Rule 2.9 - As an antagonist, do not cause excessive death, damage, or destruction beyond your objectives - was rewritten.
The rewrite makes the definition of what Excessive Damage is clearer, provides some more examples, and better acknowledges that antagonists like wizards and nukies may seek to destroy the station.
The new rule can be found here: Server Rules - Space Station 14 Wiki
Since this is on the topic of rule clarity, these two provided examples felt off and the line doesn’t feel well established.
I overexplain this, so if you get what I mean straight away, you don’t have to waste time reading this whole thing.
Allowed:
Permanently round removing many people who have demonstrated a persistence and a capability to either kill you or interfere with the completion of your objectives.
Not allowed:
As a traitor with 3 kill objectives, taking steps to permanently round remove many non-objective people who are no longer an immediate threat to you, even if it is done to prevent yourself from being discovered.
I’m going to alter the wording, narrowing the broader example of one to fit the narrow example of the other, structure them the same, and still retain their original meanings as I think that will highlight the problem.
Allowed:
As a traitor with 3 kill objectives, permanently round removing many non-objective people who have demonstrated a persistence and a capability to either kill you or interfere with the completion of your objectives.
allowed condition:
persistent and capable to kill you
persistent and capable to interfere
Not allowed:
As a traitor with 3 kill objectives, permanently round removing many non-objective people who are no longer an immediate threat to you, even if it is done to prevent yourself from being discovered.
not allowed condition:
threat that’s not immediate
to prevent discovery
The conditions for each overlap in areas, and I’m guessing the only important distinction is what someone deems to be persistent and capable. Determineing this is kind of ambiguous and a rule following player and an observing admin could easily come to different conclusions after watching the same series of events. Then again, that might not even be the intended distinction.
Non immediate, does that mean someone who was deemed both persistent and capable but was a non immediate threat is OK or not? There are 2 potential readings of that.
Same with to prevent discovery, does that mean someone who was deemed both persistent and capable but was killed to prevent discovery was OK or not? Again, 2 potential readings.
And there is the muddying parts that I removed/copied, in my honest interpretation I thought they weren’t relevant and exist as to flavour the examples(which is ok). I could be completely wrong and the writer meant them to be relevant, if that is the case that’s another ambiguity.
Edit: I read those two examples so many times that the words became a meaningless mush now, so I cant understand what I’ve written, so have no clue if what I said makes sense or not.
So… Space dragons are not allowed to space evac on MRP? there is an expection for Nukies, Wizards, and DAGD but not Dragons and Zeds so.. if im reading that correctly Space dragons no space evac?
revenants are unnable to space evac either? when destroying glass is like the ONE thing they can do.
spacing evac wont help you kill command.. your way more likely to just kill everyone else, friend and foe.
I am the one who rewrote the rule. I don’t remember anything about spacing evac?
Specifically for your question @Tao7891 the rules are written in a way that you’re supposed to be allowed to kill anyone who is a threat to you and is actively trying to hinder you.
For the sake of this rule, persistent and capable functionally means valid hunters, and security officers who are trying to stop you. Killing 5 random passengers who are doing nothing to stop you, have nothing of value to you, and are actively trying to avoid you is excessive with this writing, even if they intend to report you to sec/command.
MRP amendment is what we’re talking abouit. 
Yeah, I didn’t touch that part at all, but that’s been there for at least 2 months now.
Yeah so.. we was saying that the MRP amendment would mean Space dragon, Revs, non-DAGD traiots and Zeds are not allowed to space Evac while Wizards and Nukies and DAGD traitors can :3
Yup
Please dont take this the wrong way, but it wasnt a question. I was trying to point out how messy these two conflicting examples are. The possible take-aways are unclear and I thought it would be easy to address it by leaving the possibe take aways as questions to the reader.