I admit to poor grouping.
Rule #2 was something I put out there explicitly on Page 3 of the "plotbunny for sale" thread, and had not seen any argument on. I went into more detail here, but I thought it was merely making explicit what had previously been implied. I also had not seen anyone *breaking* the expanded version of this rule until relatively recently.
Rule #5 came partially out of a discussion on weaponizing space, and, specifically, on how if it were easy to do so, the place would look rather different than we'd like. I honestly don't remember where it was. I'll have to track it down. Specifically, that was the bit about "the difficulty of penetrating handwavium-reinforced hulls" or something like that. Beyond that, well, it's becase it's true. Force-on-force is going to be pretty much either a case of two things pushing at one another or a case of something trying to break through something else. In terms of pushing, we've done some work defining what sorts of energy output you can expect from handwavium of various sorts, and it is *far* above what hardtech can put out.
Rule #8 was from common usage. Given the number of initial characters who had been written up getting totally random results, and quirks that they *totally* would not have chosen for themselves, I didnt' think it made sense for incoming characters with relatively little understanding of the stuff to come in and, with approximately equivalent amounts of effort, suddenly get exactly what they were looking for.
Rule #13? Partially common usage, again. Every one of the initial stories that talked about it talked about handwaving specific parts individually. Partially, it seemed common sense - though this is, admittedly, subjective. Assuming even a semi-plausible attempt at science (which *was* in the base rules) a small amount of aerosol handwavium settling on a random device didn't seem like enough to violently change the entirety of its inner workings unless you were going full-on high-speed reconstructive nanomachines
As for rule #12, it had been my understanding that "the world we live in his held together with duct tape" *was* one of the basic design parameters. I'm not asking people to play minmaxing. I am also not insisting that they be openly obvious, major disadvantages. I certainly do not insist that it be slapstick. The issue is that there is a natural tendency towards "coolness creep". People who come in late will tend to want to get more stuff than anyone and put less effort into it. If you don't have some sort of balance criteria, then the world will quickly fall apart under the weight of new entrants pushing at the edges. Likewise, one of the central precepts of this universe is that the vast majority of the mundane world isn't using the stuff because it's dangerous and unpredictable. Another is that, in essence, Handwavium Just Wins. The only way, to my mind, to justify having both of these things be correct is if people are consistently having at least a few issues to deal with with their gear - and that the issues become more significant as the things they're able to do with them become more significant.
Beyond that, it is my position that stories that are written about characters who have weaknesses as well as strengths, and technology that has difficulties to go with its blessings, are *better stories*. If you allow people to write portions of the world with no flaws in them, then my understanding of human nature strongly suggests that those portions will come to dominate it over time.
Regardless, you're the moderator. If you wish to impose your will, I will not stop you. I would ask that you explicitly state what the replacement for the Rules are - particularly Rule #12. I will also say that if you do *not* see a need for balance, then my own role is substantially diminished.
Rule #2 was something I put out there explicitly on Page 3 of the "plotbunny for sale" thread, and had not seen any argument on. I went into more detail here, but I thought it was merely making explicit what had previously been implied. I also had not seen anyone *breaking* the expanded version of this rule until relatively recently.
Rule #5 came partially out of a discussion on weaponizing space, and, specifically, on how if it were easy to do so, the place would look rather different than we'd like. I honestly don't remember where it was. I'll have to track it down. Specifically, that was the bit about "the difficulty of penetrating handwavium-reinforced hulls" or something like that. Beyond that, well, it's becase it's true. Force-on-force is going to be pretty much either a case of two things pushing at one another or a case of something trying to break through something else. In terms of pushing, we've done some work defining what sorts of energy output you can expect from handwavium of various sorts, and it is *far* above what hardtech can put out.
Rule #8 was from common usage. Given the number of initial characters who had been written up getting totally random results, and quirks that they *totally* would not have chosen for themselves, I didnt' think it made sense for incoming characters with relatively little understanding of the stuff to come in and, with approximately equivalent amounts of effort, suddenly get exactly what they were looking for.
Rule #13? Partially common usage, again. Every one of the initial stories that talked about it talked about handwaving specific parts individually. Partially, it seemed common sense - though this is, admittedly, subjective. Assuming even a semi-plausible attempt at science (which *was* in the base rules) a small amount of aerosol handwavium settling on a random device didn't seem like enough to violently change the entirety of its inner workings unless you were going full-on high-speed reconstructive nanomachines
As for rule #12, it had been my understanding that "the world we live in his held together with duct tape" *was* one of the basic design parameters. I'm not asking people to play minmaxing. I am also not insisting that they be openly obvious, major disadvantages. I certainly do not insist that it be slapstick. The issue is that there is a natural tendency towards "coolness creep". People who come in late will tend to want to get more stuff than anyone and put less effort into it. If you don't have some sort of balance criteria, then the world will quickly fall apart under the weight of new entrants pushing at the edges. Likewise, one of the central precepts of this universe is that the vast majority of the mundane world isn't using the stuff because it's dangerous and unpredictable. Another is that, in essence, Handwavium Just Wins. The only way, to my mind, to justify having both of these things be correct is if people are consistently having at least a few issues to deal with with their gear - and that the issues become more significant as the things they're able to do with them become more significant.
Beyond that, it is my position that stories that are written about characters who have weaknesses as well as strengths, and technology that has difficulties to go with its blessings, are *better stories*. If you allow people to write portions of the world with no flaws in them, then my understanding of human nature strongly suggests that those portions will come to dominate it over time.
Regardless, you're the moderator. If you wish to impose your will, I will not stop you. I would ask that you explicitly state what the replacement for the Rules are - particularly Rule #12. I will also say that if you do *not* see a need for balance, then my own role is substantially diminished.