1. Угрозы и оскорбления
1.1 Угрозы админом-корешем или братом.
Наказание: Мут на 120 минут
1.2 Угрозы бана, кика, мута, варна с выгодой для себя и своих друзей
Наказание: Мут на 2 часа (120 минут)
1.3 Угроза снятия администратора, или лидера
Наказание: Мут на 3 часа (180 минут), В случае с администрацией + отключить репорт на 3 часа.
1.4 Если администратор угрожает игроку, другому администратору ради выгоды себе, другу или приятелю.
Наказание: Снятие администратора с административных прав. (9> понижение до 5 уровня до 2 недель)
1.5 Если Лидер\заместитель угрожает своему подчиненному увольнением и т.п.
Наказание: Лидер-фракция выговор +1, Заместитель-warn
1.6 Оскорбление родных
Наказание: Бан (время определяется самим сервером)
1.7 Проявление Расизма, Нацизма, Понизма, Говнизма.
Наказание: Мут на 30 минут, если + оск то бан.
2. Нарушение МГ,СК,ТК,ДМ,РК,ДБ.
2.1 За злостное нарушение МГ (И фразы «Мне срать на МГ»
Наказание: Мут 30 минут
2.2 За злостное нарушение СК (Даже не находясь на территории SPAWN)
Наказание: Тюрьма 35 минут + Кик
2.3 За злостное нарушение ТК (В том числе Дуэль за ранг)
Наказание: 3 кик далее Warn, Если за ранг то фракция +1 выговор
2.4 За злостное нарушение ДМ (Исключения: Заказ (хитман), разборки мафии)
Наказание: Тюрьма 45 минут, если лидер +1 выговор фракции
2.5 За злостное нарушение РК (Исключения: МП с ориентацией на убийства)
Наказание: Тюрьма 30 минут, + кик
2.6 В случае злостного нарушения ДБ (Исключения: МП с ориентацией на убийство с транспорта)
Наказание: Тюрьма 30 минут + кик
3. Использование НОН РП систем.
3.1 За использование Багов сервера.
3.2 За использование Чит программ.
Наказание: Варн(3 варна, автобан)
3.3 За соучастие с Нарушителем правил (3.1 и 3.2)
Наказание: Бан (Как предателя проекта)
4. Игрок обязан
4.1 Сообщать администрации о всех багах, и не доделках сервера.
4.2 Не в коем случае не нарушать МГ
4.3 Уважать Игроков\Администраторов
4.4 Соблюдать РП процесс
5. Администратор обязан
5.1 Уважать Игроков\Администраторов
5.2 Делать все возможное для комфортной игры на сервере.
5.3 Докладывать о всех багах и недочетах сервера Основателям
5.4 Выдавать наказания по правилам (Указаны выше)
5.5 Быть в сети не меньше 3 часов в день
5.6 Если администратор не может выйти в сеть, или выполнять свои обязанности, то он обязуется сообщить об этом Основателю Mattias_Nilson или Дима Горлов. В противном случае, администратор будет снят за неактив.
5.7 Писать грамотно.
5.8 Обязан предоставить причину наказание в полной форме.
6. Игроку запрещается.
6.1 Использовать баги сервера
6.2 Использовать баги сервера с другом
6.3 Не сообщать о багах администрации
6.4 Заниматься блатом (Исключения: Лидер- Первый 1 заместитель)
6.5 Проявлять агрессию к администрации
6.6 Запрещено выпрашивать деньги обратно.
6.7 Ставить условия основателям\администраторам.
6.8 Выпрашивать повышения\лидерки и т.д.
6.9 Выпрашивать деньги за услугу обратно.
6.10 Перевыдавать номера если их не видно.
7. Администратору запрещается
7.1 Вмешиваться в РП процесс (Исключения: <4 лвл, Основатель- Выбирает сам режим)
7.2 Проводить наборы на лидерство без разрешения Гл. по той фракции или его заместителя.
7.3 Принудительно заставлять Игрока участвовать в Мероприятии.
7.4 (Основатель) Не быть на сервере в течении 7 дней.
7.5 Вести ответные действия на наказания. (Рк-карается снятием)
7.6 За действия против основателя, администратор карается варном (3\3 снятие)
7.7 За убийство основателя против его воли, кик, 10 раз +1 варн.
7.8 Запрещено выпрашивать деньги обратно.
7.9 Ставить условия основателям\администраторам.
7.10 Выпрашивать повышения\лидерки\подавать заявки на лидерку в темах. и.т.д.
Arizona Administrative Register
What is the Arizona Administrative Register?
The Administrative Register (Register) is a legal publication published by the Administrative Rules Division that contains information about rulemaking activity in the state of Arizona. The Register is published by a numbered volume in a calendar year. Weekly issues are published each Friday with each issue making up the volume. The electronic version as authenticated by the office online is the official version.
The Register contains state agencies, boards and commissions:
Notifications of an agency’s intent to draft rules (docket opening); Proposed draft rules; Public notices about proposed rules, these include oral proceedings or public hearings; and Final Rules.
The Register «tracks» rulemaking activity of proposed, final, emergency, summary, and exempt rules.
The Register is also the source of notification to:
Agency oral proceedings;
Policy statement notices;
Guidance document notices;
Public information notices;
Delegation agreement notices;
Advisory committee notices;
Objection to a proposed expedited rulemaking, and petitions; and
Intent to increase museum fees.
A.R.S. § 41-1013(B)(9) through (15).
The Register has a cumulative index, which means users can track a rule from the beginning to the end of the rulemaking process.
If you have questions about the content or application of a published rule section, please contact the agency that promulgated the rule. The contact information is found in the preamble (beginning) of the rule as published in the Administrative Register.
Give input on:
License and Permit Fees
Operation, Health and Environmental Standards
Certification and Licensing Requirements
How do I find a Proposed Rule?
Click on the current year and volume link. Scroll to the Table of Contents. Click on the most current issue’s Table of Contents. Scroll to the “Indexes” at the end of the issue’s Table of Contents. Click on “Indexes,” a pdf will open. Agencies are listed in alphabetical order. Simply search the pdf by using Ctrl-F. The find box will open and type in an agency name. Under each agency heading is a list of section numbers and Register issue page numbers for reference.The online logbook also contains notice filings and Register dates by agency with links directly to the issues.
How do I make a comment?
Once you have found the issue, open the Administrative Register Table of Contents. Open a published notice of:
Proposed Rulemaking, or
Proposed Exempt Rulemaking
The agency contact information is located in the preamble at the beginning of the rule. See A.R.S. § 41-1022 (link is external).
Comment in writing to the agency’s address and rulewriter ombudsman listed in the preamble.
An oral proceeding may already be scheduled and published in the preamble. Attend the meeting and comment in person under A.R.S. § 41-1022 (link is external).
If no oral proceeding is scheduled and you would like to speak in person, request a proceeding in writing under A.R.S. § 41-1023 (link is external).
An agency may also inform stakeholders of public meetings in a Notice of Oral Proceeding after a proposed rulemaking notice has been published. These notices are published in the Register. Attend the meeting and verbally make comments on the proposed rulemaking.
The public and stakeholders may reproduce, without restrictions, notices published in the Register.
There is a commercial use fee to use the Register. Commercial use fees apply to those who intend to use the Register for resale or profit. For more information see our order form.
As of August 9, 2017, the electronic version of the Register, authenticated by the Division, is the official version under Arizona law. Prior to that date the paper version of the Register, as printed by the Division, was considered the official version. A.R.S. § 41-1013(D).
The office no longer offers subscriptions to the Register as of September 2017. There is a fee for commercial use of the Register. Fill out the order form and contact the Division for more information.
Past Volumes (1995-2017)
The Secretary of State is merely the filing office and publisher of Administrative rules. Therefore our office does not interpret or enforce rules. For questions about rules, contact the agency that promulgated them.
Arizona Administrative Code
The Arizona Administrative Code is where the official rules of the state of Arizona are published. The Code is the official compilation of rules that govern state agencies, boards and commissions. The Arizona State Retirement System is responsible for ensuring that all ASRS rules, five-year-review reports and substantive policy statements meet statutory requirements and are clear, concise and understandable. ASRS official rules are published in the Arizona Administrative Code, and can be found in Title 2, Administration, Chapter 8, State Retirement System Board, of the Code. The Secretary of State provides an on-line version of the Code at: Arizona Administrative Code
Please be aware that Arizona Administrative Code is only updated every three months, and that newer rules may be in effect than the ones published in the Code. For newer rules, please access the Arizona Administrtive Register.
Each year, the ASRS publishes a Regulatory Agenda listing the rulemaking actions the agency plans to take in the coming year. Below are the annual (calendar year) ASRS Regulatory Agendas:
Information on Rules
Explanation of Rules
According to the Arizona Revised Statutes, a rule is «an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy, or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency. Rule includes prescribing fees or the amendment or repeal of a prior rule but does not include intra-agency memoranda that are not delegation agreements.» A.R.S. § 41-1001(19).
Explanation of Substantive Policy Statements
According to the Arizona Revised Statutes, a substantive policy statement is “a written expression which informs the general public of an agency’s current approach to, or opinion of, the requirements of the federal or state constitution, federal or state statute, administrative rule or regulation, or final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, including, where appropriate, the agency’s current practice, procedure or method of action based upon that approach or opinion. A substantive policy statement is advisory only. A substantive policy statement does not include internal procedural documents which only affect the internal procedures of the agency and does not impose additional requirements or penalties on regulated parties, confidential information or rules made in accordance with this chapter.” A.R.S. § 41-1001(22).
In other words, substantive policy statements are filed with the Secretary of State in order to provide notice to the public about how an agency handles certain legal requirements, but substantive policy statements do not impose additional requirements on the public. Currently, the ASRS does not have any substantive policy statements on file with the Secretary of State.
ASRS Rules Procedures
The rulemaking process is the way government entities may create rules. There are four basic types of rulemaking: regular, exempt, emergency and expediated. The ASRS generally follows the regular rulemaking process, located in the Arizona Administrative Procedures act outlined in A.R.S 41-1001 through 41-1057.
Those procedures require various documents to be filed with the Secretary ofState and the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. The following documents must be filed in this order:
Notice of Docket Opening (NDO) — To inform the public that the agency is planning to change or add to its rules.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) — To inform the public of how the agency is going to change or add to the rules and allow a miniumum of 30 days for public comment.
Notice of Final Rulemaking (NFR) — To inform the public of how the agency has changed or added to the rules.
These documents are part of the rulemaking record and are available for public inspection at the ASRS Phoenix office.
Before engaging in the rulemaking process, the ASRS must obtain approval from the Governor’s Office for each specific rulemaking. Governor Doug Ducey instituted a rulemaking moratorium in Executive Order 2018-02 that will expire on December 31, 2018. The rulemaking moratorium requires most state agencies to seek approval from the Governor’s Office before proceeding with rulemaking actions. The ASRS complies the Executive Order and seeks approval from the Governor’s Office before proceeding with any rulemaking actions. If the agency does not obtain approval from the Governor’s Office to proceed with the specific rulemaking, the agency cannot engage in the rulemaking process for that particular rulemaking.
There are multiple opportunities for members of the public to participate in and comment on the rulemaking process. Members of the public are welcome to contact the ASRS at any time to comment on exisitng rules. The public may also participate on proposed rules through written and oral comments. The ASRS schedules an Oral Proceeding for each rulemaking that is open to the public for comment. Oral Proceedings on ASRS proposed rules are generally held at the ASRS Phoenix office, and noticed on this page, under the Rules Under Development column.
For information or to comment on ASRS rules, please contact ASRS Rules Writer, Jessica Thomas, at [email protected]
(Please note: Correspondence to and from this or other ASRS email addresses is subject to public disclosure under the Arizona Public Records Law.)
The Arizona Administrative Code is where the official rules of the state of Arizona are published. Please be aware that updates are published every three months and newer rules may be in effect.
The Arizona Administrative Register is the official publication for tracking rulemaking actions from concept to completion. It is published regularly by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State is the official publisher of the Arizona Administrative Code and the Arizona Administrative Register. The Secretary of State does not interpret or enforce administrative rules.
The Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) is a council of seven members appointed by the Governor to review agency rulemakings and Five-year Review Reports. Before submitting a Notice of Final Rulemaking to the Secretary of State for publication in the Arizona Administrative Register, an agency must obtain approval from GRRC. The council meets twice a month.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Effective June 12, 2018, the rules contained in 2 A.A.C. 8, Article 9, Compensation are expired and the Substantive Policy Statement, Compensation for ASRS Purposes, is rescinded.
1. Title of the substantive policy statement and the substantive policy statement number by which the substantive policy statement is referenced:
Title: Compensation for ASRS Purposes
Number: Not numbered
2. The public information relating to the substantive policy statement:
Effective June 12, 2018, the ASRS is rescinding the substantive policy statement identified above. This substantive policy statement is no longer necessary because the ASRS allowed the rules contained in 2 A.A.C. 8, Article 9 to expire which makes the substantive policy statement obsolete.
3. The agency contact person who can answer questions about this notice of public information:
Name: Jessica A.R. Thomas, Rules Writer
Address: Arizona State Retirement System
3300 N Central Ave, Ste. 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Rules Under Development
Please check back for updates.
Recent Rules Approved
Effective June 12, 2018, the ASRS has filed a Notice of Final Rulemaking and Economic Impact Statement in order to amend rules related to interest rates. See the documents below for information.
ASRS official rules are published in the Arizona Administrative Code and can be found in Title 2, Administration, Chapter 8, State Retirement System Board , of the Code.
ASRS Five-year Review Report
Every five years, the ASRS is required to review its rules and submit a Five-year Review Report to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). If the agency does not review a rule as scheduled, the rule will expire by operation of laws. The schedule of the Five-year Review Report due dates can be viewed on the GRRC website.
On January 4, 2017, the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council approved the Five-year Review Report on rules contained in 2 A.A.C 8, Article 7 relating to Contrbutions Not Withheld. The final report is located in the document below.
On May 5, 2016, Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) approved the Five-year Review Report on rules contained in 2 A.A.C. 8, Article 6 relating to Public Participation in Rulemaking. The final report is located in the document below.
In 2015, the ASRS reviewed all of its rules in 2 A.A.C 8, Articles 1, 4 and 5 and obtained approval from the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) at the Aug. 4, 2015 GRRC meeting. The final report approved by GRRC is located in the document below. The ASRS did not review R2-8-201 or R2-8-207 as scheduled and allowed those rules to expire.
The ASRS has allowed the following rules to expire and these rules are no longer in effect:
Article 9,consisting of R2-8-901 through R2-8-905
Arizona Rules of Court — State, 2018 ed. (Vol. I, Arizona Court Rules)
ProView eBook also available
Arizona Rules of Court — State (Vol. I) provides the rules of court needed to practice before the state courts of Arizona and offers attorneys a compact yet comprehensive procedural law library they can fit into their briefcase.
Arizona Rules of Court — State (Vol. I) provides state rules of court, including:
- Rules of Civil Procedure
- Rules of Criminal Procedure
- Rules of Evidence
- Rules of the Supreme Court
- Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure
- Rules of Procedure for Special Actions
- Rules of Procedure for Direct Appeals From Decisions of the Corporation Commission to the Arizona Court of Appeals
- Rules of Procedure for Direct Appeals from Decisions of the Governing Bodies of Public Power Entities
- Rules of Family Law Procedure
- Rules of Protective Order Procedure
- Rules of Probate Procedure
- Rules of Procedure for the Juvenile Court
- Tax Court Rules of Practice
- Local Rules of Practice for the Superior Courts
- Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure – Civil
- Superior Court Rules of Appellate Procedure – Criminal
- Rules of Procedure for Enforcement of Tribal Court Involuntary Commitment Orders
- Rules of Procedure for the Recognition of Tribal Court Civil Judgments
- Rules of Procedure for Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
- Rules of Procedure in Traffic Cases and Boating Cases
- Rules of Procedure in Civil Traffic and Civil Boating Violation Cases
- Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure
- And more
Connect. Discover. Share.
Get the most out of your experience with a personalized all-access pass to everything local on events, music, restaurants, news and more.
Enter your email or sign up with a social account to get started
Already registered? Login ›
Don’t have an account yet?
Recommended For You
New Rules: Arizona Will No Longer Be the Wild West for Testing Self-Driving Cars
Arizona Governor Doug Ducey ended the era of unfettered self-driving car companies last week, creating a detailed system of rules and a type of licensing system for the vehicles.
Ducey’s new executive order is being described as an «update» of his permissive 2015 order that resulted in a fleet of hundreds of semi-autonomous cars on state roads. White Waymo and gray Uber vehicles, bristling with cameras and antennas, have become a common sight in Tempe and Chandler. The state is now considered a leader in the technology, though the dry, warm climate and other factors have attracted the firms.
Why Self-Driving Vehicles Are a Rare Sight on Metro Phoenix Freeways
If a Self-Driving Car Crashes, Who’s to Blame? Your Guess Is as Good as the Governor’s
Delivery Robots Get Warm Welcome at Capitol: Ready for Them on Your Sidewalks?
«The technology has advanced considerably, and the industry has grown rapidly,» said Kirk Adams, Ducey’s chief of staff. «The companies still have work to do, certainly from a public understanding of the technology. That’s their job. Our job is to make sure that we are protecting public safety.»
Officials were never that clear about any limitations of the 2015 order. The March 1 rules follow several news articles, including in Phoenix New Times, that posed questions about the liabilities and lack of rules for the vehicles already being tested.
According to Ducey’s staff, officials were also motivated after the federal government published guidelines for the vehicles last fall.
Under the new order, companies must register their vehicles with the state if they intend to put driverless cars on the road, and do it within 60 days if they’ve already begun such testing. They have to follow rules, such as displaying federal certification labels and making sure the vehicle will stop automatically or take other safety actions in case the self-driving function fails.
If the companies comply, they’ll be considered «licensed to operate the vehicle» under state transportation law, the order says.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety has to come up with a plan for law -enforcement agencies across the state on how to deal with the rapidly breeding robocars.
DPS should educate «relevant law-enforcement agencies and other first responders on how to interact with fully autonomous vehicles in emergency and traffic enforcement situations, contact information for insurance and citation purposes, and any other information needed to ensure the safe operation of fully autonomous vehicles in Arizona,» the order states.
Ducey’s latest order gives definitions that should help the public better understand what’s going on, and how the state will help manage the futuristic technology. Americans remains wary of the concept of fully autonomous vehicles; polls show most people aren’t ready to get in one.
The order rolls back some of Ducey’s freewheeling policy on self-driving cars.
In December 2016, the state Department of Transportation touted the lack of rules in news release about Uber’s decision to test its vehicles in Arizona:
«Part of what makes Arizona an ideal place for Uber and other companies to test autonomous vehicle technology is that there are no special permits or licensing required,» the ADOT release said. «In Arizona, autonomous vehicles have the same registration requirements as any other vehicle, and nothing in state law prevents testing autonomous vehicles.»
Under Ducey’s new order, if the «person,» or company, fails to submit a written statement that a vehicle adheres to all of the new rules, the ADOT director «has the authority to immediately issue a cease and desist letter revoking any permissions to operate a fully autonomous vehicle on Arizona’s public roads . «
Adams said the last 12 to 18 months have seen astonishing progress, and more miles driven by the test vehicles. Then, in the fall, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued guidelines that became a «seminal moment in the industry,» he explained.
«We felt it was time to react and be consistent with those guidelines,» he said.
The 2017 NHTSA guidelines, released in September, call for an application process and other measures similar to what the state now requires. The federal agency’s 2016 guidelines on «highly automated vehicles» suggested the same thing.
The governor created a self-driving car oversight committee staffed with representatives of ADOT, the state Department of Insurance, Ducey’s office, and the University of Arizona, and given a mission to advise state agencies and universities on how to best advance self-driving cars. The board met once, online records show, or perhaps twice, and did little else.
The head of the insurance department told the New York Times for a November article that he would «wait for the insurance industry to guide regulators on liability policies for driverless cars, amid questions about who is responsible in a crash if the car isn’t driven by a human.»
«At this point, you just need to be a registered, insured vehicle just like anybody else,” said Kevin Biesty, deputy director for policy at the Arizona Department of Transportation told the Arizona Republic in June.
Chandler police Lieutenant David Ramer told New Times in October there was «no protocol in place» for coping with driverless vehicles.
In 2017, Chandler police recorded three accidents involving semi-autonomous vehicles, one of which was deemed at fault in an illegal left turn. But that vehicle had a driver.
So far, most, if not all, of the vehicles being tested on metro Phoenix roads aren’t true autonomous vehicles, or self-driving — though such terms fit well in headlines. In fact, the Uber and Waymo vehicles have drivers, and the self-driving technology enhances the abilities of those drivers. No doubt, that’s why few crashes have yet occurred.
For competitive reasons, the companies don’t want to release how many miles the vehicles go before requiring human intervention. But once the vehicles go «fully autonomous,» things could change. Even if they drive more safely than most human beings, they could still cause serious damage, or worse, injure or kill someone.
Adams and Ducey spokesman Daniel Scarpinato, in response to questions from New Times, said the state would not be liable if a fully autonomous vehicle being tested on Arizona roads negligently killed someone, despite the state’s advocacy of the vehicles.
The corporation that operates the vehicles would be responsible, they said, and the company could be held criminally liable just like a person.
As the new executive order states, a «person» is defined as including corporations under state law. The company would also pay any traffic tickets the driverless vehicle may incur, they said.