Hello, I have feedback I wanted to share on two rules of the T&C. After following this ban appeal: https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.68983/ in which doochis was banned for saying "B> gen30 for $10. I can pay through paypal" and after reading the T&C , I think rule 19 needs a revision: Spoiler "Exploit the Software, Cash Items or the game for any commercial purpose, this includes but is not limited to; buying or selling Mesos and/or "power leveling" services; Punishment: Permanent ban" I'm also aware of rule 28: Spoiler "Making a believable claim to have broken any of the other rules in the T&C, including but not limited to posing as another player who has broken these rules. Punishment: The same punishment as the proclaimed offense or offender" In this case Doochis didn't buy gen30 for $10, breaking rule #19; she didn't say "I bought gen30 for $10", breaking rule #28; she said "B> gen30 for $10" which is arguably a joke. So she was banned for the intention of breaking a rule, not for breaking it or making a believable claim to have broken any other rule. Tim said this on the appeal: Spoiler After discussing the possibilities of introducing a rule change for Attempted Real World Trade (and not following up on it) we eventually decided that we will not create any loopholes and that there's no excuse for this type of chat in-game. Any attempt to RWT shall be treated like the offense itself meaning even solicitating to give/obtain any currency or items unrelated to mapleroyals for mapleroyals mesos or mapleroyals goods will resolve in a permanent ban from the game. But that is not stated on the T&C, right. So I think rule 19 should be more clear and include (from now on) something along the lines that "Buying or trying to buy (even if it's a joke) items for Real World currency" or what Tim said "Any attempt to RWT shall be treated like the offense itself" to make it more coherent. There's also rule 30: Spoiler Transmitting Smegas in a language other than English. Punishment: 3 day ban. So I wanted to point out that when this rule is broken, GMs are more lenient, for example, by just sending a notice and reminding that it's not allowed. I think that the consistency on bans should apply to all rules, and if that doesn't happen then that rule should be changed or removed. TL; DR: Rule 19 should be more clear and rule 30 should be changed or removed to have more consistence with the other rules. Thank you for your time reading .
I think in regards to rule 28, the punishment seems kind of harsh in comparison to other ones such as rule 27 where a player is gaining advantage over others to obtain more NX than others by bypassing the restriction. It's not hard for an individual to have 2 computers + vote off 2 different networks to gain an unfair advantage.. how can you differentiate the two players apart? Spoiler: Rule 27 Attempting to and/or bypassing the restriction of not voting more than once every 24 hours per person. Punishment: 1st Offense - 7 Days 2nd Offense - 14 Days 3rd Offense - Permanent Ban With that being said, when a player gains a slight unfair advantage over others they are faced with light punishments before finally getting a permanent ban on their account. Would that not be the same for Rule 27 where an individual is making a believable claim that hasn't taken place? It's so minor where the act has not been committed yet, therefore I don't think a permanent ban is necessary as their first offense. If the player didn't follow through with the transaction and was merely just a few words thrown here and there, should there be some judgement being taken into account when using these terms and conditions as a guideline to ban? Is it really reasonable to ban someone based off of words that was typed out in a matter of seconds or has no concrete evidence to support it? If the transaction never took place outside of the game and even if it did, there would be some evidence that support it such as exchanging contact information to exchange/setting up a time to proceed with the transaction. If we took doochi's ban appeal for example, it was a mutter of words that happened in a matter of 60 seconds. If she was being serious about buying the genesis 30 with real world currency, would you think she would have followed through with it by sending her Paypal info to the seller? The chat log provided by Tim happened in April, does it make sense for a Level 15x Bishop who has played this game for a period of time to buy Genesis 30 now at a higher level? Even if she did purchase it, why didn't she use the Genesis 30 book/have the skill when she got banned last week? With the evidence provided by Tim, it seems what doochi said was a joke and with that in mind, the punishment given seems to be too strict as a first offense with the transaction never following through. If we look again at Rule 27, it only gives a ban of 7 days for their first offense of abusing the NX voting system where a player gains an unfair advantage. tl;dr for those who are lazy. Yes the rules are there for a reason, but I believe there should be more judgment put in place to support the bans. The revision of the rules in particular rule 28 should be revised with judgement and perhaps more clarity as what StrickBan implied.
Using the example of Doochie's ban appeal, I don't think it was a joke. 10 dollars would be a reasonable amount of money. I was a half-serious statement on their behalf. And I promise you, had they gotten a bite, they would have taken it. Had they said B> gene30 1000 dollars, then no, thats a joke.
And had they gotten it why wouldn't they use the book? Why wait till level 15x to purchase one rather than at a lower level?
This and also I've seen people smega in languages other than English or swear like what StrictBan said and no repercussions has been made..
i unno, haven't gotten to that level, why would they be botherin' to ask for it in the first place? If they instantly banned the people for using their own native tongue in smegas they would have less people on the server. Less people means less traffic, less traffic is bad. The rule is there to scare them into keeping it english. It all comes down to the fact that its generally harmless whereas.... ah hell with it.
Getting genesis 30 is to makes it more appealing to sell leech. You'd rather have a 1 hit than a 2 hit leech. And in regards to the smegaing in another language, yes I do understand that English isn't a native language for everyone.. but this rule is in place so that when you smega everyone can understand it. I don't think it has anything to do with traffic as you can speak whatever language you want in guild/buddy/all chat, the GMs don't limit that.
If this is the case, why have rules at all? Or why state in the T&C that the punishment for breaking this rule is a 3 day ban? Instead, it could state "you will get a warning first, and then a 3 day ban". This is the point StrickBan is making. When all the other rules are being so strictly followed, regardless of if the person does or does not speak English, I think he's right in that rule 30 should also be consistently followed. Just my constructive criticism to the GMs~
I can't say much on the main topic because 1) brain is half-dead from a migraine all day and also I cant really word things right. But personally with regards to smegas not in english, that rule was initially made (I believe) because people were circumventing autoban by saying nasty things in other languages that most couldn't understand. Harassing others, etc. After we put the ban in place, people started to rebel and purposely ignore it just to push our limits - smegaing 'hola', or having three or more people chain together a couple of letters to form a phrase in Spanish. These days the playerbase has changed and a lot of people (especially Taiwanese players) come to the server with their friends and are smegaing something innocent in other languages. No, warnings technically aren't given out. But if a GM feels it's minor enough to tell someone to cut it out, that's up to their discretion. It isn't considered a warning because that would mean everyone would do it and everybody would receive the same first warning. We can choose to use our discretion to tell someone to knock it off , or we can ban outright. I'm a little more lenient and I'll be more likely to tell someone to stop, whether it's spamming or smegaing in a different language. But I don't always tell someone to stop. Sometimes I'll just ban outright, because we don't *have* to give a warning. Hopefully that cleared that up a little bit. Like I said, migraine today so I might not be making the most sense.
Sila - I totally understand your point. But what you said kind of makes me wonder -- if a GM feels it's minor enough to do what they have to, wouldn't that mean some rules are up to a subjective interpretation depending on the GM? For example, some GMs might be harsh or some GMs might be more lenient when someone breaks a rule. So it makes me wonder what exactly constitutes something as "minor" and "serious". I'm just using rule 30 as an example in this case, for example, you say you're more lenient, but another GM might ban the person on the first offense even if what they smega'd was innocent. Wouldn't that mean there is a subjective bias on the rules, depending on the GM and how they interpret the rule? I understand there might be some special cases and the punishment may depend on the context of the situation (ex: if there was definite proof someone broke a rule). However, when it comes to leniency for minor offenses -- where do you draw the line? That was why I was suggesting that all rules be upheld a little more consistently, so people can know what to expect when they break a rule OR as Strick said, maybe write the rule(s) in a way that would reflect where the line is drawn. Feel free to correct me if I misspoke about something or if you have a different point
Yea it was clear it was a joke, even if "$10 is a realistic amount" which i dont even think is a valid argument because you can't put a price on something like that because you don't know someones ethics when it comes to spending money, for all we know she could wipe her ass with $100 bills because she's rich. I agree you shouldn't joke about RWT trade but i dont think a permanent ban for this is really the way it should be, i know the line has to be drawn somewhere so people just cant claim "oh but i was joking" but this case she clearly "proved" she was joking i believe, and from what i've seen around the forums, getting unbanned is,you are guilty until YOU prove your innocence, and its pretty clear you can see she was joking and she provided evidence.
Hi Sneha!! Anyways, I agree with what Sneha said because when it comes to a final decision (in this case the perma ban on doochi's account) there should be a clear line as to what is minor and serious and there should not be bias or opinion on whether or not it is perma-ban worthy. Why should someone who does the same thing as doochi not get banned if the GM doesn't feel that it is serious enough when someone like doochi gets banned for doing the crime because the GM judging her case feels it is? That's like a judge letting someone go scat free for stealing because they dont feel it is serious but another judge sending someone who does the same crime to jail because they feel it is? That just makes no sense. Edited to add a bit more: Rules are not to be negotiated or to be lenient on. If you can negotiate with the rule on only english smegas why can't we negotiate on the rule on the claims on rwt? Is it because it is not as serious? Yes, i agree it is not as serious BUT the rules do not say that ___ can be negotiated on and ___ can't, the gms are the ones saying that BUT the terms and conditions are what they are and so if someone breaks the rule on claims for RWT and gets banned so should people who smega not in english. However, since people who smega in english are not banned i think it would be fair if doochi is not banned until all those people are banned, OR you can rewrite the rules with appropriate actions and then enforce them so that no one can argue.
I have a lot I want to say but it's 3:30am and I can't keep doing this. I'll just leave you with the fact that we've been banning for attempting to RWT with significant precedent. https://royals.ms/forum/threads/donator-ban-appeal.69853/ https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.68998/#post-358419 https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.69836/#post-362327 https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.69009/#post-358117 https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.43128/#post-236556
I honestly think it's dumb. If I were to make a trade in the real world, the last thing I'd do is to post it in the alliance chat where everyone can see it and report it. Put yourself in her shoes. She was obviously frustrated and joking, you know, we used to be able to make jokes in the past. I can totally see myself joking about the same thing and I'm here for almost 3 years and just to think that everything can go to hell just because of a silly joke that has no actual proof... If you can't joke about simple stuff like that, you can't even joke about account sharing or hacking without being interrogated by the MapleRoyals' FBI Police.
Even so if we look at each example.. 1. He was selling RP for mesos, which is entirely against the ToS. He even offered to give RP in exchange for mesos. There's a difference using the terms "I'm selling donor points for mesos." and "I will donate on your behalf so you get RP" there is intention to RWT. Whereas if we compared doochi's.. she merely said "b>gen30 for 10 dollars. ill send thru paypal." I'll send through paypal =/= I will. It is clear that Accord was going to follow-through with the transaction whereas doochi didn't follow-through with it. There was even evidence that proved that she did not follow-through. 2. The seller is consistently trying to sell for RWT with persistence. There is sufficient evidence here that leads to RWT.. I mean if you can find proof that doochi's was persistent in trying to B> for RWT, please prove me wrong. 3. TimK mentioned .. "why have you been inquiring people for items / mesos for 'real money' via forum inbox?" Again, persistence. TimK even provided evidence of why they kept on asking people for items/mesos for RWT. 4. "... banned you on the character Krishna for offering the following people money for their mapleroyals items." following people, again persistency. 5. Excerpt from the chat ".. too low or are you just not wanting to do $$" . Clearly there was a follow-through for this transaction. The buyer rebutted and made a counteroffer. Could you please inform me how doochi's case is similar to these cases above? From what I can see from above, the players were persistent with the transactions and there is sufficient evidence included to conclude that there is RWT. Doochi's even provided a paypal summary to indicate that that transaction never fell through. With that in mind, doochi's case =/= the cases above. From what I can see the above examples are not similar cases to hers as there is sufficient evidence to lead to a ban.. Though I still believe that a permanent ban for a first minor offence is a bit harsh. What if the player is actually joking? Could we really take their word for what they said in a matter of seconds? I'm sure I can't remember what I typed out of 2 minutes ago in buddy chat if I was talking to multiple people at once.. let alone 60 seconds.
When we discussed the possibilities of changing the rules for Attempted Real World Trade, we did also discuss that as you mention the already existing rule could do with some clarification. This means that clarifying this rule has already been on our mind and it is likely to happen sometime soon. That's about all I am willing to contribute with in this thread, as the rest of this thread including the replies seem very opinion heavy. I'll is a contraction of the words I will or I shall, so technically it does equal I will.
So first I want to say I deleted a LOT of posts in this thread because they have nothing to do with the thread itself. Yes, it's obvious to all that this thread was started as a result of something that occurred in game, but this thread is not to serve as a secondary ban appeal for a player. The decision has been made, and that's how it's going to remain. With that said, I would like to address a few points: This is how I basically feel GMs SHOULD be. The T&C has this clause which was not put there by accident: No person is exactly the same and therefore, won't see things the same. The staff has CONSTANT discussions about Report Abuse posts and Ban Appeals and there's very seldom a time where there is 100% agreement amongst all staff, but that's okay. People may be tired of the comparison or feel it's not apples to apples, but I do think it's the closest comparison and that's to police officers catching speeders. It's against the law to go above the speed limit, right? If I pull you over for going 5MPH / 5km/h you're technically breaking the law and I'm well within my right to give you a ticket. Other cops won't pull you over unless you're going MUCH above the speed limit, but what's that limit? 10, 15, 20? It's subjective and up to each officer, even though the "rules" say you are to be ticketed as soon as you are 1 over. And I can guarantee that many on here would be LIVID if they got a ticket for only being 5 over, but they still broke the law. It's funny to me how things like this always ebb and flow. When the GMs use their discretion and some apply the rules more or less harsh than others, there's calls for every GM to be EXACTLY the same (how we do that as we aren't one person is another problem) and for every rule to be black and white and administered as such. When there's a case where someone popular or well known in the community is affected, there's calls for leniency to be given and for that same black/white administration of the rules to be "overlooked" and for the GMs to use their common sense (which of then course results in calls of the staff being biased). See? There's literally NO way to resolve this to make everyone happy. See my example above regarding speeding. If we were to apply the rules EXACTLY as they are written, black and white, everytime regardless of circumstances like you are proposing, you will see a LOT more people banned, a complete lack of "fun" on the server as people will be so afraid of getting banned, and the community will suffer as you would have trolls reporting abuse constantly and the staff would be forced to ban the person because they broke the rules as they are written. I understand the frustration, but you need to be very careful when trying to apply something like a blanket and the implications/possible outcomes that would result.
Welcome to Mapleroyals whereby the game is played with 1) Gm decision is way bigger than the T&C which is just posted for the sake of posting. 2) The feedback section always at almost every posts is not that welcome/showing a defensive posting afterall stated by sincere and honest players when things/case seems to be very against to their reasonings of their decisions/ posting of rules(even to just state that certain gm decision should be showing some room of improvement). Not open enough to players' suggesstion/feedbacks even though the post is in a constructive and reasonable manner. Locking up threads/deleting posts seems be be the only way things are being settled despite the fact we live in a open and democratic society. 3) When sincere and honest players posted their valuable suggestions/feedbacks, there seems to be a assumption by certain staffs saying "Thread was started as a result of something that occurred in game" 4) Lack of standardization between the different staffs whenever they make all these decisions. Harsh or not harsh shouldnt be an excuse. Just defeat the purpose on how you handle things in a professional manner.
As somebody who has no connection to the people involved, I would definitely be more inclined to say that he/she didn't break rule 28 and neither did the people who have been banned in the past. I'm not saying they don't deserve to be banned, because I think in a lot circumstances they do, but this is not my decision to make. I do, however think rule 28 should have a slight rewrite to include something along the lines of 'making a believable claim to have attempted to break these rules' . Having more clarity in your T&Cs is never a bad thing. The GMs still have the ability to use there discretion as it is ultimate they who decided what is "believable".
The reason posts get deleted or feedback threads get closed is because they simply go too far off topic. If you want to use this very thread as an example; this thread is about the revision of 2 rules and that alone, yet some people feel the need to discuss Doochi's ban over and over while it's not the subject of this thread. So to stay objective and focused on the topic this thread was intended for, moderation is required. With that said, this thread also does not have the intention to discuss the way we moderate feedback threads. If you are against the way we handle things, please make a specific feedback thread for that or contact the moderator who you disagree with in the way he or she moderates threads. Please keep the rest of this thread on topic, which as a reminder is the revision of rule 19 and rule 30.
