught everything.

@all
Please post suggestions and feedback if you like/dont like phrasing, order, structure or other things and can come up with a better solution.

[livia]

[1.3] Should only things that are specifically allowed be allowed? (Yes/No)

Am I the only one that think that is obvious ? All rules are made this way. There is no boundaries to new things.

[Flo]

@livia
I would ve thought so too, but in a time of new toolbox features every few months I think we should really settle this. When minimap came out people also just started using it without worrying, because they didnt see anything harmful. We want to avoid those situations where its unclear if a tool is eligible for use.

EDIT 19:52: And if its more obvious than I think and it ends up going 90-10, all we did is waste like 5 seconds of peoples lifes.

[haskhasin]

[1.3] Should only things that are specifically allowed be allowed? (Yes/No)
NOTE: "Yes" means that things have to be allowed before they eligible to be used in a record. "No" means that everything should be allowed that isnt forbidden.

I really don't like the wording here. Expressed like that, it means that:
- if yes, anything must be formally allowed to be permitted, so if I find a cool in-game mechanic I can abuse, I need to ask permission before I use that in a record, which is ridicolous. Coin dropping was not allowed despite being completely in-game. Do I need to ask if I can right-wall-block enemies? Also asking permission for using something basically tells everyone about what you found.
- if no, anything will be allowed as long as it's not public? Sounds ridicolous. And once it does go public, it may be not allowed anymore, potentially invalidating records or hours of practice.

I understand what you are trying to achieve here, but I don't agree with it. I said this before, we need a baseline concept for the standard category. A list of "you can/cannot do this" can help us understand what this concept should be, and can integrate it, but it's not enough.

[Flo]

I think its pretty interesting that both you and Livia critizised point 1.3 - for completely different, even contrary reasons.
In my eyes this shows exactly why we need this to be included. Livia would obviosuly vote "Yes" in the current wording while you would vote "No" - which is exactly how a vote should look like, different people voting for different things because of the reasons they value higher.

If you have an idea how to avoid the issues you mentioned or have a different wording in mind, that would be great.

[Nika]

Make Rule Guidelines not single Rules

[livia]

In any case, the problem is that if you want to be sure that your record is valid, you must make everything that is not allowed public before doing the record.
If you don't, you might get your record denied after hours of work.

My biggest problem is that, if we don't formulate the rule like that, getting a record denied after doing it would look subjective.

Also,
[3.1.1] Records require every single partymember to provide a video. (Yes/No)
Is it "provide a public video" or showing it to a moderator ?

Finally,

Make Rule Guidelines not single Rules

No, because we don't want to be in this gray area where no one knows if something is ok or no.

[haskhasin]

I think its pretty interesting that both you and Livia critizised point 1.3 - for completely different, even contrary reasons.
In my eyes this shows exactly why we need this to be included. Livia would obviosuly vote "Yes" in the current wording while you would vote "No" - which is exactly how a vote should look like, different people voting for different things because of the reasons they value higher.

If you have an idea how to avoid the issues you mentioned or have a different wording in mind, that would be great.

I would not vote "No". Both options are really bad.

[Flo]

@Nika
That what Livia said. Vague guidelines and not strict rules is what brought us into this situation in the first place.
I mean sure, you can still post a record with a tool that wasnt disclosed before, but dont be upset if it doesnt get approved in standard (it would be approved in tas anyways, if that category is going to exist after the vote)... and then people would be crying again, because there is no rule that forbidds [insert random thing] in standard and we would be right back where we started.

@haskhasin
Yeah, you mentioned that you think both are bad. Then "If you have an idea how to avoid the issues you mentioned or have a different wording in mind, that would be great.". You can also replace the one question with two or more, if you think that represents the issue in a more appropriate way...

@both
I understand your view, but thats exactly what this vote is for - determine, what the majority thinks about those issues. I have an opinion, Livia has one, Nika has one and Has has one. Lets just figure out what everyone else thinks and implement whats decided. Wording and structure of the question is one thing (-> post your own suggestion) but we really need this to be included to avoid further uncertainty, drama and accusations.

I will also shortly update the startpost again because I forgot some things, so you might want to check that out again.

[haskhasin]

high level, we should:

1. have the vote on stuff that should be allowed or not
2. derive a baseline rule from that
3. write the official rules with the baseline and the list which at this point is either exceptions or clarifications.
4. update rules as needed in the future. Every new "thing" should be, by default, allowed if it's in-game without tools (only exception in gwscr history is coin drop so this makes sense). idk about tools (imho it should be allowed if it follows the baseline, but that's the gray area that fueled this whole discussion, so probably not.).

About the questions, I guess you can replace 1.3 with two, one about in-game and one about tools.

Have you thought about how to implement the vote in practice? I was thinking a google form asking for IGN and guild, so we can verify if we see anything suspicious, and make results public afterwards (without identifying information). If you agree, we can proceed faster by actually making that and giving edit access to gwscr mods.