The rules are phrased and described as per heavy discussion at the admin meeting; they won't be changed. The only people enforcing these rules will all have been at a meeting and all have heard the explanation.

Some of these are very weirdly phrased.

"CT's may kill T's as rebels, any prisoner that is trying to access a secret. (CT rule)" What does that mean? Does that mean that rebels are now defined as being people trying to access secrets? What about people running away? Otherwise, why is it phrased in a way that looks like it's defining what a rebel is? It should be changed unless you want to confuse people.

"Do not ban people for freekilling, CT ban them. (Excluding MFKs. MFKs always result in a perm CT ban)" Why do you have this said, but then right at the bottom that malicious MFK's are permanent server bans? For one, you don't even need admin rules to be on the !rules, because people don't really need to know how the admins do their jobs, just that they do their jobs. But, if you are going to have them on !rules, make sure they're correct lol.

I like these new rules, though. I feel like they will make the game less about being a nazi and getting easy kills as a CT from dumb or confusing orders. The inclusion of a "No pardons" rule is very nice, imo. It was agitating seeing a rebel who killed a bunch of CT's get pardoned just because the warden didn't want to fight them. It was especially annoying when there was only one non-rebelling T left, who won whatever the last game was, and then a rebel got pardoned. So it's nice to see this rule included.

"A Terrorist can only be forced to face a certain direction while using AFK freeze, no longer than one minute, and no more than once per round." I thought this was always there, but apparently it was differently worded. What I don't understand is, why do you have this under "New Rules" and the "Terrorists cannot be forced to face a certain direction for longer than one minute" under removed rules? Isn't that a revised rule? So why is it not properly listed as such?

Well, once these go into effect, I'll have to get on and check it out. I've got a feeling it'll help make for less shitty CT's.

For the secrets rule, I interpret it as "any T trying to access a secret may be considered rebels"..

The rules are phrased and described as per heavy discussion at the admin meeting; they won't be changed. The only people enforcing these rules will all have been at a meeting and all have heard the explanation.

Ok but the randoms who are meant to be following these rules won't know what that's trying to say, since they weren't at the meeting to hear the explanation.

Exactly. Regardless of what you say in the admin meetings about what a rule means, if a randomer doesn't understand it right from reading it, they're not going to know whatever interpretation was decided upon. They'll listen to whatever they think it means, or ignore it and move on. Then what good comes out of the rule? If you want the rules to be followed, then they must be clearly written and understood.

As I said, I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but I'm just like a new randomer. I've been gone for a lot of these rules changes, so when I come onto the server again after these rules go into effect, I don't want to get punished because blah admin was told that a rule meant this, when it looks like it means something else.

The goal is to make the rule so easy to understand that we don't have to worry about who is highest ranking.

And yet !rules remains virtually the same after every admin meeting, and the confusion on the server doesn't change.