Moderation, Discretion, and How It's Enforced

lol I don't intentionally ignore people- I get a lot of PM's on the forum and even more on discord since I think I'm one of the few Staff who allows messages from non-friends.

Best thing you can do is send me a bump the next day.

Speaking personally, I understand why the rule is enforced so strictly. I understand it's a 1 in a million shot, but it becomes an excuse people can use and with account sharing comes easier methods to "sell" items. Now- if I had any real say in the matter and if it was someway provable- I would be okay with him swapping IGN so he can have that little bit of his friend with him.

Is that to say I agree with how it was perm instead of 30 days? Well it's complicated- and a long story for another time.

Saying it's only 6x is another rationalization to make it okay when it doesn't matter what's on the account or how high of a level it is- and advantage is an advantage no matter how sucky the circumstances are.

The rule of thumb has always been "simply logging in" is 30 days, and any use puts it at perm and my concern is people abusing our generosity/discretion.

~~~

I have otherwise cleaned up this thread- it turned into a separate thing about discord- lets please keep it on topic of using discretion in grey areas please?

 

To me it’s as simple as this imo.

If you know the rules and how strictly the rules are enforced yet feel you have a special circumstance of any kind why not pm a staff member to explain your situation and potentially ask for permission? I’m not saying you would get this permission but it seems like a logical place to start rather then just going into the account knowing you’re risking multiple accounts.

 

You're right, I'd say. If the guy had asked in advance and talked about staff prior to doing this, he might have gotten some sort of leeway, or at least could have avoided the whole situation. Doing stuff like this would be ideal imo and could avoid a lot of problems, but let's be real here, a lot of people don't know the rules, or how strictly they're enforced. I'm pretty sure anyone who's been in an online community knows how much people don't like to read the rules, but then get upset they're punished for breaking them. This is part of why moderation usually has warnings/strikes for everything but the most major offenses, after all. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect the average player to know how strictly the rules are enforced unless they're stalking the ban appeal forum.

Anyway, these are mostly nitpicks. You're right, and it would be ideal if most situations could be resolved in the way you described. People should know the rules, and therefore, know when they should check in advance if they have a "special circumstance" or whatever. I just think there's still room for leeway beyond that.

I mean, I would definitely argue that the level and what's on the account does matter. Yeah, you're right that an advantage is an advantage, but let's not pretend that there isn't a huge difference between playing on a level 20 Warrior that isn't yours and a fully kitted 16x NL or something.

In fact, in the appendices for account sharing, the level of the character on the account being shared is literally mentioned as something that would be considered when deciding if a ban should be permanent or a first offense:



So, yes, it literally does matter what level the character is. And it's not just me saying that, it's literally detailed in the rules.

I'd also like to point out that the rule of thumb isn't really made clear on the information given in the rules. I don't think being that strict on account sharing is unreasonable tbh, but if I read the rules, it definitely doesn't read like "simply logging in" would be 30 days. If that's the intent, it could be conveyed way better.

 

Hello. I am a friend of Distorted (I know him as another name). It is true that his online buddy BruceDShark passed away. Distorted has been emotional ever since.
He stopped playing Black Desert Online with me, so that his can forget about Bruce without transferring any sad emotions while playing BDO. (I don't know if that made any sense)
I thought Distorted went back to Maple to level it to 145, but I didn't know he was boosting Bruce's account. Distorted definitely did not intend to take advantage of anything.
It is sad to see that he is now perm-banned from his favorite game.. I wish I could do something to help this.

Please don't hate him, he still hasn't recovered from his shock. :x He was really quite on Discord for awhile, so I thought he moved on.

 

I don't get your point, the owner of the account being dead has nothing to do with how the rules are applied. What's the difference between "Oh, my friend quit", and "Oh, my friend died" in the context of how you're framing this?

 

I'm genuinely confused by this question, but I'm gonna go ahead and answer it anyway:

In a "practical" sense, the difference between a friend quitting and a friend dying in this situation is a difference of permanence. In one case, you might have conflicts with someone coming back and wanting to claim their account again. Or, the potential that they both start sharing the account. Obviously, these are things that aren't equally plausible in both scenarios; There's much less potential conflict involved in one case over the other.

In pretty much every other sense, they're basically completely different. There's a different implication of motive behind one over the other. When people die, it's really not uncommon for people to attach themselves to things that person liked or had themselves. The fact that both scenarios break the rules in the "same" way doesn't mean they're even remotely the same. The difference is that there both situations have completely different contexts, and that context should be considered.

Yes, both situations break the rules, but my point is that the rules and moderation exist to serve a purpose. Joez nailed my point earlier in the thread; The purpose of moderation isn't to enforce the rules, it is to improve the experience of the users by removing undesirable elements. The rules are the guidelines through which this is done; They state what is considered unacceptable, to serve as the measuring stick for how they should act in order to improve the user's experience.

Both scenarios break the rules in the same way, but I don't think they're both necessarily negative in the same way, or to the same magnitude. Quite frankly, even if you believe the advantage of this other account is a major abuse, I still think there are better ways this could have been handled. If the person is being genuine about his story, I'm sure there could be some sort of compromise could be struck.

Simply put, the fact rules have been broken indicates that moderators should step in. However, their ultimate objective shouldn't be to enforce rules, but to improve the experience of players. Yes, oftentimes, this does just come down to enforcing the rules, but in some circumstances, leeway is appropriate. This goes both ways; A good example is this:
https://royals.ms/forum/threads/oh-shit-here-we-go-again-ft-misleading-bans.140433/

Some people didn't "technically" break the hate speech rule, they just... got real close. However, based on the context of their past actions and behaviors, it was judged that they were intentionally trying to push the rule, and they were judged appropriately.

It's easy to say "well, what's the difference between someone saying "noggers" and talking about ice cream and the other guy who said it", and if you look at it from a shallow level, there isn't one. They both said the same thing; If one is punished, the other one should be, right? Well, this is obviously wrong; Context matters, and the intent behind actions should be measured just as much as the action itself.

Moderation should not be mutually exclusive with being compassionate, and the primary goal of moderation should not be unilateral enforcement of all rules regardless of context. That's my point; Rules exist for a reason, and those reasons are more important than the rules themselves.

If you're arguing that this outside context should not matter, or that moderation should strive for unilateral rule enforcement, then that's what we're disagreeing on. And, quite frankly, if you've read this far and disagree on this point, I don't think there's much I can say to convince you. However, I do hope that this has helped you to understand my point here.

 

I just want to say, though context in situation should matter, ultimately it wouldn't make a difference in its result.
Just like you agreed, in both scenarios both players broke the rules. So, why should we dwell on the positive, negative and its magnitude?

To me it's pretty clear what the account sharing rule is trying to tell; your account is only for you alone.
If you want an inheritance law then sure, you can put forward a proposal.

I just feel like there's really no good reason to complicate something clear when there are many ways to "pass on one's/your legacy". Also, I would say that if I did not in anyway convey that my assets should be passed on to someone, I won't want it to be.

Sorry but we will be exposed to too much grey area.

 

Is this the new version of the "I shared my account with my sibling" meme?
Y'all like to whine over every single thing uwu

 

I am not sure if this is appropriate here, but I would like to suggest an alternate approach.

First, and this should be performed respectfully, have him prove that he wasn't just lying about his late friend just to play on his account. Shane mentioned that GMs don't really trust players when it comes to ban appeals anymore, and if solid proof can be provided for this situation, then it would allow some leverage considering that this is a special case.

If the problem underlying here is the fact that he has gained some sort of "advantage" by playing on a character that is already a level 61 Cleric, although without much gear, then simply have him create a new character, and level it from 0 to 61. At this time all his accounts should remained banned, so that he does not use them to help make his leveling process easier.

When his new character reaches level 61, have him gather all the items, gear, and mesos from his friend's account and transfer them onto this new account. Then have him perform a ceremonial funeral in game, in which this new account, with all the gear and mesos from the 119 Priest gets perma banned as punishment for "account sharing". Then he gets to choose which account, whether his or his friend's get unbanned, without any gear, as a form of punishment but also as a "passing on" for his late friend.

I believe this will solve two problems at once. He will have been punished for account sharing by still having 2 accounts banned, while also performing a ceremonial "burial" of sorts in the form of a perma ban for his friend. He will also have the chance, should he choose, to continue to play on his late friend's account to remember him by, or to play on his own account, without any gear.

Maybe that will put his heart at ease.

 

For those who argued that exception could be made because this breaks the "letters" of the rules, but not "spirit" of the rules.
Why not changing the "letter" of the rules? this make it easier for GM to enforce rules.

Please have a read at this
https://royals.ms/forum/threads/account-sharing-punishment-leniency.127983/

 

The thing is, the permanence of the situation doesn't matter, it's not a factor that the rule considers, ownership of an account can never be transferred, and him knowing the login information in of itself is a bannable offense. In addition, in the same way you say the rules are here to also improve the quality of life of the players, moderation on those rules also exists to set precedent, what were to stop me from using an account of my friend who's quit and then, if I'm caught, claim he's died? If it's just a slap on the wrist, the potential profit is vast. And finally, your analogy isn't applicable here, the context was used trying to figure out if the rules were broken, not used as an excuse to allow the rule breaking. There is no context for this situation that even questions if he broke the rules, you're trying to push that he shouldn't be punished for blatant rule breaking due to sympathy.

Let me ask you this, since you think context should matter in punishments of blatant rule breaking, what if someone from Venezuela is selling items for cash to feed the rest of their family amidst the dire straits they've been put in, should the mods just let them go? What if they were hacking in order to generate the items sold? Should they still be let go? At what point does sympathy for one's situation stop overriding the rules?

 

If you guys think this guy gained any advantage from playing a LVL 61 cleric then you're just plain stupid. "More effort than it's worth" yeah no wonder you guys have shit GMs. Most of you on this forum lack compassion and are entirely robotic with your replies. There are a million ways to go about this better and I honestly am disturbed at how few of you can understand what this guy is going through. Stripping the char of equips, providing a will/memorial page, all these things were possibilities and he would have even provided more had that been asked of him. NO he did not try to sell this account, he was mourning a friend of 10 years who took his own life. I hope all those agreeing with the ban grow up and understand the mourning process is different for everyone and if this brought him comfort then it is "worth" the effort. Sorry you guys have selfish power hungry GMs who don't know how to handle shit case by case and instead file everything under one umbrella for their own simplicity's sake. God, the internet is a fucking shitty place with all you donkeys hiding behind a screen. NONE of you would say this to an actual human being face to face and if you can say you would, you're even shittier people then I thought. To those trying to compromise and find an alternative to this situation, thank you. I hope none of you ever find yourself in similar shoes because it is painful, especially when a big portion of the population judges you on how you choose to mourn a long time friend. Thanks for all the support to those who offered it, otherwise, I hope the GMs take time to reflect on their stupid and immoral mistakes.

 

Yeah and how you went about the situation was amazing. I know you and what you said. How you handled it was disgusting and I think you should just stay silent on the situation entirely.

 

Putting words in the mouths of others, I didn't agree at all with what you said. Obviously by how you handle the situation on discord you're a fool. I think you should stay silent. Logic doesn't rule everything and neither does emotion, but a mix of both should be used to handle every situation.

 

Obviously not everyone reads the rules, sure that's a problem. People have already stated that before someone agrees perhaps could have the basic rules stated in a way that sticks out instead of blending in with the rest of text while people just rush to the bottom to agree.

I'm not here to figure out the rules for you, I'm here to discuss why this server lacks compassion and 80 percent of the comments on this are rude, off putting and brushing off the death of a human being that played this server. And here you are, someone who said a vile thing to the person who was mourning, over discord. Even other members were quick to point out youre sociopathic tendencies, yet you make yourself abundant on this forum still. If you don't care, and already did damage, would you please make yourself scarce.