The New Age Rules

[Bobthehero]

Stacking more rules for people who already ignore the rules won't do anything, mass punishment for the actions of a few sucks. More rules to be enforced won'T lighten the DM workload. 0/10

[Anrilor]

Personally, I would propose this change as highlighted:

PG-13 Content
All players must be 13 years of age or older to play on Baldur's Gate: The Sword Coast Chronicles.

Beyond that, though, this server, the forums, and any interactions within them should be the equivalent of PG-13/Teen at most. No violations of this rule, not even within the privacy of an inn room or guild hall. This includes, but is not limited to, excessive vulgarity, gratuitous violence/torture, graphic/extended sexual situations, and explicitly or implicitly sexualizing any characters under the age of 18 or racial equivalent in age.

Pregnancies are strictly forbidden unless directly supervised by the DM team and approved in advance. Any pregnancies are a form of "retiring" a PC for the duration, and resulting children are NOT to be roleplayed or represented in game.

The minimum age for any PC is at least 20 years old or racial equivalent for all characters made. Any form of skirting the rule by use of vague or misleading wording or terminology to attempt to describe or insinuate a character as being physicially in appearance, or mentally underage is strictly forbidden and is considered breaking the character age rule. Breaking this rule is a considered a severe offense and can result in serious consequences.

----


Unusual Characters
Every PC must be a legal adult (at least 20 years of age for humans or the racial equivalent for nonhumans). No exceptions except as outlined in the rules on the PG-13 content for the server.


----



– Content = Teen
– The Server, Forum and all interactions are to be rated Teen or below. ERP/sexual encounters (other than fade to black scenes), graphic or extended nudity, gratuitous violence and torture, and especially rape or miscarriage are strictly prohibited. Pregnancies are forbidden unless directly supervised by the DM team and approved in advance. Any pregnancies are a form of "retiring" a PC for the duration, and resulting children are NOT to be roleplayed or represented in game. The minimum age for any PC is 20 years old or racial equivalent except as outlined in the rules on the PG-13 content for the server.

This is more or less fine by me.

The only thing I would change is this line:

Unusual Characters
Every PC must be a legal adult (at least 20 years of age for humans or the racial equivalent for nonhumans). No exceptions except as outlined in the rules on the PG-13 content for the server.

to

"Every PC must be at least 20 years of age for humans or the racial equivalent for nonhumans. No exceptions as outlined in the rules on the PG-13 content for the server."

or

"Every PC must be a legal adult and at least 20 years of age for humans or the racial equivalent for nonhumans. No exceptions as outlined in the rules on the PG-13 content for the server."

The way it is currently written is implying that 20 is the age of majority in-universe, when that is not the case.


Also a remaining '18' number was missed here:

This includes, but is not limited to, excessive vulgarity, gratuitous violence/torture, graphic/extended sexual situations, and explicitly or implicitly sexualizing any characters under the age of 18 or racial equivalent in age.

I'll back this, get rid of the Tweens and teens, we shouldn't have the first issue anymore unless someone directly disregards the rules, while still having the age young enough to play a believable "wet behind the ears adventurer" characters.

[Sputnik]

Degens will be degens.

Enforce the existing rules.

What's next, no Kara-Turans ?

I mean, anime has a problem with underaged crap, right?

[c2k]

I've only played on one other server that enacted age restrictions, and it had nothing to do with the reason why this was added (it had to do withb a 15 yr old kid devastating crit-ing the highly trained captain of the guard ). I'm of the mind age doesn't matter in this game, because there are no age penalties. You can rp an 80 yr old human man that could bench a full-grown horse with little effort thanks to 30 str. You can RP an 18 yr old with the Wisdom of 1000 yrs of life. Age does nothing in the game and it really shouldn't deserve this much focus.

[Zanniej]

Please know that staff is reading along in this thread.
Due to the response of the community, we're still discussing the rule. As always, we try to do what is best for the community as a whole.

We hear you, and are working on a consensus that as many people as possible find agreeable.

I also wish to reiterate that this is always the intention. We try to do what's best for the community as a whole. If there's anything you all disagree with, then please do let it be known (unless you disagree with a person, of course). All the rules, ways of working, etc. are always up for debate, if the community feels they need to be revised.

[DM Dialectic]

Hey All!

Thanks for all the great feedback. I have been very busy IRL this week, so sorry I have not been able to engage more in discussion here since my last post. I have read all the feedback, however, and polled the DM Team and this is what we are currently discussing as two options to update you all.

1. Have it be a hard age 20 rule for PCs, hard rule against implying younger than 20 with normal discipline proportion, no grandfather for 18-19. I think we know what this would look like language wise as it would just require changing "25" for "20" in the currently updated rules and eliminate grandfathering, so not marking it up as an example.

2. Have it be hard age 18 rule for PCs (as it was before), but with a hard rule against implying younger with severe permaban discipline after one strike (we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here). Here's a rough draft of what this would look like:

PG-13 Content

All players must be 13 years of age or older to play on Baldur's Gate: The Sword Coast Chronicles.

Beyond that, though, this server, the forums, and any interactions within them should be the equivalent of PG-13/Teen at most. No violations of this rule, not even within the privacy of an inn room or guild hall. This includes, but is not limited to, excessive vulgarity, gratuitous violence/torture, graphic/extended sexual situations, and explicitly or implicitly sexualizing any characters under the age of 18 or racial equivalent in age.

Pregnancies are strictly forbidden unless directly supervised by the DM team and approved in advance. Any pregnancies are a form of "retiring" a PC for the duration, and resulting children are NOT to be roleplayed or represented in game.

The minimum age for any PC is at least 18 years old or racial equivalent for all characters made. There will be a one strike policy (a one time warning) and you're out on the next violation (permanent ban from the forums and the game and the community) for any player that implicitly or explicitly violates this rule twice. We encourage all players to report vigilantly any violations as such to the DM Team.

----


Unusual Characters
Every PC must be a legal adult (at least 18 years of age for humans or the racial equivalent for nonhumans). No exceptions implicit in character description innuendo or explicit will ever be allowed.


----



– Content = Teen
– The Server, Forum and all interactions are to be rated Teen or below. ERP/sexual encounters (other than fade to black scenes), graphic or extended nudity, gratuitous violence and torture, and especially rape or miscarriage are strictly prohibited. Pregnancies are forbidden unless directly supervised by the DM team and approved in advance. Any pregnancies are a form of "retiring" a PC for the duration, and resulting children are NOT to be roleplayed or represented in game. The minimum age for any PC is 18 years old or racial equivalent. No exceptions implicit in character description innuendo or explicit will ever be allowed.

[Xorena]

2. Have it be hard age 18 rule for PCs (as it was before), but with a hard rule against implying younger with severe permaban discipline after one strike (we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here). Here's a rough draft of what this would look like:

I agree with the above. I think it should be 18 and not 20. I realize that you are trying to reduce DM workload in dealing with these creeps, hence my next suggestion:

The minimum age for any PC is at least 18 years old or racial equivalent for all characters made. There will be a one strike and you're out policy (a one time warning in case the player was ignorant on this rule) and you're out (permanent ban from the forums and the game and the community) for any player that implicitly or explicitly violates this rule twice. We encourage all players to report vigilantly any violations as such to the DM Team.

The underlined portion of this, I am skeptical of. I do not believe pleading ignorance should be an excuse. You're just going to get more arguments from offenders. This reintroduces subjectivity into this process. You want to remove subjectivity and create a bright line. The bright line is an adult-presenting 18-year-old adventurer. If it is unambiguous that someone is RPing someone with adolescent characteristics and tries to rules lawyer you with their Google-fu, boot them. There should be zero debate.

// edit: Grammar

[zhazz]

Hey All!

Thanks for all the great feedback. I have been very busy IRL this week, so sorry I have not been able to engage more in discussion here since my last post. I have read all the feedback, however, and polled the DM Team and this is what we are currently discussing as two options to update you all.

1. Have it be a hard age 20 rule for PCs, hard rule against implying younger than 20 with normal discipline proportion, no grandfather for 18-19. I think we know what this would look like language wise as it would just require changing "25" for "20" in the currently updated rules and eliminate grandfathering, so not marking it up as an example.

2. Have it be hard age 18 rule for PCs (as it was before), but with a hard rule against implying younger with severe permaban discipline after one strike (we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here). Here's a rough draft of what this would look like:

Hidden: show

PG-13 Content

All players must be 13 years of age or older to play on Baldur's Gate: The Sword Coast Chronicles.

Beyond that, though, this server, the forums, and any interactions within them should be the equivalent of PG-13/Teen at most. No violations of this rule, not even within the privacy of an inn room or guild hall. This includes, but is not limited to, excessive vulgarity, gratuitous violence/torture, graphic/extended sexual situations, and explicitly or implicitly sexualizing any characters under the age of 18 or racial equivalent in age.

Pregnancies are strictly forbidden unless directly supervised by the DM team and approved in advance. Any pregnancies are a form of "retiring" a PC for the duration, and resulting children are NOT to be roleplayed or represented in game.

The minimum age for any PC is at least 18 years old or racial equivalent for all characters made. There will be a one strike policy (a one time warning) and you're out on the next violation (permanent ban from the forums and the game and the community) for any player that implicitly or explicitly violates this rule twice. We encourage all players to report vigilantly any violations as such to the DM Team.

----


Unusual Characters
Every PC must be a legal adult (at least 18 years of age for humans or the racial equivalent for nonhumans). No exceptions implicit in character description innuendo or explicit will ever be allowed.


----



– Content = Teen
– The Server, Forum and all interactions are to be rated Teen or below. ERP/sexual encounters (other than fade to black scenes), graphic or extended nudity, gratuitous violence and torture, and especially rape or miscarriage are strictly prohibited. Pregnancies are forbidden unless directly supervised by the DM team and approved in advance. Any pregnancies are a form of "retiring" a PC for the duration, and resulting children are NOT to be roleplayed or represented in game. The minimum age for any PC is 18 years old or racial equivalent. No exceptions implicit in character description innuendo or explicit will ever be allowed.

Thank you. That's much more sensible. At least to me.

I'd like to request that other big changes to rules be presented in the same manner beforehand. Let the community know what the DM team is currently debating, what the options on the table are, and what a draft might look like. We're less likely to grab torches and pitchforks that way — jokes aside, such an approach will provide transparency, which is something the community has asked for for a long while.

[JustAnotherGuy]

we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here

Firstly, I appreciate the DMs listening to the community on this.

Secondly, RE: the quoted part, I am usually not in favor of such swift judgement. But there are cases in which I believe that for the good of the community, such swift and harsh measures need to be taken. This is one such case where I absolutely agree with a "one strike" policy. We as a community don't want that kind of behavior on the server, and we don't want the type of people in the community who would pursue that kind of thing. So yes, I absolutely agree with it in this case.

[DM Dialectic]

2. Have it be hard age 18 rule for PCs (as it was before), but with a hard rule against implying younger with severe permaban discipline after one strike (we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here). Here's a rough draft of what this would look like:

I agree with the above. I think it should be 18 and not 20. I realize that you are trying to reduce DM workload in dealing with these creeps, hence my next suggestion:

The minimum age for any PC is at least 18 years old or racial equivalent for all characters made. There will be a one strike and you're out policy (a one time warning in case the player was ignorant on this rule) and you're out (permanent ban from the forums and the game and the community) for any player that implicitly or explicitly violates this rule twice. We encourage all players to report vigilantly any violations as such to the DM Team.

The underlined portion of this, I am skeptical of. I do not believe pleading ignorance should be an excuse. You're just going to get more arguments from offenders. This reintroduces subjectivity into this process. You want to remove subjectivity and create a bright line. The bright line is an adult-presenting 18-year-old adventurer. If it is unambiguous that someone is RPing someone with adolescent characteristics and tries to rules lawyer you with their Google-fu, boot them. There should be zero debate.

// edit: Grammar

All, please see the updated version that excludes the "ignorant" language (as it was a mistake from an earlier draft to include that). I had an earlier draft copy and paste by accident while posting from my phone, but I meant to not include that in what was shared publicly. Sorry about that and the confusion, Xorena, and all others! And thx for pointing this out!

[DM Dialectic]

Hey All!

Thanks for all the great feedback. I have been very busy IRL this week, so sorry I have not been able to engage more in discussion here since my last post. I have read all the feedback, however, and polled the DM Team and this is what we are currently discussing as two options to update you all.

1. Have it be a hard age 20 rule for PCs, hard rule against implying younger than 20 with normal discipline proportion, no grandfather for 18-19. I think we know what this would look like language wise as it would just require changing "25" for "20" in the currently updated rules and eliminate grandfathering, so not marking it up as an example.

2. Have it be hard age 18 rule for PCs (as it was before), but with a hard rule against implying younger with severe permaban discipline after one strike (we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here). Here's a rough draft of what this would look like:

Hidden: show

Thank you. That's much more sensible. At least to me.

I'd like to request that other big changes to rules be presented in the same manner beforehand. Let the community know what the DM team is currently debating, what the options on the table are, and what a draft might look like. We're less likely to grab torches and pitchforks that way — jokes aside, such an approach will provide transparency, which is something the community has asked for for a long while.

We are trying to do so going forward and in the past few years, though it's always an imperfect process. The DM Team can see temporarily creating a rule, then promptly amending it after community feedback (as will happen within a week of implementation here probably, which by BGTSCC standards of speed, is fast IMO lol), versus floating for community feedback, then re-drafting before creating a rule, as both being in the spirit of your suggestion. In fact, sometimes when we create a rule, then ask for feedback (as in this case), it can draw more feedback and voices into the conversation versus theoretical rule crafting before creating a rule. So it depends I guess what is better in which situation?

Also, regardless of DM Team fear of community anger, we have been trying to just force decisions out more recently on topics of problem to just not be paralyzed by indecision on difficult issues, so in this case as well, just going with a decision and asking for feedback after kind of helped with that too, but it's certainly imperfect and in some cases could not be ideal. On a lot of issues, including this one, I'd rather us take heat and go with something then just sit by and do nothing for months on end due to fear of a bad decision. We are trying though to get community feedback on the rules framework as it is amended going forward when it comes to widely community affecting issues like this one in any case. We appreciate you all a lot! Thanks players for being awesome!

[kleomenes]

we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here

Firstly, I appreciate the DMs listening to the community on this.

Secondly, RE: the quoted part, I am usually not in favor of such swift judgement. But there are cases in which I believe that for the good of the community, such swift and harsh measures need to be taken. This is one such case where I absolutely agree with a "one strike" policy. We as a community don't want that kind of behavior on the server, and we don't want the type of people in the community who would pursue that kind of thing. So yes, I absolutely agree with it in this case.

I would second this post, both the thanks to the DMs and why swift judgement is in no way concerning in such cases.

[DaloLorn]

Option 2 seems more agreeable, and seems more likely to have the desired effect of lowering the DMs' workload. I'm definitely in favor of that one.

For the sake of discussion, though...

You mentioned no grandfathering in option 1. What happens to existing characters, then? In my case, Pixanie and Berred - would they need to be retroactively aged up (or have their birthdays defined accordingly), shelved until they'd be the right age, or what? (It's been nearly 2 years since Kana was created, so whenever her birthday is, she can't be far from 21 anymore. Well over the limit for option 1. )

[Anrilor]

we were skeptical there was community backing for this before as often severe one strike you're out discipline is frowned on by a lot of players for a lot of offenses, but given the responses of the community, it sounds like this may be an amenable compromise and it would reduce DMing workload, while protecting 18 and up PC server culture, which are the main DM Team priorities here

Firstly, I appreciate the DMs listening to the community on this.

Secondly, RE: the quoted part, I am usually not in favor of such swift judgement. But there are cases in which I believe that for the good of the community, such swift and harsh measures need to be taken. This is one such case where I absolutely agree with a "one strike" policy. We as a community don't want that kind of behavior on the server, and we don't want the type of people in the community who would pursue that kind of thing. So yes, I absolutely agree with it in this case.

+1

[Xorena]

re: reducing workload

To be clear, this revised version says they get one warning, and the second instance they are gone permanently (to the extent you can ban an IP address). Correct?

How often do people who are warned for this behavior are never complained about again? Personally, I am skeptical. These are the types of people who will try again and again.

At the very least there should be language in there that says something like (underlines are additions, hyphenated a couple phrases and added a sentence):

The minimum age for any PC is at least 18 years old or racial equivalent for all characters made. There will be a one-strike policy (a one-time warning) and you're out on the next violation (permanent ban from the forums and the game and the community) for any player that implicitly or explicitly violates this rule twice. We also reserve the right to ban players for violating this rule upon the first offense. We encourage all players to report vigilantly any violations as such to the DM Team.

Include a link on how to report violations to the DM team to make it easy on players to report violations.

Also, thank you for listening to feedback. I can't imagine what it's like to police this aberrant behavior. Take care of yourselves.