Rune

Stupid Rules

Recommended Posts

Bishop    169

My number one least favorite rule that I ever ever ever ever come across was 'first characters can not be female' as in there needs to be an equal amount of male/female to make the story go round? No. Because that player that comes in wants to play something they know. Let them have whatever the heck they want gender wise even if it is the stupidest most horrible thing that ever came through, because at the end of the day they chose you--they will build a relationship with you and your players and THEN you can get them to play something you want by showing them how important it may be to the story.

 

That and I hate limits, I hate ratios, I couldn't even begin to tell you how many male or female characters we have because I'm too busy posting and having a good time to give a crap to care!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Honorem    565
On 03/10/2016 at 1:18 PM, Bishop said:

My number one least favorite rule that I ever ever ever ever come across was 'first characters can not be female' as in there needs to be an equal amount of male/female to make the story go round? No. Because that player that comes in wants to play something they know. Let them have whatever the heck they want gender wise even if it is the stupidest most horrible thing that ever came through, because at the end of the day they chose you--they will build a relationship with you and your players and THEN you can get them to play something you want by showing them how important it may be to the story.

 

That and I hate limits, I hate ratios, I couldn't even begin to tell you how many male or female characters we have because I'm too busy posting and having a good time to give a crap to care!

Yes agreed! I hate the whole 'in the name of our census balance' crap, whether it's genders, species, character types, whatever.

 

I have another but I'm not sure it really fits the thread, though I'll say it anyway. The way rules are sometimes written in general. If someone starts going off on a first person tangent (I would appreciate it if you did X), it seems stupid and unprofessional. Related to that, having the rule listed, and then an entire paragraph of rambling directly underneath to supplement it.

 

For example:

1. No dogs!

Now we really don't like dogs around here. We're literally demons. We don't like em! So no dogs please, thank you!

 

How about just write the rule? The whole chiming in paragraph really grinds my gears.

Edited by Honorem
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arceus    183

I think, probably, what inspires the latter there, @Honorem, is these people have probably seen rule sets similar to the one I use, wherein it lists out the main point of the rule and then elaborates under it ( some of them do occasionally require elaboration, or extra information ). So they're attempting to copy this style, and yet don't actually grasp what the elaboration under it really is. Thus, they ramble. This one, for instance:


005 FCs/PBs are mixed media. Do not steal artwork.
— You're welcome to abstain entirely, if you'd rather, PBs are not required.


So it looks neat, but there's actual substance there that seems to slip through the cracks. Lol

 

My biggest problem with rule sets aren't even entirely the rules themselves; I've seen some pretty crazy stuff over the last decade, and honestly nothing really surprises me or strikes me as really off -- if I walk away from a site over its rules, it's probably because of the tone ( you know, that tone, that tells you this admin is like maybe 14 at best and it shows in the worst way ), or because there are like 50 rules and each of them has a nice huge 8-10 sentence paragraph under it explaining it further. I once found a site that had about 40 rules broken into like three posts, and each post had a hidden magical app word for bonus screw this points hidden in the huge paragraphs. It was a real life site. ... it seems to be them that are often terrible for rules.

 

Man, listen, I can barely find the justification for ten rules. My site has a skill system, runs on dice rolls, is an extremely AU member of its fandom, even spins off a spin-off of its canon, and has like 93749548345 systems attached to it, and I didn't even hit 8 rules. Why are you like this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Dusty    178

Word count rules are annoying in general because no matter what you have, someone will complain or abuse it.

 

Basically I feel a player should have the courtesy to post something that can be replied to, that has a response to what happened and something to move forward with. Logically that would usually entertain at least a 200 word count.  

 

We have no word count to allow for those times when a thread needs some back and forth banter or dialogue, however, it does allow the players to creep in that let their writing partner do all the creative work and feel like they are always steering the story line and when reading their reply think to themselves: "What am I supposed to do with that?" 

Edited by Dusty
typos oops!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackjack Bart    1,129

'You must have 15 different icons and they are -' yeah, no.

 

Character creation rules aka 'post 60 times before you make a new character'. I could tolerate a low #, but... it'd be so low, what's the point of the rule then?

 

'Log in daily, every day, with all your accounts'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josie    591

I once saw a site that would not let you advertise there unless you had been a member of the forum for 6 months.

 

Unless they posted on your site first, in which case you were allowed to link back.

 

I made the human equivalent of ????????????????????? as an expression and then x'd out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Morrigan    6,212

"Don't be a dick" or similar verbiage.

 

To me it indicates the staff are elitist assholes that are unable to articulate themselves beyond such annoyed sarcasm. It also indicates to me that they don't know what sort of behavior they want on their site so they thing a generalized rule will suffice for them to wave around the ban hammer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death Kitten    910
8 hours ago, Morrigan said:

"Don't be a dick" or similar verbiage.

 

To me it indicates the staff are elitist assholes that are unable to articulate themselves beyond such annoyed sarcasm. It also indicates to me that they don't know what sort of behavior they want on their site so they thing a generalized rule will suffice for them to wave around the ban hammer.

Quit subtweeting me! 😢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zozma    1,190

Do NOT post in your own shipper! Post back to the other person in THEIR shipper. 

 

Yeah, no.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indy    18

I once saw a weird one a year or so back, but it wasn't written down or anything, it just came at a friend of mine from the admins. So it was a mixed bag of weird and "no one actually told us this wasn't allowed."

 

"No biblical names."

 

I'm just... they realise a huge amount of names are also derived from the bible? When asked why, the angle they chose was that the bible didn't exist in their universe, which sure, makes sense, if there hadn't been other characters using "biblical" names. Is consistency too much to ask for? At least write it down.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icewolf    204
On 7/29/2017 at 7:55 PM, Zozma said:

Do NOT post in your own shipper! Post back to the other person in THEIR shipper. 

 

Yeah, no.

 

How are people supposed to keep track of plots, etc, if they're all over the place?

 

2 hours ago, Indy said:

I once saw a weird one a year or so back, but it wasn't written down or anything, it just came at a friend of mine from the admins. So it was a mixed bag of weird and "no one actually told us this wasn't allowed."

 

"No biblical names."

 

I'm just... they realise a huge amount of names are also derived from the bible? When asked why, the angle they chose was that the bible didn't exist in their universe, which sure, makes sense, if there hadn't been other characters using "biblical" names. Is consistency too much to ask for? At least write it down.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's a bit silly because a name is a name is a name. The bible might not exist in that universe, but the culture it comes from might, or names could be dropped into the bible during translations to make it easier for people to read/relate to when reading it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.