[Proposal] New Game Rules

Got something on your mind about the project? This is the correct place for that.
Forum rules
This forum is for feature requests, content changes additions, anything not a Bug in the software.
Please report all bugs on the Support Forums
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 21 Jan 2017, 15:43

Tirifto wrote:It would be nice for the rules to give the players an idea of how they can be punished. I do not think a rewording of the current notice is necessary, but it may be helpful. Also, I would personally prefer if it came after the rules, rather than before them.
WildX wrote:... This should be amended to reflect how we deal with botting now, which no longer include resets (see the topic I linked above).
WildX in linked topic wrote:... First offence: Player is banned for 30 days (@ban <name> <30d>) , level is reset to 0 ...
I might be misunderstanding something here, but reset seems to be mentioned in the linked topic. Otherwise what I think should be mentioned by the rules is the scope of punishment. The details (what offence brings which punishment) linked as separate article, or perhaps added after a separator. One would primarily be interested in that immediately before or after breaking the rules.
Sorry, I meant reset as the main action that we take. Yes, reset is still included, but item deletion and 30 days ban should be mentioned too maybe.
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 21 Jan 2017, 16:45

WildX wrote:... Yes, reset is still included, but item deletion and 30 days ban should be mentioned too maybe.
Reid has suggested that we only mention the greatest possible punishment (permanent ban), with the GMs really dealing lesser punishment only upon first or minor offences. I think this is reasonable because that way players will know they certainly shouldn't break the rules and that severe punishment is due to land. It would then be up to the internal GM guidelines to handle each violation appropriately.

Proposed change No. 2: "Breaking these rules may eventually result in a permanent ban for the player." Punishment is recorded in the Forum section "Court House (Abuse Forum)."

Perhaps the player should be directed to the Court House in some way, so that they can plead their case. As for what punishment is likely to land for what offence, they should be able to find the guidelines in case they wish to know. (A link can be added [as attachment but not a part of the rules] for their convenience.)
jesusalva
Peon
Peon
Posts: 10
Joined: 14 Nov 2016, 23:20
Location: Brazil
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by jesusalva » 21 Jan 2017, 21:04

[17:23:55] <jesusalva> WildX: I am of the mind we should state on the rules any infrigiment results in permanent ban to the person, but this punishment can be lightened at the GMs discretion. Please read the GM manual to know which cases will be lightened.
[17:25:41] <jesusalva> In other words, we can always ban you (this is stated in almost every Terms and Conditions “we may terminate this contract at any time for any reason”) but we choose to not do for most cases.
[17:26:20] <jesusalva> And poof. Magical solution for every problem. This is why it's present in almost every game-playing agreement.
[17:27:40] <jesusalva> For better wording: “We reserve ourselves the right to prevent player access for any given reason. This usually is only done in special cases.”
[17:27:51] <jesusalva> For example: country blocking.
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 21 Jan 2017, 21:29

I agree with what Reid said about specifying the highest punishment and treating all others as something "at the GM's discretion". Let's do that. However, I would prefer if it wasn't included in the rules and instead we had a link to the GM Manual if the person wants to read up further on how we will deal with rule breaking.
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 22 Jan 2017, 18:23

First edit to the proposal has been made. Please see the first post.

List of changes since the initial proposal:
  • Added the warning about consequences of breaknig the rules to both old and new proposed rules. New warning was changed appropriately. (Thank jesusalva, Reid, WildX.)
  • Changed the exception to forbidden links to only cover Rules 5 and 6, because others may still be unacceptable. (Thank EJlol.)
  • Removed the note about future changes of New Proposed Rule 7, because the vagueness is intentional and beneficial. (Thank wushin.)
  • Changed instances of "and" in lists of possible offences to "or," which should better convey the point. (Thank Rill.)
  • Added the missing listed change about rewording of AFK activity checking description.
You may find the original post with the initial proposal here.

This edit has also brought a cosmetic error in the list of changes from the Old Rules; the note about punishment is indented in a way it shouldn't be. This will (hopefully) be fixed with the next edit.

Contrary to what I said earlier, I have also decided to retain the notice about punishment above the rules, rather than moving it below. Above it looks better and in the proposed form should nudge the user to read the rules.

As for the permission to post forbidden links when marked appropriately, perhaps a command could be implemented to do that? Whether or not this part of the proposal will be found acceptable, I think that alongside the "/url" command, we could have a "/nsfw" command, which would also post a clickable link, but would format it in a distinguishable way and display a different (more prominent) warning. What do you all think of this?
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 23 Jan 2017, 16:49

Another thing might be the use of "NSFW", we might get objections from people claiming they didn't know what it means, and since it's not technically part of an official English vocabulary we might be unable to enfore the rule. Also it might be difficult to translate in other languages.
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 24 Jan 2017, 12:01

WildX wrote:Another thing might be the use of "NSFW", we might get objections from people claiming they didn't know what it means, and since it's not technically part of an official English vocabulary we might be unable to enfore the rule. Also it might be difficult to translate in other languages.
I agree; this is a very good point, especially considering the translations. We may be able to name the specific (but not too specific) things which are forbidden. I looked up the definition of NSFW and the rating system of ESRB to get a better idea of the scope of the word. Do you think this could work?

Proposed change: No gore, strong violence, nudity or sexual content.
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 24 Jan 2017, 23:03

Yes that works for me :D
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 03 Feb 2017, 13:14

New point to consider: Playing with multiple characters at the same time.

I've been told in a conversation with GMs Prsm and Narus that playing with multiple characters at the same time is both frowned upon and illegal in TMW. I've also been told that automated activity (with a single character) is okay as long as the player is present.

However, after re-reading both the old rules and the new proposed rules, I believe that plying with multiple characters at once is not forbidden by either of them. If the rules are to reflect the above described system, they should be changed to clearly state so. The question is: How to best incorporate these rules?

Automated AFK activity doesn't forbid multiple characters at the same time as long as the player is present. Removing the "AFK" part would then result in a ban on single character automation, too. We should also keep in mind that playing actively (without automation) with two characters at the same time is possible, too.

If we want to add this restriction, I think it either needs to be appended to one of the existing rules or be added as a new rule by itself. What are your opinions on this?
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 04 Feb 2017, 14:54

I have a proposal for a change to rule 2: the "(Char relays are allowed)" part should be changed to "(Individual bots may be granted an exception)". We used to keep a friendly bot list and all bots on that list would be allowed to exist. I think rather than talking about chat relays we should only refer to individual bots that the Team wants to allow. That way we will never have an issue where we have 3 chat relay bots sitting in town because everyone wants their own.

As for multiboxing we could make a new rule and merge rules 1 and 5 so we keep the number down to 7 which seems reasonable.
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 04 Feb 2017, 15:41

WildX wrote:I have a proposal for a change to rule 2: the "(Char relays are allowed)" part should be changed to "(Individual bots may be granted an exception)". We used to keep a friendly bot list and all bots on that list would be allowed to exist. I think rather than talking about chat relays we should only refer to individual bots that the Team wants to allow. That way we will never have an issue where we have 3 chat relay bots sitting in town because everyone wants their own.
On one hand this can broaden the scale of allowed bots, on the other it will make this a selective whitelist process. I don't know if respectful chat relays can be harmful or need regulation, but if they do, then this system seems like a good way to deal with it. I wouldn't call three relays in a town an issue though; to me it feels the same like having three normal players around. Although I can imagine that having fifty bots on server would be undesirable. Is that a valid concern or could you perhaps expand on the problem some more?
WildX wrote:As for multiboxing we could make a new rule and merge rules 1 and 5 so we keep the number down to 7 which seems reasonable.
I'm not sure if that would be a good thing to do. Rules 1 and 5 are different with little overlay, so instead of two we'd end up with one twice as long.
No insults, swearing, hate language, harrassment, or links to malicious, fraudalent or jumpscare websites.
It's not too long, so it could work, but it also feels like two different topics in one rule. Again, more opinions and suggestions welcome!
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 04 Feb 2017, 17:29

It does broaden the scale, but that could actually be a positive thing. We reserve the right to allow any bots if we think they might do good. Take ManaMarket or Guild for example. We might not need them anymore thanks to Manaplus support for those features, but new things may arise in the future that require bots. Also someone once said that friendly bots are a good way to encourage people to play with code and possibly one day join the dev team.
Tirifto wrote:
WildX wrote:As for multiboxing we could make a new rule and merge rules 1 and 5 so we keep the number down to 7 which seems reasonable.
I'm not sure if that would be a good thing to do. Rules 1 and 5 are different with little overlay, so instead of two we'd end up with one twice as long.
No insults, swearing, hate language, harrassment, or links to malicious, fraudalent or jumpscare websites.
It's not too long, so it could work, but it also feels like two different topics in one rule. Again, more opinions and suggestions welcome!
What about "No offensive content such as insults, swearing, hate language, harrassment or malicious websites"? Personally I think it encompasses enough that a GM would be able to enforce such a rule in any situation where it would be needed.
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 05 Feb 2017, 11:56

WildX wrote:It does broaden the scale, but that could actually be a positive thing. ...
Yes, my intention was to point that out as a positive thing, too. I suppose it would then be up to the GM guidelines to define more specific internal rules (which robot avatars are whitelisted, what kinds of bots could be permitted etc.)?
WildX wrote:What about "No offensive content such as insults, swearing, hate language, harrassment or malicious websites"? Personally I think it encompasses enough that a GM would be able to enforce such a rule in any situation where it would be needed.
Malicious website are somewhat vague, but I suppose it could suffice. Fraudalent and jumpscare websites can really be seen as malicious, in a way. (So can non-libre software, but I guess it won't be applied that way.) It still feels a bit out of the line with other items in that rule, though. Let's compare these three, now somewhat similar rules and their possible combinations.

1 = No insults, swearing, hate language or harrassment.
5 = Do not share links to malicious, fraudalent or jumpscare websites.
6n = No gore, strong violence, nudity or sexual content.

1 + 5 = No insults, swearing, hate language, harrassment or malicious websites.
1 + 6n = No insults, swearing, hate language, harrassment, gore, strong violence, nudity or sexual content.
5 + 6n = No gore, strong violence, nudity, sexual content or malicious websites.

I left out "offensive content such as," because I think the named things should be encompassing enough, but please do point it out if not. From the combination above, I think 1+5 and 5+6n would work the best. Rule 5 doesn't relate to speech but rather diverse content, so I feel like it might fit in better there. What do you think?
User avatar
WildX
Development Producer
Development Producer
Posts: 1165
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 15:13
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by WildX » 05 Feb 2017, 14:02

We would have a public list of allowed bots and we would have internal votes for each individual bot that we consider for the list.

5 + 6n is my favourite out of those.
User avatar
Tirifto
Peon
Peon
Posts: 63
Joined: 19 Aug 2015, 11:38
Location: Esperantujo

Re: [Proposal] New Game Rules

Post by Tirifto » 05 Feb 2017, 20:43

WildX wrote:We would have a public list of allowed bots and we would have internal votes for each individual bot that we consider for the list.

5 + 6n is my favourite out of those.
As long as getting a bot approved is an easy process, it sounds reasonable to me. What would be a good way to mention the exception? It could be either in parentheses (like you suggested), or be added to the notes below the rules. I like your suggestion, but I think it might be better to avoid the word "bot." While it seems to be a fairly common term, I don't think it may be familiar to everyone (judging by my personal experience) and I'm afraid it might not be well translatable.

Players also shouldn't be misled into thinking that getting an exception enables their bot to do anything at all, but I suppose that would be clarified in the application process. Would "individual player characters may be granted an exception" work? Other ideas most welcome!
Post Reply