Revision on 2 rules of the T&C

I find this clause to be a little interesting because ultimately it's implying we have to get lucky with which GM is handling our case, and in turn, this CAN bring in favoritism and well, you know where I'm going with that.

Just want to point out that this ends with "based on the evidence obtained from any source." Now I don't want to keep contributing this thread to be about Doochi's situation because this thread is about those 2 rules. But I just want to show you guys as an EXAMPLE, that in her case, there was:

1. NO evidence to show that she actually did follow through with her joke.
2. Sufficient evidence that she did NOT follow through with her joke.

I'm not doing a second ban appeal for her because you guys already made your decision and that's how it is. But I'm pointing out that there is a contradiction between her punishment for breaking rule 19 and other players' punishment for breaking rule 30 and how seriously you guys took her case for that rule compared to when others break rule 30. And that is why this thread is suggesting for consistency and/or clarity in the rules. This doesn't mean you have to make everything black and white and create a fear of being banned among the players -- you've already accomplished this when you banned over a joke (tbh I'll be scared to make jokes in-game after this). All this thread is pointing out is that some rules aren't followed as strictly as others and this maybe should call for revision of some rules (which Dimitri said they're working on, so yay).

I agree with John that there might not be a way to make everyone happy on this point of each rule being followed to the letter. That's why this thread calls for revision, such as making rule 30 to be something like "Repeatedly smegaing in languages other than English will result in a 3 day ban."

Lastly to the GMs, I understand you guys are SO overworked and have to deal with a lot of smart-asses all day long and the last thing you want to hear is criticism about your guys' decisions. However, please understand that people who post here are not out to correct every little thing and make you guys feel like you're not doing your job. The true feedback here is NOT about doochi's case, but about clarity and consistency with the 2 rules this thread is about. Excluding some players' posts that are rude or off topic, I think it would be nice to hear from the GMs on this post in a way that isn't defensive but that is open-minded and maybe even accepting of the constructive criticism we are taking the time to leave to help you guys out.

Just as a side note to the others posting on here , I just want to say that although doochis was also my friend, this thread should really not be about a ban appeal for her. Strick was asking for revision of 2 rules on the T&C because of what happened to her and how that relates with the other rules. Stating to the GMs that they made the wrong decision in this case -- maybe that can be on a new feedback or ban appeal thread == doesn't really help Strick's feedback be taken seriously if you guys are posting that on here. Just reminding~

 

I strongly agree with the point that the T&Cs should be made clearer. Its a great feedback to both players and staff, and something the staff should implement real soon (which dimitri mentioned that it was alr discussed and likely to be implemented soon <-- i just hope it DOES happen soon) Here's why:

1) Great for players: make it very clear to players what are the exact actions and behaviours that aren't allowed. Especially impt for rules that would result in perma ban when broken. Its totally unfair players get severe consequences over vaguely-phrased rules.

2) Great for staff: Well-defined rules in black and white makes banning and appeals more straight-forward. The staff have alot of work, so I do not understand the reason should any staff object to this suggestion. It would lead to lesser gray areas, thus reducing the arguments and debates over the rules.In addition, amending the T&Cs is a one-time thing, which saves alot more time in comparison to having to explaining and arguing thru all the ban appeals.

Regarding the issue on rule 30, I feel that it should be removed if most staff agree that it is now alright to talk in other languages (regarding to the point mentioned by Sila that there are many other players esp taiwanese who talk about innocent topics in other languages).
If the staff feels that we should still stick to English, but decides that it is not a severe enough action to warrant a ban, the 1st punishment can always be amended to: warning given.

I just feel that its pretty hypocritical (no offense pls) that the staff are so strict on certain rules (rule 19) that is vague on certain situations (like the one about Doochis), but then is so vague on other rules (rule 30) that are clearly written and defined in black and white.

I agree that not ALL staff have to have the exact same opinion on the same issue. But when it comes to certain straightforward cases regarding rules that are very clearly stated, it is naive to think that players will not bring it up as an issue (esp when the staff are so strict on other issues). If certain rules are deemed to be of minor severity by the staff, and decided that such strict punishment will result in an increase in troll reports and reduction of "fun", the consequences of the rules should be changed/removed to match the severity of the situation.


Just to sidetrack a little:

I also hope to hear from the staff's opinions on this issue. Pls do note that there are players out there who's just leaving some points of views from the player's perspective to improve the game as well. I wanted to point this out because I feel that the staff are getting more defensive on the feedback forum (no thanks to some other players who were insulting and unappreciative), and I hope that the staff can share their perspectives so players can understand the viewpoint from your side as well.

 

While I feel there could be more leniency on people attempting RWT without follow through (i.e. I think that offering real-world currency for in-game items but not actually making a purchase warrants a longer temporary ban rather than a permanent one) the truth is we all agreed to the ToS in its current form when we signed up and it should thus be respected.

As for keeping smegas in English, I feel it's more to prevent whole conversations in another language hence the leniency.

 

I am curious, since this is something I brought up in internal staff discussions, how can we actually verify RWT occurred? I don't really want to give away some of the ways we find RWTers in present day, but we don't have access to people's private PayPal transaction logs, so there's no real way to 100% guarantee a RWT happened unless it's reported to us. Otherwise, we have no way to know for sure the deal actually occurred unless we see "I'll sell it for $10." "Okay, deal" "Got it. Thanks" and assume that this indicates a successful transaction.

In short what I'm trying to say is, I know it ticks some people off that we don't even let people "joke" (though I'm skeptical of how much people are actually joking so much as they're looking to see if anyone is interested and if someone calls them out or reports them they can hide under the guise of it being a joke), but I can't think of a way to stop the RWTers from getting away free and making this an even bigger problem in game.

 

Since everyone seems to want to play the semantics game:

What does this rule actually say?
Exploit the Software, Cash Items or the game for any commercial purpose

This right here is the rule. It's not "Exploit the game for successful Real Money Trading." We ban people for commercial purpose.
A definition of purpose for you
Or if you're more inclined, a definition of "commercial purpose" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31
These make it clear that any undertaking with the intent of making profit is considered "Commercial Purpose" which we ban for.

I suspect a few people will say "But if you're buying instead of selling then you aren't making a profit." That's debatable as it is, but even if this is true then you are still contributing to someone else's commercial purpose by that definition.

this includes but is not limited to; buying or selling Mesos and/or "power leveling" services;
I'm putting this here simply to make it clear that successful RWT is merely a *facet* of this rule.


Ergo - the T&C do in fact state that attempting to RWT goes against rule 19.

Now, how many people would have looked up "commercial purpose" upon reading this rule themselves? Probably close to zero. For that reason I can definitely understand wanting to update the rule to be more clear to anyone that reads it. We have in fact already been discussing a few rule clarifications as it is.

But let's not pretend attempting to RWT isn't covered by the T&C at all.

 

https://royals.ms/forum/threads/s-perfect-stonetooth-sword.46690/#post-255858
This is an example of what I feel was a somewhat harsh ban and where a temporary ban might have been more suitable.

I would assume if wouldn't be too difficult to check if said person actually received an item after saying "B> X for Y amount of RWC", but this is a non-solution in itself. For other cases where person A receives an item for person B without contextual information, it's obviously going to be difficult to distinguish RWT from people giving/lending stuff to each other. I do believe the staff is more than capable of fair judgement in dubious cases.

 

First off I apologize for being so biased towards this feedback thread but using doochi's as an example was my intention to explain how this feedback thread ties in with her ban appeal. The result of her ban was the reason why there should be a revision to the 2 rules, so that we can be more consistent with banning individuals. So I guess my bias led me to form a strong opinion on the other posts that I heavily disagreed on so I apologize on that part.

Back on topic.

With sufficient proof given that the transaction never existed.. is that not enough to prove the player's innocence? To attempt to RWT resulting in a permanent ban is just in my opinion too severe for a first offense.. Could we not give them the benefit of the doubt? I can see that it could cause some problems but if we could revise on the rules and perhaps come to a middle point where it's more clear maybe we could conclude with a rule everyone agrees?

As for the smegas...

As a player I would rather have it be kept in English. I remember reading somewhere that Matt decided to remove the smega drops from monsters because people were using it solely for spamming purposes and not the original intentions of using it to bring people closer together.

My point is smegaing in other than language defeats that original intention of bring people together.

 

You can verify RWT if he/she had the actual item ingame, I didn't follow the thread closely so I don't remember everything exactly but wasn't the joke doochis made like 2 months prior to the ban? If she was actually RWT'ing then she would have had it by the time you checked it?

 

What if we take the premise that the accused was not joking, proposed a semi-disguised question in an attempt to conduct RWT but had no luck in finding a potential suitor? Do we just allow this to pass as a non-incident?
Disclaimer: This is a hypothetic situation and does not comment on doochis or any other individual.

 

All I tried to do was to give some feedback to make the game better for us the players and probably for the GMs too. I feel that GMs, with the exception of Dimitri, missed my point on this matter and they tried to be defensive rather than understanding. I'm saying that this 2 rules in particular should be revised to make them more clear to everyone and to add consistency to the T&C.

Thank you Dimitri for your contribution. I'm glad to see that it's been taken into consideration clarifying this rule.

I would like to hear your opinion on the main topic, which is the revision of the 2 rules I mentioned. Is it being discussed? Is it not? To be honest it's really discouraging to post a feedback thread and see most GMs just trying to be defensive and not accepting constructive criticism when the intention of this thread was to make the T&C more clear for better understanding of the rules.

It would've been great if you just said "I can definitely understand wanting to update the rule to be more clear to anyone that reads it". I don't think the way you wrote your response is professional and expected from someone coming from the Staff. I was kinda offended by the cocky tone to it when I'm just trying to give some feedback.

"Since everyone wants to play the outsmart game:"

In my point of view your argument seems invalid when you agree that one counterargument to that is debatable. You're assuming things from that definition just like I can too. But the point of my thread was to suggest that, in order to make it clear for everyone and avoid any assumptions, there should be a clarification or update to rule 19 in the T&C. It's good to know this has been discussed tho, like you said, but I hope this will be implemented.

 

(Nvm I need to wake up before posting, sorry lol)

 

Matt - thank you for actually making a point and correcting me instead of being defensive. I understand your point and agree it could set a harmful precedent for the server. However, I feel this could be a double-edged sword. You can't be sure that her PayPal screenshot is proof that she DIDN'T do it, but you also can't be sure that her statement proves she DID do it.

Aaaand, I know this is a very debatable/controversial topic and people feel differently on it. I've already made my main point of what this thread is about: revision for those 2 rules. So this is my last contribution but good talk guys!

 

I know this is going to sound stupid, but cant you put an NPC in the starting area that makes you answer questions on the TNC just to test if you have actually read them? So people cant just scroll passed the TNC on sign up, like the level 70quest was edited.

this way people will actually have to open the TNC and look for answers.....?

 

I've thought of that but I'm not sure how well it'd actually work. I think they'd just try to get past it anyway, but it'd also probably be more annoying than anything. For example, people always question what the rates are for the 3rd job question but its listed on the site

 

Even still "getting passed it" would be asking people what the answers were, correct? At least then you will know "oh hey i can't ks on a map that isn't mine or ill get banned OR oh i'm not allowed to RWT, i can get banned for being racist". etc etc

 

I can see why my first sentence can be taken that way, and it certainly wasn't intended to be disparaging or cocky (I just happen to like semantics ), so for any offense you felt as a result I sincerely apologize.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to provide context behind my opinion, however. You brought up doochis' ban as the impetus for this thread, claiming that our T&C in their current form aren't sufficient to sustain that ban (This is how I've interpreted your thread starter, please do tell me if I'm missing something). I disagree for the reasons I already brought up. I understand wanting to update the rule, but not because it does not cover attempting to RWT. Instead I understand wanting to update the rule because of the intricate language involved - it doesn't lay out what it actually means in simple terms. I think that this is an important distinction to make.

I could continue with why - but then we'd start veering off topic. I'd be happy to address any concerns via a PM.

What I claimed to be debatable is whether spending real money on in-game items can be considered a "profit" like in the definition of commercial purpose. Making money by selling in-game items would be making a profit for certain. Buying items is a loss of real money (not a profit), but once RWT is committed then you can consider such items "assets" which can then be sold at higher or lower cost (potential profit). In short, I can see both sides of the argument here and wouldn't dare make a direct claim myself (though in the interest of fairness, I slightly lean towards not considering it a profit given the circumstances - most things here would be bought for self-use).

My point in bringing it up was that this debate doesn't ultimately matter when considering commercial purpose, since if one buys at a loss or attempts to buy at a loss then they are still a part of that commercial purpose with regards to profit, it just happens to be someone else who profits. The undertaking with intention to profit is still there, and the exploiting of the software for that purpose is still there. Therefore, whether or not one personally makes a profit or stands to make a profit, they are still engaged in commercial purpose.

 

I don't know why people expect so much from the GM's. They have to do something. If they didn't ban people who were joking, then others will see those cases as an example and say "I was joking as well, you didn't ban x y or z so why are you banning me?" and we'll get more posts like this on the forum.

I think intent is just as bad as the real thing in this case, because all RWT should be considered intent until it actually happens. Just because someone didn't find the item or services they were looking for shouldn't give them a pass to not get banned.

 

also want to add that while "buying donor items" is technically RWT, can i ask WHY? There is NO single item that is a donor item that is NOT cosmetic, it does NOT help you level, it does NOT give you an advantage, they are ALL cosmetic skins that give you NO stats. YES it is "paying mesos for someone elses real money" which i know is RWT and it shouldn't happen, but this person clearly didn't sell "Advantageous RWT items" these posts just prove that you need to do something about more than just the 2 rules stated above.