Learner, on 31 May 2018 - 03:20 PM, said:
You don't understand, you are looking at everything as anything not explicitly listed as illegal as being legal. I have had that problem with you on this thread from the start. But, as I've said, the moment you explicitly list it as illegal also adds many more requirements on me and the server. This is currently in the gray area why players should not being doing it, but the moment you add a rule explicitly against it, you change my priorities.
What are the player priorities??? Think about what you really are asking and what players really expect.
The thing is, it is no more illegal than say, bagjumping, pking in invasions, or various other things. The common sense rule could encompass pretty much anything you want, so it's not a solid argument to say that people should't be doing it because it isn't legal but it isn't illegal. It's like bloody legal highs: you get people doing it because it's still not banned, even if it sits in a dubious spot.
I am also trying to make it clear to you that, given that it has never been outlined as being illegal, and there having been no real indications that it shouldn't be done. It's not illegal, but not legal. That always bolsters peoples confidence that they can get away with it, as since it is not illegal, there is no system to prevent them.
I'm not saying it's legal, I'm merely saying in the posts (ignoring the thread title, which, I admit, I made it as clickbaitey as possible) that you say it's not illegal and not legal put people shouldn't be doing it however
those people have exactly the same right to say it's not illegal and they have the right to do it.
Let me put it this way:
I'm searching through to find the rules (they are in the forums and not in the game, that's a problem, but I'm ignoring that).
I find these rules:
Learner, on 01 September 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:
Ok, even though the game server is not up yet, lets drop in some basic rules to start with until the community evolves more and changes things:
- Use your common sense, until the community decides be conservative about what will or wont be allowed
- Keep the channels 'clean' and when possible, on topic. As the community decides and grows this will change as needed
- If you have discussions in channel about game improvements or changes, try to get the ideas into the forums so more people can provide feedback and they don't get lost
- What we have is just what we're starting with, things WILL be changing
- Due to spammers, hackers, etc, use of a proxy known to be used for illegal or abusive purposes will not be permitted. Using private proxy systems that have not been abusing the Internet is permitted.
- Characters or Alts shall not interact in any way with other characters run by the same player in any way. It is best if you don't even have an Alt at all. This is not limited by IP or who is running the character at the time of the offense. Other players should not assist by being middle men or help or they may be included in punishment. Punishment can include losing all items or all characters!
- No gc Sales for RL $'s etc / aka no black market gc sales.
Okay, so the first one is just a general catch all to just enforce things at your whim, okay
the second one is the generic don't scare newbies away in the default channel, okay
the third one is a... suggestion... it's already not a rule, so why's it in the rules... I'm confused, but i continue...
the fourth one isn't even a suggestion, or pretending to be a rule... it's just a ... disclaimer...
The fifth one finally goes to being a mix between a rule and a disclaimer about banned notorious proxies...
ah, the sixth is finally a solid rule i know i shouldn't break, okay, i'll keep an eye out for that one.
the seventh is standard MMO one, kind of is being constantly broken, and arguably whenever a character is sold it breaks that rule as well, but okay then... I know what i mustn't do.
absolutely nothing makes any motion towards macroing actually being frowned upon, especially when you consider the replies you gave to me in that rule thread when i initially brought it up. From that, it looks very much like an area you don't care about, and hence people are going to use it because it seems accepted by your seeming acceptance to it not being banned, and thus villified.
It works on the same level as just standing by when someone throws racial slurs at someone else. Your inaction means they feel they are in the right, or at least, they aren't in the wrong.
And i mean, the people who have macroed, I don't think you can really ban them, since you didn't make what they did illegal. You may have thought it shouldn't be done, but since it's not been stated either way as being illegal or legal, people will assume there aren't restrictions. It's like if i go to a park and it doesn't have signs in relation to walking on grass or dogs on leads. You have to work purely on your assumptions and they vary so incredibly between people, that the only way it is a grey area is if you have the expectation that you shouldn't do it. And for people who see it's not there, and how conspicuous it is in it's absence, I wouldn't blame them to assume that is purposefully left off the rules list, and when you have confirmed you don't have intentions to change it, after being brought to your attention, even if you don't explicitly call it legal, you create that perception of it being accepted de facto.
So no, I completely understand it's neither legal nor illegal, but that perception is entirely based on my desire for it not to happen in game. You, I'd say, have helped fashion this belief it might well be legal, given i have been messaged, with that post used as evidence by people to say, oh so botting is legal, because your inaction/disinterest makes it seem like it is accepted, even if not encouraged.
You could list it as illegal, and at least at that point if someone told you someone was botting you'd have a strong leg to stand on to do something. Right now you don't really, anymore than they have to argue that they aren't breaking rules, and for something so definitively bad, you'll not get the full community support behind you for these things because you never made a rule against it, and some people will feel that because of such, it's at least not punishable even though it might be frowned upon (though historically, you haven't given much appearance to be against it). You've already had to defend yourself for very controversial decisions in terms of banning a player for what they did in another game, and defending an IM who abused their privelleges, do you not want to strengthen yourself, or at least have something to let you at least have good grounds that people are breaking good faith in terms of macroing.
I phrased this mostly, because, no matter what you say, people will more than likely assume that since it's not outlined as banned, that it is then, at least technically legal, no matter what protesting might mean. It's only a grey area because me and you agree it is. To other people it might not be grey because there's no really anything to indicate it might be a bannable offense.
You can have the rule written, and not spend a large amount of time moderating it. It means you at least have the rule there if someone does something monumentally egregious, such as my example of a full bot script. There is nothing explicitly saying that adding this rule means you have to completely redo your priorities: It is only you who is saying this. My entire proposal is that you add it to the list so you have a tool for people who are flagrantly taking the piss. You've seen how much resentment banning people with catch all rules in EL causes. It creates a bitter taste in the mouths of people who don't even consider doing those things because it feels like an abuse of power and trust.
I know what you are thinking L, but I've been reaching out and talking to multiple people, and what you are thinking in terms of how the rules sit, doesn't reflect what other people read them as. The current rule set is so poorly written, mostly unclear, and the main rule i feel being leaned on is the one which, i believe, is so wide ranging and all encompassing that it feels a lot like those anti terror laws dictatorships utilise just to imprison people they don't like. That kind of makes it the weakest rule to argue on behalf and enforce.
I hope this clarifies things further, but I fully expect you to tell me the exact same things as before, and then tell me I'm the one going in circles, and it isn't a dance done by 2