Why do you assume that this is what i assume? I never wrote that this thread was about them reversing a decision, just because i brought it up doesn't mean that is what i thought this thread is about. Can you please explain for me as i am not as fast witted as some, as to how "The fact that Sila admitted she submitted her request not expecting the result to be favourable indicates that the policies are currently unclear." . How does it indicate the policies are unclear? Are the policies unclear because she was nervous about not getting something that she originally owned back? Was it because she doubted her evidence provided was strong enough? Im actually being serious about this i don't understand how this shows that the rules are unclear. I read the fact you say it indicates that things are unclear, but it doesn't register to me because you have only said it, there is nothing to back it, if you understand me?
Sure. Sila's 1st post: If you're part of the staff, and you're making a thread for a report that you don't even know qualifies for a proper scam report, that seems like the policy is unclear on what proof (both materially e.g. what types of screenshots are acceptable, what format, what sources outside of the game, as well as in substance, e.g. what the screenshot has to prove like the timeline of returning the item etc) is required for a proper scam report. If Sila knew she didn't have sufficient evidence, why would she have posted the report in the first place? Maybe she was uncertain, so we waited and found out. Here's an instance where it seems like Sila already expected the evidence to be dubious, previous policy has said that cropped screenshots aren't permitted in reports (that has recently changed, that's nice and we're better for it to know what is acceptable, and what isn't). Like many, many players in this thread have stated, nobody is here to criticize Sila's judgment or the staff's decision on the cases. All we want for future reference, is for GMs to do the following: For rejected reports, please give us a better description of what proof would have changed their decision. E.g. "I'm sorry your report's evidence cannot be accepted because our policies state that you must provide a screenshot of ________ in order to claim ______ and that is because ________". For example, https://royals.ms/forum/threads/looking-for-my-items.57464/ and https://royals.ms/forum/threads/i-feel-scammed.57511/ What are the last pieces of information that the GMs give the community reading these threads? Andreas Can you please be more specific? John Can you please clarify if that is the policy's reasons for declining scamming reports in the future? None of the above tells me, either the player making the report, or some other confused player seeking clarification about what more we need in terms of proof. It would honestly make everyone's lives easier if for example, John's post said something along the lines of: But that was also Sila's 1st post in this thread. Which means we're getting somewhere by discussing this topic. Sila's advice should be something that we need to communicate (either through the formal policy rules or through announcements or posting in rejected reports) so people avoid making shitty baseless reports, but also for people that want to make a report, but aren't sure if they will be accepted, can better weigh their options by knowing what evidence is required. P.S. I assumed your post was about reversing the decision because you said You didn't really mention anything about clarification at all so...
Thank you for the detailed reply i understand everything you are putting forward wholly now and your view points and they way you see things now, i didn't mean any harm in questioning you, i will add by the way. I also share the point that all ban appeals/reports should not be ended so abruptly like the ones you have linked are, as yes, they make the OP wonder what they were missing to help their defence. But i also see that they also haven't asked for what was missing in these cases as well, it's not hard to ask what is needed to help for next time incase it were to happen again, i just don't agree 100% on the fact that everyone should be told exactly what they were missing, asking is also part of the ban appeal process. Which makes me ask one last final question. As you are speaking as a whole when you say "we" you are speaking on behalf of a group of people, would it be correct to say you are friends with the OP of this certain thread? If so, why not ask this simple message to begin with, this is straight forward and gets to the point, unlike everything else that has been said here. Instead of cross matching similar cases which has too many flaws for all its worth, the whole point of something being "similar" to something else, means that it has slight, key, differences on a like topic, it's not the same thing is all i'm trying to say. P.S. I guess that's a flaw we both share
Our policy still states that only unedited and uncropped screenshots are to be considered as evidence, this has not been changed as you so claim in your post.
@LonelyCloud You don't necessarily need to be friends with somebody to share a viewpoint with them. You also cannot assume that this conclusion was present when this post was created, as some of the discussion in this thread could have shaped it.
Our interns are still very new to being GMs and small mistakes can happen as that is a human thing, that does not mean we have changed our policy. If you for example read our report abuse section's formats you will see that it clearly states that cropped and edited images are not to be considered. Thanks for bringing this 1 case up though, it shouldn't happen again in the future.
@liomio I am well aware of that, as i said i do agree with some of @WayoftheFox's. But also this thread has been running off assumptions for a while, why should that be thrown out the window now? also @Dimitri If i may query you on one thing, do GM's also get things inboxed to them personally, "evidence to a ban appeal" that isn't shown as part of the ban appeal thread process. I'm not talking about IP addresses and things that are meant to be kept private due to safety, im talking about things like screenshots and videos/gifs etc.
Thanks for clarifying Dimi, but something the staff should also consider for future reports is that Sila's original thread used a cropped screenshot of the trade window, based on the policies that's also not acceptable as evidence. However, if for example (I'm taking guesses, because clearly, the report could have been accepted for others) -- maybe the GMs were able to track the trade agreement independent of the screenshot, in which case, whether or not the format was appropriate is irrelevant, that should also be mentioned in the final post. E.g. "Your report has accepted on the basis of _____ however, your screenshot is not acceptable as evidence for future reports because _____". I can imagine some players would be misled into interpreting an accepted report as entirely acceptable (where parts of the evidence may not).
I've personally never been inboxed evidence for a ban appeal before so there's not much I can comment with. Besides not having been inboxed with evidence for a ban appeal before, I also don't handle the appeals for a ban in private as it belongs in the ban appeal section for a reason. If at any point an exception is made (which only rarely ever happens under certain circumstances) it will be noted in the ban appeal that a part of it has been dealt with in PMs. Thank you for your feedback; If improving our communication towards the public regarding how we've handled reports will help avoiding misled interpretations, it is certainly something we can consider to improve on.
So are trust trades now protected? Spoiler: replies I never bothered posting before What SCG case are you talking about exactly? The only one I can find is this in which someone was scammed a SCG forging manual back in 2014. Now, I do believe that was also a trust trade and should not have been returned based on the rules during that time, but unfortunately I could not have "lost my shit" when that case was resolved because I was not playing during that time. Rest assured, had that case and resolution happened and was noticed by me while I was playing, I would have created a thread about it. Please stop jumping to, "Ugh everybody is just hating on and targeting the GMs" when that is not the case. I'll let you know that I am actually friends with several GMs and have been calmly discussing my thread with some throughout its entire duration. Whether or not the staff had anything to gain by making Sila's case public does not matter. It is only right to make all cases public. I would also like to bring this back up just because I feel like it deserves some attention Would this be protected? Is it okay to eliminate trust from lending and borrowing items now? Spoiler: and on a slight side note Would actual item lending services be protected? E.g., lending out int/godly equips for a fee and written statement of "I agree to return this by x." Because I can totally imagine int lending services becoming a thing (and would totally dig it), but is this something that GMs will/should support?
@StrickBan One reason is also that the report you posted has no evidence of an agreement (no agreement of returning) either while Sila's did and Sila's agreement was in game. (I'm not taking any sides here, nor stating my opinion on this particular issue. I am just stating why his required more evidence.)
The only screenshot that has any kind of evidence is cropped. Those types of screenshots have never been accepted. A scam clearly occurred. But that doesn't mean sila should be refunded. There was not enough eligible proof to validate a further investigation. I really don't understand why this happened.
I agree with that, there is no evidence of an agreement in the second ss but, why did they accept Sila's cropped ss? Would you have accepted @o1o1o1guy's ss if it showed an agreement even tho it was cropped? Maybe you wouldn't have, but Tim did. So are reports just based on how lucky I get and it depends on who reviews my report? Again, I'm not saying Jeen or Tim did wrong but either GMs accept cropped ss or not. This way everyone gets treated equally.
Cropped screenshot as only "evidence" means the thread should've been closed. This is just going to cause more accusations of GM bias, which is not something the server needs.
Alright, so I do apologize for taking as long as it has taken to completely settle this matter. I've had a hell of a week month, but that's not why you're reading this. So here goes. First off, I'm going to restate a "policy change" that we decided upon which may or may not have been mentioned earlier in this thread - from this point forward, any and all character support threads dealing with an individual who is a part of MapleRoyals Staff will be dealt with exclusively by a MapleRoyals Administrator. Secondly, the complete verdict as to the Silachan 16atk glove situation: we've determined that information passed from a Game Master Intern to Silachan that should not have been passed, and as such, we've decided to revoke the refund. Silachan's report did not contain appropriate evidence for consideration, and so the report was invalid from the very beginning and should not have been looked into in any capacity from that point on. The refunded glove has already been deleted to reflect this change in decisions. We have not ever accepted cropped screenshots, and at the moment we still do not. We do sincerely apologize for the mess that was this situation and hope that our resolution on the matter helps to clarify our stance on proper evidence, as well as helps to further dissolve the notion that any character on our server is treated with any sort of special privilege. If there are any more questions or concerns that I have not addressed in this post, feel free to respond or otherwise contact your preferred member of staff directly. Thank you all for your patience.
