No metagaming
Do not use out-of-character information to give your character knowledge or an advantage they did not gain through roleplay.
Community Standards
This public section gives members and visitors a durable orientation to ASRP expectations without turning one page into an oversized rulebook.
Standards directory
The original source material supports these durable themes, but ASRP's current official systems remain the controlling source for live rules and procedures.
Respectful communication, harassment prevention, community-space behavior, privacy, doxxing, and account safety.
Open conduct guidance →Shared storytellingMetagaming, power-gaming, IC/OOC separation, character consistency, consequences, and player agency.
Review roleplay guidance →Technical integrityUnauthorized advantages, bug abuse, technical stability, responsible reporting, and development direction.
Open fair-play guidance →AccountabilityEvidence, factual reports, the proper workflow, confidentiality, review, and the public appeal baseline.
Review reporting guidance →Roleplay integrity
ASRP is collaborative storytelling. Characters should act on what they plausibly know and can do while leaving other players meaningful room to participate.
Do not use out-of-character information to give your character knowledge or an advantage they did not gain through roleplay.
Do not remove another character's reasonable chance to react or turn every scene into an outcome your character must win.
Character conflict, arrest, rivalry, discipline, investigation, or loss should not become personal hostility between players.
Injuries, failed plans, arrests, damaged relationships, financial problems, and investigations should continue to influence the story.
Use ASRP geography, terminology, agencies, and the shared world consistently enough that other players understand the scene.
Good realism supports player agency and shared scenes rather than becoming a reason to shut people out of the story.
Reporting & review
This public section intentionally does not publish fixed deadlines, sanction schedules, or review panels. Follow the current official ASRP workflow for those details.
Keep relevant clips, screenshots, timestamps, messages, identifiers, and context that help an authorized reviewer understand the concern.
Explain what happened, when it happened, who was involved, and why the issue needs review without turning the report into a public argument.
Submit through the current support, complaint, department, development, or other authorized route that matches the issue.
Do not spread sensitive evidence or use public pressure and retaliation as a substitute for the review process.