The Mana World Forums

Sigh.

You *can't* just start running a bot on the main server, even if some of the developers think it's a cool idea. *All* bots, even "harmless" ones, require formal agreement from the TMWC as a whole.

Although this version seems more likely to comply with the TMWC's requirements, proper procedure must still be followed. In the past we have allowed sloppiness, and it has only led to regret.

@blocked until proper procedures are followed.

o11c wrote:Sigh.

You *can't* just start running a bot on the main server, even if some of the developers think it's a cool idea. *All* bots, even "harmless" ones, require formal agreement from the TMWC as a whole.

Although this version seems more likely to comply with the TMWC's requirements, proper procedure must still be followed. In the past we have allowed sloppiness, and it has only led to regret.

@blocked until proper procedures are followed.

thats how you make people regret trying to help improve this project

o11c wrote:Sigh.

You *can't* just start running a bot on the main server, even if some of the developers think it's a cool idea. *All* bots, even "harmless" ones, require formal agreement from the TMWC as a whole.

Although this version seems more likely to comply with the TMWC's requirements, proper procedure must still be followed. In the past we have allowed sloppiness, and it has only led to regret.

@blocked until proper procedures are followed.

I for one don't agree with this block, i do agree that he should follow protocol and ask for permission to keep it running, But isn't this forum post essentially him asking for permission.

Every active GM saw confused tree and every active playing developer saw confused tree. watching and observing a bot is part of the process.
i wont unblock him, o11c thats up to you, but i believe everything you asked for was already there and you still blocked.

Prsm

Bots don't run on "it is better to ask forgiveness than permission". At the very least there needs to be a post in the private forum for approving that specific bot, just like we do for GMs who pass the polls.

o11c wrote:Bots don't run on "it is better to ask forgiveness than permission". At the very least there needs to be a post in the private forum for approving that specific bot, just like we do for GMs who pass the polls.

TMWC, the C stands for committee. Most of us had talked about it in the game, I dont believe i saw you on line to discuss it with. Before you blocked him, who did you talk to? I was in the game when you did it, you didnt talk to me. I do believe the current GM team was nominated by the people to represent them, and police the game. A big part of our job is to catch bots, but I know you know that.

At the very most, in your role, you could have asked us to step in and act if need be. You acted out of turn, you are an admin and a developer. If you would like to act as a GM, get nominated. If you dont like the rules, get TMWC to officially change them. But please dont act the way you did, Platyna acted that way, and no one liked it.
Prsm

I get o11c's thought, bots should be checked and approved.

I also understand that the person that made the bot will feel badly handled in this debacle. He can't be held responsible to know rules that are not really clear or posted anywhere.

I myself didn't think much about it since i saw that the sorce code was up in the public space and that we already have had a similar bot that was found to be popular and flagged as a friendly bot.

From my point of view a ban is a slightly forceful way to get in contact with someone. Just ask for the source of the bot, complement the one who made it happen for the initiative to bring back a loved bot to the game.

We must learn and move on, procedures needs to be made for those situations so that everyone knows what goes and what does not go. As wushin said it is a work that is being undertaken right now, hopefully it will be a lot clearer for others in the future on how to go about things - TMWC was not prepared for this, hopefully we will be next time.

Finally I would really like to see Confused Tree back and I do want to say thanks to pclouds for taking the time to make something for everyone to enjoy in game.

prsm wrote:TMWC, the C stands for committee. Most of us had talked about it in the game, I dont believe i saw you on line to discuss it with.

Absolutely it does stand for committee. No single member of the committee has the power to waive the "No bots" rule.

Where is the TMWC discussion thread allowing the exception?

veryape wrote:He can't be held responsible to know rules that are not really clear or posted anywhere.

He absolutely can. "No bots" is a pretty damned clear rule.

Except we say no bots with one hand and encourage people to develop them with the other.

First and foremost this ban is by no means permanent. Nor in anyway reflective of whether we would adopt the tree.

Let us get consensus on bot rules viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18795 first before we argue anymore about no bots or bots allowed. The bot rules post will clarify this for the player base and staff.

It's true o11c by the rules did nothing wrong. Yet he was not at all tactfully able to accommodate this developer, nor point them to a route of success, once again. Once again the community and GMs are rubbed the wrong way.

I get that people are upset with me because the new bot was "allowed" and then blocked.

What I *don't* understand is why everybody is defending its past right to have blatantly violated the rules. Ignoring the fact that Confused Tree was violating the rules was *exactly* what lost it to us (and, I must point out, "I told you so").

o11c wrote:I get that people are upset with me because the new bot was "allowed" and then blocked.

What I *don't* understand is why everybody is defending its past right to have blatantly violated the rules. Ignoring the fact that Confused Tree was violating the rules was *exactly* what lost it to us (and, I must point out, "I told you so").

Simply put, "lacking tact" is the problem.

All I know is I've removed/changed/destroyed a lot of things in TMW, but one thing I know. You don't mess with the communities tree, specially not that one among all.

What is happening is the perception of the community based on the history of your actions and attitude towards them. Pure legacy PEBKAC. No amount of rule wrangling, code pushing or algorithm will fix it. You need to find a way to smooth it over with the vested parties.

o11c wrote: What I *don't* understand is why everybody is defending its past right to have blatantly violated the rules. Ignoring the fact that Confused Tree was violating the rules was *exactly* what lost it to us (and, I must point out, "I told you so").

- Problem is: you without reaching consensus single-handedly issued judgment as not Game Master you had no right to issue. By doing this you banned huge portion of population. And yes, by this I mean these days banning just one active player you ban more than percent of active population, not to be mentioned people that got sic of this situation and left. Well done. Sadly, not for the first time.
- Even most strict law or rule system has definition of "Harmless error". Seems you don't understand that "law enforcement" is not really about "enforcing law". If you still don't understand that sentence or need to expand it: please say so so we can migrate to other server before strict rule system caused more rage.
- I have to mention that rule "No AFK botting" has no definitions thus can not be strict of formal. Thus I recommend mentioning in rules "you can be banned by developers at any moment without reason".

o11c wrote:Sigh.

You *can't* just start running a bot on the main server, even if some of the developers think it's a cool idea. *All* bots, even "harmless" ones, require formal agreement from the TMWC as a whole.

Although this version seems more likely to comply with the TMWC's requirements, proper procedure must still be followed. In the past we have allowed sloppiness, and it has only led to regret.

@blocked until proper procedures are followed.

You not have gm rights to ban useless things what not create security or other big issues for server. If really need ban some useless bot, gm can do this.

Also you cant apply bot rules before they actualy was created. This is power abuse.

o11c wrote:

prsm wrote:TMWC, the C stands for committee. Most of us had talked about it in the game, I dont believe i saw you on line to discuss it with.

Absolutely it does stand for committee. No single member of the committee has the power to waive the "No bots" rule.

Where is the TMWC discussion thread allowing the exception?

veryape wrote:He can't be held responsible to know rules that are not really clear or posted anywhere.

He absolutely can. "No bots" is a pretty damned clear rule.

I will try and make this clear, i will void it of emotion, because i can tell "you just don't get it"

the rules say "NO Bots", I can't argue that, but we have historically made exceptions to this rule. Confused tree for example, was up and botting long before it was passed by TMWC (you have to see something in action before you can define it). we have also allowed people to have some free range in automation if they dont gain either xp, money or items from doing it. Wushin has an alt in town 24/7, if i whisper to it i get an automated afk message, should he be banned for automation? what about the odd alt that automates emotes?

The rules are not always black and white, sometimes they are grey. the GM team always talk amongst themselves and ask "is that okay" or "should we act on that". Bottom line we give some liberties rather than chase everyone away.

you asked where it was written about exceptions, its written right beside you having the right to veto things! its unwritten and accepted.

if we go by the written rules for friendly bot, wait? there are none yet, wushin is working on them! So bottom line, you blocked an alt for not following the rules that have not been written yet, and you are not a GM so you acted outside of your field of expertise.

That is why everyone is up in arms.

Prsm

prsm wrote:the rules say "NO Bots", I can't argue that, but we have historically made exceptions to this rule. Confused tree for example,

And the fact that you made an exception was a disaster. I "plain disagree"d (see below), and turned out to be right. The fact that this bot was allowed for even a brief period of time makes it look like it will become another disaster.

Whose fault is that? Not mine, I am only insisting that the rules we all agreed on be followed. While it is the right of the GM team to have a degree of discretion in enforcing the rules, the power to change or make exceptions to them lies with the TMWC as a whole.

prsm wrote:you asked where it was written about exceptions, its written right beside you having the right to veto things! its unwritten and accepted.

Perhaps "veto" is the wrong word, but it follows from the definition of "consensus".

When attempting to reach consensus, each person may provide, roughly, one of the following opinions: strong support, sounds interesting, abstain, plain disagree, absolutely not. If someone holds "plain disagree", the consensus can still pass as long as enough of the rest of the people support it (but if there are too many "plain disagree"s, consensus will fail). If someone says "absolutely not", that puts a halt to the consensus immediately. I am not the only one who can do this; anyone can (either within their section of the TMWC, or in the TMWC as a whole).

Given that consensus is most emphatically *not* voting, is there any (rough) other interpretation of the process?

prsm wrote:if we go by the written rules for friendly bot, wait? there are none yet, wushin is working on them! So bottom line, you blocked an alt for not following the rules that have not been written yet, and you are not a GM so you acted outside of your field of expertise.

There are no rules for friendly bots, so the "no bots" rule applies. Current friendly bots were given an exception by consensus of the TMWC under the clause 1, the "make [all] decisions" clause.

It is, admittedly, debatable whether I stepped out of my area of expertise, though by precedent admins *do* have the right to enforce bans using technical measures, especially in cases with temporal sensitivity. But then, I'm not unwilling to admit a personal lack of faith in the GM team to respond quickly and appropriately to edge cases. The fact that your idea is "let them break the rules while the discussion happens", which is tantamount to "the only valid consensus is that it must be allowed or else players will get mad because it was here first and then taken away", does nothing to change my opinion.

---

If I could get a declaration of intent from the GM team, to enforce the rules strictly, and document edge cases in the private forum, that would make me so happy. I have asked for documentation of GM procedures to be written in the private forum *many* times, since I still have no clue how the day-to-day workings of the GM team happen - other than "new GMs learn from old GMs by copying".