Mandatory to Reply to Other Players?

This user was banned for not responding to another player. https://royals.ms/forum/threads/ban-appeal.95564/#post-517737

"You have failed to reply when prompted by another player numerous times within 5 different time stamps, which leads us to believe you were using a third-party program" - Final Decision by Yanir

Are we required to answer all players that talk to us while training?

It was my understanding that we were only required to answer a GM, and that we could choose to ignore other players that come to talk to us. Has this been changed?

Spoiler: Disclaimer

I have no relation with the user that was banned.

 

Obviously, not in all cases when a player ignores another player he will be auto-banned. Give the staff a little credit.
As for this case, I didn't report this person simply for not replying to me. I had run into him in another map the day before, and noticed a robotic behavior - as soon as I'd shown in his mini map, he climbed on a rope and stopped attacking and moving. I waited for 2 minutes and he didn't move. I then left the map and reentered it a few seconds later, he was already back to attacking, as soon as he saw me in the mini map - again, back on the same rope, exact same height, no movement. That happened 3 times. I then reported to a GM and when the GM came to check things out, he replied to him. I decided to check him out again today to varify my suspicions, and as shown in the evidence I collected, when I prompted him he failed to reply - multiple times - and again every time he saw me in the mini map he climbed a rope again and stopped attacking. Is that a coincidence? Is he just too shy for me to see his damage? You tell me. He claimed a few people had asked him for leech before and he had refused. Could he not have simply replied with a "no" when I asked him for leech? Also, after the first time I just asked if he was there - and of course , no aswer. I stayed around for a few minutes - was a simple "no" too hard to type?

Edit: The reason I noticed something was weird with him in the first place, was that he had 4 characters in his party, all standing exactly on top of each other at the corner of the map, 3 of them were i/l wizards around level 80, all looking kinda fishy. Only then I noticed the fact he stops attacking and moving as soon as he sees me in map. I don't know about you but I don't usually make 3 characters of the same class and get them 4-split leeched.

 

I'm not questioning your decision to report him, and yes, based on your story he does seem suspicious.

I'm questioning the fact that GM's ban people without personally checking the suspicious person, and base the ban only on another player's screenshots. Like you said, he replied when a GM first came to talk to him.

I'm bringing this up because I'm tired of people talking to me and being obligated to answer them. If 4 people in the span of half an hour talk to me at Ulu 2 it's, quite frankly, fucking annoying.

 

So if there isn't a GM available to check the person out, then no evidence provided by players is sufficient? Keep in mind this is a private server with a small number of staff members, who volunteer to improve this community and game for all of us.
You're tired of being obligated to answer other players? No one asked you to start a chat with them. A simple "no" "or please leave my map" is enough to prove you are actively controlling your character. If such little effort from your (or any other player's) side can help stop botters and hackers, and improve our Royals community, I really don't see why you would be reluctant to do so.

 

The evidence provided by players can help bring a GM's attention to suspicious activity, but the GM should be physically present when banning them. If they're understaffed, then they can hire more GM's? As far as I know they've only hired 2 GM's since 10+ of them quit during the transition to new source.

I agree with you that a response takes little effort, but when you're constantly pestered by people then that small effort turns into an annoying effort.

The way GM's ban people without checking themselves worry me because it seems that there's no way to prove you were unjustly banned for botting.
For example, if the user in the original post wasn't botting and just didn't want to answer you, how is he supposed to prove that? GM's ask for proof in order for the ban to be reversed, but what can he actually give?

 

These situations are handled on a case by case basis. The decision to give a ban was based on the facts of this case alone so that is all that can be speculated about. There have been other cases where we haven't accepted other players' screenshots or evidence and determined this needed to be personally witnessed by a GM. So to answer your initial question, no, you are not obligated to answer another player. However, if you act with robotic behavior on multiple occasions and additionally do not answer anyone, there's a good chance you're going to be reported and potentially banned.

 

If responding to multiple people over a short period of time is such a hassle for you, don't reply. But keep in mind that by doing that you are risking your character being reported. You could grind during non- traffic hours, less popular maps, or not grind at all. These are all choices you make at your own risk.

 

If someone suspects the owner the map is botting then and they try to prove it by asking if the map owner is there, I don't see why the map owner can't just respond or just say go away.

If I was grinding or stopper farming and some random person was in my map asking questions, I'd ask them to leave if I noticed because it would be annoying/distracting.

 

First, go read the Terms and Conditions thread.

5. Robotic Play - This act will be defined as the failure of a player to respond to a member of staff when prompted and visibly at the controls of their character, as evidenced by actions such as movement or use of skills.

In the situation where a player is prompting another player, a response is not strictly mandatory, however a player report in which a player is being prompted numerous times without a response over a long period of time may be considered sufficient evidence for consequences under this rule at the discretion of staff.

As such, we strongly suggest to all players to respond to any prompts in order to avoid being portrayed in a manner which may not be true.

Please be aware that scripted macro programs which control your character may be considered a game hack and subject to punishment under Major Infraction - 2. Game Hacking.

So with that out of the way, lets break down what that means.
A response is not strictly mandatory. That means that yes, someone can enter your map, and you can choose to ignore him.
HOWEVER.
That person has the right to report you if they suspect you are botting. In which case, they will ask you multiple times - are you there? They can try to interact with you. We make our decisions based on the evidence we see. If we see someone literally following the one being reported, attacking with them, trying to talk to them for 5 minutes straight without once being told "cc" "stop" "i'm here" "go away", etc etc - then I'd say it's pretty fairly obvious they aren't there. It's up to YOU to prove to us that you aren't actually afk. And it has happened before - someone had a screenshot of when someone came into the map that showed they were talking to the person right before they reported them.

If you arent going to respond to people who come into your map, then its up to you to provide enough proof that you are actually at the computer and not botting if you get reported.

 

Thanks for the input everyone, good to hear everyone's thoughts on this. What happens in this scenario though?

1. A person talks to me to check if I'm botting, and I respond to them.
2. They continuously talk to me, and since I responded the first time, I don't answer them anymore.
3. My reply get pushed up in the chat, and then they proceed to screenshot and report me for not replying aka botting.

Could a GM shed some light on this? This is partially why I feel having GM's personally attend to all bans seems like a good idea.

It seems like based on what I'm hearing, if someone keeps talking to me, regardless of how often, I am obligated to reply or else I'll be banned for botting.

 

If someone continuesly asks if your'e there, you could simply SS your reply as proof you answered. Also, chat logs ?

 

Good point. It just seems like an inconvenience for the grinder. I don't think Royals has a record of anything right now.

 

We do have all chat logged, and if the person starts to consistently badger you while you are grinding remember that you can tell them to leave. And by refusing to do so they are violating the TnC themselves. In the rare case that happens, just screenshot yourself when you replied the first time and continue grinding/farming. We do try to check in on cases individually but sometimes when we go to look at the report, the person isn't online anymore or has afk'd and that makes it harder. Do we wait for them to hopefully return? We could be waiting hours or weeks to try and catch one person. Or we can go off the evidence provided and make a judgement call from there.

 

This seems like a silly argument to me. I sit about 6 feet from my computer using a wireless Xbox controller to play. My keyboard is next to my computer (6 feet away). If I have to get up every time to reply to a non GM player just to validate to them that I'm not breaking any of the mentioned rules, you're out of your mind. Moreover, you can see how disruptive that requirement can be, not to mention abused... Now, I understand that this will most likely never happen to me as I don't play like a "robot". I'm just against the idea that a player should be required to respond to another non GM player in general. If that never becomes a requirement, then I have no problem with anything else mentioned in this thread.


Edit: @LinDan made a good point regarding the lack of GM’s. The lack of GM’s to cover the required duties falls on the shoulders of the staff. If one of the arguments being made is that we don’t have enough GM’s so the community should step in, I believe that is a poor solution to the problem. While it may have worked, it’s not a good solution for the reasons outlined by @LinDan

This is called "Guilty until proven innocent". Looking at your country flag, this is the complete opposite of how the justice system works in your (our) country. Why would you think this should be any different in game?

 

I do think he brings up a fair point though. Is there a reason we err on the side of guilty when delivering bans, but require definitive proof to be deemed innocent afterwards? As someone who trains in the corner by Newties so I can spam Genesis and watch Futurama, I also get a lot of passersby suspecting me of botting and prompting responses from me–which I often unintentionally ignore because I'm too enthralled by Fry being a moron.

Not to make an ethical debate about it (PS: saying "Murrican system is like this, why isn't Royals system like this?" is a terrible argument), I'm just wondering.

Also, I think this response is intensely problematic:

1. Sure there is a limited number of staff, but that does not mean regular players should have that kind of authority over the verdict of someone else's innocence. There are few staff, and only so much time for them to do an unpaid job on a video game server. I get that. We all do. But that is not an excuse to warrant vigilante justice.

2. That's the point though, right? They did ask to start a chat with them. As a grinder, it's pretty clear that responding to every person who talks to me is more or less necessary to ensure that I won't face a ban, regardless of what the Terms of Conditions may say. And your point is a slippery slope. What's stopping a botter from implementing simple user responses in-game?

3. Does that really stop botters and hackers? Responding to people only saves my ass. Regardless, your idea of "Well do this because it's for the good of the server, and if you don't, that makes you a bad person" is just an unfair thing to say to anyone. Frankly, I'm not obligated to do anything beyond following the current rules in place. And we can definitely see that those rules are vague and contextual, which is all the more reason to be extra considerate when we consider how to deliver bans. Sometimes I think this community tends to teeter on the verge of a police state.

Perhaps when the ~GM command returns there will be more clarity and efficiency with this issue, as a GM can be directly called in game to report on the potential botter.

 

Re: guilty until proven innocent, what's the solution? We have the evidence and are positive of our conviction that a rule has been violated before we even ban the person in the first place.

The only way someone can be unbanned is if they have proof that they didn't violate the rule. I don't know what an alternative to this practice would be.

 

Fair enough, I suppose that answers my question lolol. Although to return to the OP's question, I think there still seems to be good discussion over what is considered evidence that guarantees your conviction–aka player reports.

 

According to @Sila, we are not required to respond to a player. But, you're saying that we can still get ban for not responding. It's kind of conflicting guidance... Moving forward, I'm no longer interested in pursuing this argument. Your server your rules right?

 

I think the rules describe it pretty clearly, I don't know what more there is to try and detail about it
In the situation where a player is prompting another player, a response is not strictly mandatory, however a player report in which a player is being prompted numerous times without a response over a long period of time may be considered sufficient evidence for consequences under this rule at the discretion of staff.

It is not strictly mandatory. However, if over a period of time you arent responding and you're making repetitive movements that look like botting then we will take action. As John said, it's up to you to provide evidence to counter the report in the case of being banned. That's how it has been for the past 4 years, nothing has changed.