Game Rules in Wiki

[Frost]

Should we explain the game rules in the TMW wiki?

Currently, that page says

The wiki is not the place to list game rules. The canonical game rules are the ones shown in-game, as available in the git repository.

I found this previous version to be more helpful, but I'm curious what others think.

[Cassy]

Well at least it defenitely shouldn't forward to GitHub...

o11c's thoughts about this weren't as bad as some people acted they'd be since this way you don't have to remember to update both locations, but however GitHub looks like a usual book for devs but like a weird bunch of strange signs to players. Maybe copy & paste (without code) to wiki? Not sure though.

[tux9th]

I think we should copy them over from GitHub but make a remarkt that they might be outdated on the wiki. For 100% certainty people should check with NPCs in-game to find out.

regards

[o11c]

The reason we MUST NOT put the game rules on the wiki is that in the past, people with wiki admin privileges have put a FALSE version of the rules on that page.

[WildX]

The reason we MUST NOT put the game rules on the wiki is that in the past, people with wiki admin privileges have put a FALSE version of the rules on that page.

Then don't give random people admin privs on the wiki?

[AnonDuck]

Rule: "You must give Narus one hat (any value) per day or she will ban you"

Use an iframe and source it from github. Also lock the page.
http://www.mediawikiwidgets.org/Iframe

[bell chick]

The reason we MUST NOT put the game rules on the wiki is that in the past, people with wiki admin privileges have put a FALSE version of the rules on that page.

very few people can read code so a git link is completely worthless. why even have anything at all on the wiki if it links to something only the devs can read?

[melkior]

We are working on a new website. I could easily make the game rules a subsection of the About page.

[wushin]

example #1: If player A drops an item on accident and player B picks it up, refuses to give it back.
example #2: If player A traded the item to player B, but player A says player B didn't include all the items in the "Fair" trade.
example #3: Door Squatting in PvP areas
example #4: Pulling huge amounts of Mobs onto a player
example #5: Threats made to other players through mechanisms outside our control. i.e. threats made to players via social networks or emails
example #6: Summoning mobs, attacking them and then warp so they kill sitters.
example #7: Assuming everyone should speak and understand English or face a ban.
example #8: Player A complains of abuse by player B on religious reasons. i.e. player A says Jesus or Mohammad don't exist, etc.
example #9: Player B misleds player A about game rules causing A to get a ban.

to name a few examples of murky areas

Most systems provide a bit more verbosity on some page, while keeping the in-game short.
https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/policy
http://community.eveonline.com/support/ ... icleId=291

While the Paid for game rules are a bit to totalitarian for us, I think it's worth to expand upon the rules a bit and post something official somewhere.
If the GMs can convene and write something we can get it pushed where ever.
This would help to quash rumors about what will and won't get you banned, as well.

This could also be more than just game rules as well. It could include some other support topics like how to whisper a gm, how the gms may choose to contact you, how to request account/password resets, how-to petition against a ban, reporting bugs, etc.

clear up a bit more of the litigious side of things. Specially if we are still seeking sfconservancy.

[o11c]

Nobody has addressed the issue of how we're supposed to make sure that the wiki page does not contain information that *contradicts* the actual rules.

Past experience has shown that even restricting editing to administrators is not enough, and I have seen nothing to indicate that anything has changed.

[wushin]

I think melkior got it write using a link to a doc in the github pages. At some point we may want or need to link the the license agreements inline with client for sfconservancy cover our asses from lawsuits the way this world goes somedays. Wiki is not a good place for it. It should have to be a commit almost sounds like a great idea as then people can see what's been amended, added or changed with any of the internal processes. Specially if we change some thing like how-to account reset or sign up or some other thing the "changes" could be highlighted I bet. But yeah after a bit more thought wiki gets wild wild west sometimes.

[Crush]

Nobody has addressed the issue of how we're supposed to make sure that the wiki page does not contain information that *contradicts* the actual rules.

Past experience has shown that even restricting editing to administrators is not enough, and I have seen nothing to indicate that anything has changed.

I think the reason for this is that the process for changing the rules wasn't clear, which lead to some misunderstandings about the current rulings.

You are searching for a technical solution for a social problem.

[o11c]

Sometimes social problems *can* be solved by technical solutions.

[Hello=)]

Sometimes social problems *can* be solved by technical solutions.

Usually it does not works. TMW is very good example.

Speaking in QA language:
Expected outcome:
Web site displays game rules in human-readable way. That's what players would usually expect.

Real outcome:
There is no human-readable rules on the web site at the moment.

Extra:
Wiki is one of countless ways mentioned goal could be achieved. Someone (mostly Nard?) attempted it and brought it into attention. I don't see how this activity is inherently wrong "on its own" and fail to understand why it have to be discouraged. But looks like in "reward", Nard got butt kicked, blamed on "wrong views", article has been vandalized (that's how wikipedia editors call such actions) and replaced with some dumb stub, far worse for mortal human beings than "incorrect" version. Problem WAS NOT solved - still NO human readable rules on web site. On other hand, these actions aggravated active wiki editor who cancelled all activity and resigned. He also happened to be leader of fairly large guild. Quite many players had chance to learn this ugly-looking action. Overall, this probably discouraged many players from trying to contribute to wiki. And of course this contributed to poor perception of TMW devs by TMW players (while situation is far from perfect on its own). And original problem was not solved. Very formally worked around at very most.

I really doubt things that followed were real purpose of these actions. Maybe, some approaches should be reconsidered? Especially in regard of handling social problems in technical ways, which mostly causes collateral damage and aggravation instead of dealing with root cause of problem.

The reason we MUST NOT put the game rules on the wiki is that in the past, people with wiki admin privileges have put a FALSE version of the rules on that page.

To be honest, from QA point of view, TMW rules are so obscure and hard to find that it takes a degree in rocket science to be sure you don't violate anything. And even then, it looks like it does not really warrants safety from administrative actions (looking on mahouking vs yellow assasin case).

As for topic, I think Wiki is okay to store rules. I don’t see how rules are so drastically different from other current in-game information. Yet I think rules deserve some link to them on main page of web site.

[melkior]

I still don't see what's the problem if we simply move the rules to the website (not the wiki/forums, the actual TMW web). Far less people will be able to change them there, they could be shown off more clearly. Any additional info could be in the form of a link to the wiki, with a notice explaining that any info found there is only informative and not a part of the actual rules.

And even then, it looks like it does not really warrants safety from administrative actions (looking on mahouking vs yellow assasin case).

I really don't want to derail this thread, but I think that might be a bad example, to be honest. That whole issue had nothing to do with the rules. Instead you had two people, and taken out of the context, the server logs could confirm both of their stories. The only problem was, only one of those people were willing to tell any kind of story. The other didn't want to talk, so he was banned as is normal procedure in scamming cases, to protect any items. As soon as he decided to talk, the whole issue was cleared and everyone could go back to their normal playing.

The thing is, you can make the rules as detailed as you want to, as visible as you want to, and people are still going to ignore them. I know "English in public" is probably one of the least important rules, when compared to others, but it's broken daily. It's broken because it's convenient to break, for a lot of players. And even if they had it flashing on their screens at all times, they'd still break it. I honestly don't think TMW has an exposure problem with the rules, although, yes, I'm in favour of giving them more "screen time".

None of the rules can protect you if you don't want to protect yourself and use some common sense.

I'm writing all of this because I really don't want people dragging out the mahouking/YA thing every time they want to criticise the rules and/or their placement. I don't want to see "You must reply to a GM!" as a rule, but if somebody is accusing you of something, and the evidence is ambiguous, well... wouldn't talking to a GM be common sense?