What does map-owner entitle you to?

So there has been recently a number of bans against people who
- do not own mapownership
- are not actively attacking
- chat in game

One example is this guy https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.125619/



His ban reason was listed as "banned for third party program/hacking" and I just don't see how - if it was as he says it was, that he was just watching the kill and replying to sonnybish - that he could be ban for something seemingly so trivial.

Just what rights does mapowner entail? Should it be limited to preventing others from attacking in the same map? Or should it also include things like staying in the map and chatting? I personally feel the latter should belong to 'harassment/objectionable behavior'.

 

the 3rd party program notice is just a visual glitch

 

Yea, you gotta amend that.

 

Thing is, I'm not sure what else it could be classified under..

 

According to the ban log, that's exactly what he was banned for. The issue was less "he was in the map" and more he was doing something objectionable while refusing to leave. (the ban reason that shows up when you get banned should be correct, so either he was banned in the system under the wrong reason, or its just wrong when it tells the player when they try to log in)

If you're just AFK, or sitting on a rope talking to guildies, you aren't going to get banned for being in a map as you're not getting in the way what the player who owns the map is doing. If you're in there attacking, or talking/conversing with the mapowner after being asked to leave (for lack of better words, annoying the mapowner) that's a completely different case entirely.

 

Still slightly unjustified imo...

 

Its more of a conversation rather than disruptive behaviour.

 

Mapowner isn't just about KS'ing, and if you feel like a staff member isn't being fair, make a report abuse thread and it will be dealt with by admins, this really isn't the place for comments like this.

Remember, ban appeals only show a fraction of evidence. There's always more under the table evidence that isn't seen that can lead to a ban. The SS in question was from the person banned, not the person who reported them, would be kind of silly to post incriminating evidence in your appeal.

 

fact!

 

IMO from the screenshot the dude did not initiate nor intimidate, but simply replied as he was spoken to. I understand that the staff think that refusing to leave is an offense as I've seen a similar ban for the exact same reason. But under the minor infarctions list I don't see how this fits into any of them. The 2 likely candidates

1. Objectionable Behavior (Disruption) - The act of engaging in any sort of action that is deemed to be excessively disruptive to the individuals around you, including spamming or flooding chat or skills. Punishment: First offense - 3 day ban, Second offense, 7 day ban, Third offense - Permanent ban.
2. Kill-stealing - The act of attacking bosses or monsters on a map persistently without the system designation of ownership via the /mapowner in-game command, or alternatively last-hitting any bosses or monsters on a map without that same designation, without the expressed permission of the player who does have that designation. Punishment: First offense - 3 day ban, Second offense - 7 day ban, Third offense - Permanent ban.

For which I'd argue that the dude did neither of these 2. His replies weren't aggressive nor was he attacking, and perhaps his most passive aggressive move was mentioning "hope you're videoing" - for which it's still quite a muted statement.

It's quite apparent in the appeals that this is the case, but there isn't a boundary drawn clearly in the terms of use - something that players are both expect to, and are expected to know.

*I am not related to oggangster nor any of the other players involved in such issues.

 

5. Kill-stealing - The /mapowner command has been put into place for the reason of understanding which player in a kill-stealing altercation is in the right and which is in the wrong. The /mapowner command functions in-game to determine which character possesses ownership of the map and all contained monsters. Upon attaining ownership of a map, the owner is granted three minutes of immunity, after which the first character on the map to attack will have ownership transferred to them. If the owner attacks prior to the three minutes expiring, the three minute immunity is refreshed to the time of the attack - therefore, the owner of the map must not attack on the map for a period of three minutes before the ownership becomes claimable. This allows the owner to leave their computer for smaller purposes without allowing ownership retention over long periods of inactivity. A player who is not the map owner may still attack on the map, however, if the owner of the map decides to ask the player to leave, they must comply at the risk of consequence by this rule, regardless of any past agreements.

 

Did you get this from https://royals.ms/forum/threads/mapleroyals-game-terms-conditions.86769/

 

apendix minor infractions, ofc I did. There was something here that got edited by a moderator

 

See

Yes, that's in the TnC, its under the spoiler at the bottom.

 

nicely played!

 

Right, never noticed the appendix before lol. Get rekt @OGgangsta

 

Hi, guy in the screenshot here. I didn't expect for this to stir up so much controversy so I'll try to clarify some stuff from my perspective.

I welcome the bishop or the admin to show the full evidence as I am fairly confident I did not speak at all above "mintmeister: I haven't attacked at all" in the screenshot. I think those were the first words I typed (it's been a week since this interaction). From what I can remember, the bishop wrote, "CC", "CC PLZ", "recording", and then that's where my SS starts. During this entire time, I was on that ladder constantly getting seduced and then getting back on to that ladder.

What I meant when I wrote "hope you're videoing" was that if he was going to actually report me, he would post a video rather than a screenshot because a screenshot could easily be misconstrued. A video would clearly show I didn't attack or loot. I know it sounded passive aggressive or whatever.

 

I wasn't banned for KSing, I was banned for objectionable behavior. The whole point of my ban appeal was to clarify what exactly I was banned for.

 

Free OGgangsta, he didn't do nothing.

 

and I am not denying that. I just was replying to the OP where in the TnC he could find the rule about leaving the map upon request.