Info Feedback Thread: The New Terms and Conditions

Assuming the 90-day max objectionable behavior ban takes effect, do you have any plans on reconciling this new rule with those who have been permanently banned for the same 90-day infraction? If not, then is there an explanation as to why players with currently none to two bans for objectionable behavior would then be immune to permanent bans for their next / continued objectionable behavior?

 

Thank you @Joel and the other contributors for the tremendous effort in compiling this revision.

General Feedback
- It should be made clear in the TnCs if changes are retroactively applied, or not.

- Some food for thought: Consider moving 'Account Sharing' and 'Vote Abuse' into a new category under "Discretionary Infractions". The nature of these infractions, particularly vote abuse, is that they frequently require consideration of the context in which they are applied.

- I would like to see an official response from staff in regards to the apparent proactively applied information harvesting infraction with respect to Raony's publicised ban.

- Under the current TnCs (version 2.0):

Information Harvesting (Stalking) - The act of collecting any information about the game or any individual associated with the game, including players, ownership or any involved third-parties, without their expressed consent, regardless of the location of the act.​

There is abundant evidence that's been publicly available that this infraction had been violated under the current TnCs but not under the revised version (please don't make me hyperlink the 35-page feedback thread in the spirit of avoiding drama).​

- Within the same timeframe, if a player commits two or more infractions, be it the same or different, how would they be punished?

- Whatever the decision is, it should be made clear in the TnCs
- It is my personal opinion that bans should not be stacked, but that they should serve the longer infraction if this were to occur. If the same infraction is violated, they should not be punished twice (to avoid ban stacking)
​

- Personally I feel like minor infractions could do with 7/30/90 to avoid people accepting a 3-day ban as a fairly minor consequence for harassment, especially since sexual/racial insults are within this category

- I maintain that account bans are a reasonable punishment tool, particularly for moderate infractions (not including vote abuse) and certain cases of account sharing.

- In the absence of ~gm, how should players "immediately notify staff"? It's been mentioned numerous times in the terms and conditions but I don't think staff currently have the resources to actually be 'immediately available' 24/7.

- I would like to see an official clause on staff abuse and how this can be escalated, and how this will be dealt with

- In addition, how ban appeals are handled warrants a section on the terms and conditions to promote transparency.

For instance, where a conflict of interest exists then said staff member will not have any involvement for the banned individual's appeal.
For instance, all bans where discretion is involved this will be discussed amongst staff with decisions based on staff vote or whathaveyou.
For instance, players who are banned but found to be falsely banned should be encouraged to apply for compensation.​

Specific Feedback
- The appendix on "Robotic Play" doesn't read smoothly and appears to have been copy/pasted from a previous iteration of the TnCs

- I still maintain that glitch abuse should be moved to minor infractions for the reasons I've mentioned in the previous iteration of this feedback thread

- There is no "master glitch/bug list"
- Staff are not consistent on what constitutes as a glitch/bug; for instance some glitches exist because of client limitations - does this make them not a glitch/bug because we can't fix them?​

Final Thoughts
I echo concerns from many others in regards to

- establishing a reporting time limit

Whilst it appears that this has clearly been extensively discussed among staff, I still don't agree with a time limit particularly when it's only applied to objectionable behaviour reports. This means that, for instance, vote abuse/account sharing/RWT solicitation reports from 3-5 years ago would still be accepted (and probably rightly so) but the implication is that we as a server condone harassment, particularly sexual harassment and treat it as a less serious offence than, for instance, minor vote abuse.
​

- limiting evidence regarding information harvesting to Royals discord / game / forums

Policing this is obviously difficult but it's disheartening to think that people can potentially access your details through platforms such as MapleRoyals forums and MapleRoyals discord then use this information to dox you on a separate platform that cannot be reported.
It's disappointing that rather than stepping up to the challenge (as is apparently the case for all RWT bans) staff are not willing to invest time and effort in protecting the wellbeing of players.
​

 

Does that mean players previously perman banned for this can appeal?
I feel like most of them already served bans longer than this and deserves a chance to come back.

 

I feel that the rules/updates should not be adjusted retroactively. The current rules (not the soon to be updated version) were what we agreed upon when signing up, not the new ones.

 

I mean, technically u also agreed to this

 

Exactly my point.

 

I wonder what is the reason of changing the punishment for minor fraction if it's not going to be retroactive?

 

Please do not try to insinuate assumptions upon players.

My feedback is that regardless of retroactive application or not this should be reflected in the TnCs. Part of the reason for updating the TnCs is so that people can stop getting hyperlinks to various announcements in the last 7 years about minor changes Staff have made in relation to certain clauses.

I will also mention that retroactive application has occurred in the past, so it’s not unprecedented or whatever. I don’t disagree with rules not being retroactively applied but just like I haven’t implied you guys are not doing this because it’s a lot of extra work for staff volunteers, it’s a little rude to suggest people are only feeding back to try and get banned players unbanned no?

 

I am not sure if you understood Matt’s message correctly. I think he is saying that the two things can exist independently of the other. sean128309 asks why the punishments are changed if people previously banned are not going to be unbanned and be subject to the new rules. The answer is that the punishment changes were made to better suit what Staff and vocal community members alike feel are more appropriate punishments for the crimes in question. That’s that, and it need not have anything to do with retroactive application. I think this is what Matt is trying to say; that the two are not related, unless one makes a proposal for such a change of punishment, implicitly or explicitly stating that it should also apply retroactively. He’s not suggesting that any player actually did this.

 

I agree with what you’re saying but am unsure if what you are saying is the original intent of “unless the player feedback on this rule was given only in attempts to get previously banned players unbanned”. This statement at the end of Matt’s otherwise fairly objective post is actually a little undermining for the players who feedback on this thread, because it implies players were giving feedback because they’re trying to get banned players unbanned. Unless I am interpreting intricacies of the English language incorrectly and that he’s not stating that as an insinuating rhetoric?

Consider this: if I were to say, “staff should not retroactively apply rules because the intention is that players agree with the terms they signed up to at the time, unless staff are only deciding not to retroactively apply rules because they don’t care enough to go through all the previous bans they’ve issued given how many there are”.

Does this not feel disrespectful to you?

 

I don't really know either of the parties from the drama thread / ban, but this situation does remind me of the shadower meso dropping bans, which eventually led to this thread. The shadowers who had been recently banned at the time were retroactively unbanned in light of this, which I thought was pretty fair. I do understand that depending on how ban info is internally organised, having staff look through the entire list of banned accounts to apply such retroactive unbans may be time consuming and nonviable.

Are there any thoughts on adding a clause allowing a new ban appeal (or bumping of old appeal) in the case of retroactive rule changes? The burden to bump / post would be on the banned member which should limit the amount of additional work for staff, but also creates an opportunity for people who are still interested.

 

This seems fair as an option, and the same thread came to mind when discussion around retroactive application came up.

Unfortunately the delayed unban was not received particularly well from memory as players had been banned for months, and I’m not sure any of those players actually returned to the game as an active player. People’s passion for the game dwindle the longer they’re away from it and I’m a little skeptical if approving retroactive application is something that’s only going to make us feel better at the cost of a lot of work rather than actually making a true difference.

 

I would like to volunteer myself to translate the TnC to a few languages that I am able to speak fluently - Italian, Portuguese and Spanish - to be included on a tab over the Language section. I will upload with this post an example that a Spanish player did back in 2017. I would suggest that other players that are able to speak different languages do the same to help the people to actually read the TnC.

 

I understand what Matt's trying to say and it sounds totally legit and fine to me (wasn't offended at all!). Meanwhile I still hope that we can open some sort of disccusions about retroactive application between staff and players before the final decision is made.

 

I don't believe that applying the proposed rules retroactively is a good idea but I also believe that having a 7 days rule limitation report for objectionable behavior is a good implementation to prevent petty reports like in previous cases.

 

First off, this is a great example of what communicating diplomatically and exchanging ideas can do for the community. Not everyone on the forums is offering their thoughts here, but at the very least, they're now seeing a group of staff who's interested in fostering dialogue in the spirit of listening for and unearthing concerns, with an eye on putting real, lasting and balanced solutions on the table. Hopefully there's more to come in the future.

A lot have been said, but among some other things I think the current ruling on retroactive bans should be re-examined.

The official reason that "the players banned were banned under rules which they agreed to at the moment of registering their accounts" is nothing more than an attempt to hold up the legitimacy of the existing rules and regulations as an excuse for disallowing retroactive ban appeals. If we're already at a point where there is some consensus that the existing rules and regulations have generally been too harsh on minor offences, and thus are now making attempts to govern in a different, softer way, then we shouldn't go back to these same problematic rules and regulations alone to guide our decision-making now.

I hope that the staff doesn't lose sight of the bigger picture -- the underlying principles that shape these new rules. It is important to remember that there is already support for a softer approach towards players banned for minor offences, so in that spirit, why not allow already banned players to appeal? It's time to focus less on and look past the differences between those already banned for minor offences, and those who will be banned in the future. These differences, in fact, barely even matter at all. Whether they joined in 2017 or 2021, people aren't really that different.

 

I'll volunteer for the Korean translation of T&C. I cannot promise top quality interpretation but the message will be delivered.

Regarding the actual topic...

I'm against the retroactive application of the new rules. The case of Shadowers and macro meso-explosion drama was an exceptional one because the rules regarding 1:1 input/output weren't clear in the T&C. The only Shadower guide on the forum also had misleading instructions. It was a fair move to unban players who made unintentional mistakes in an uncertain situation. However, the minor offense cases which many people here wordlessly refer to concern consecutive abuse of language in public or through direct speech. The same logic applies to objectionable behavior. One couldn't have violated these rules 3 times without a clear intention and a condescending attitude toward the server's legislation. I believe there's no reason to show extra leniency over those who intentionally desecrated existing rules, in succession, at the time.

'A mistake repeated more than once is a decision'