new rule

[Aleaiactaest 10]

"Publication of reports, e-mails or excerpts from the chat in game or on the forum without the consent of both (all) parties is prohibited."

 

-please dont answer until you have nothing to say.

[Bix 453]

no

[Propheteer 7,139]

no

[Judicator 539]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[LorenaMontana 3,008]

Lol no

[Rasu 561]

no

[Pandalet 1,848]

no

[Ayes 3,715]

-please dont answer until you have nothing to say.

 

Ahh, a conundrum you present here. Although I have nothing to say, especially upon these forums since my speech is ineffective here since you can not hear it, I won't answer, because with nothing to say then there would be nothing to type in response, even if saying were to mean responding through typing something.

 

Now taking this into consideration, it would seem to me that you are asking for no response; therefore, there may be many who read this post who would otherwise respond with nothing but now you will never know this since because of your polite request for them to not answer unless they have nothing to say, they in turn may wish to answer but since they have nothing to say, well then they don't.

 

Although upon further reflection this may seem to be a dichotomy, it really is not since with nothing to say a person will not respond anyway; therefore, as with a dichotomy there is no opposition here but a perfect sync of nothing needed to be done to make a non-response.

 

Looking at it this way your post here may actually have the most responses of any that have even been made upon these forums, since every poster that is not posting a response is answering with nothing to say; therefore, the brilliance of your simple request above means that everyone who reads these forums can easily answer by not answering or really doing anything at all.

 

The only real problem I see with all this is that you will never really know how many posters there are with nothing to say, unless they say nothing of course. Until then you will at least know that those who respond are in defiance of your polite request herein by those who actually say something. Now mind you, I am not really saying anything here nor actually answering either, this is all just merely abstract obtuse theoretical intro-outer speculations which possibly might be refuted at a later date by those who have nothing to say about it all.

 

=Ayes=

Edited September 22, 2014 by Ayes

[Rathgar 959]

"Publication of reports, e-mails or excerpts from the chat in game or on the forum without the consent of both (all) parties is prohibited."

 

-please dont answer until you have nothing to say.

[Exara 4]

Sounds like another horrible idea.

[As_I_Decay 1,592]

No. In fact, I'd change the rules to allow naming (and shaming) in the forums, making personal accountability/reputation actually mean something. 

In example, "Person A" is a thief, and I have undeniable proof through a PM. I can not let the rest of the community know via the forums because it's against the rules, so I have to resort to whispering it around in game, hoping that the information circulates properly. That's entirely ###### that I have to tiptoe around the fact that there's a thief among us, "cheating" the community, when Rolf and team can forum name and shame every player that gets caught cheating (in a different way) and receives a ban.

The unsavory types of players last a lot longer around here because the community can't come at them with proverbial pitch forks. What actually happens is a GM comes over, gives them a little smack on the back of the hand and a reprimand, and they're back to doing what they do best next week: being an . The community, or person(s) that's affected, is told that the problem has been handled, but it really hasn't.



 

[Elen 1,013]

-1

[Audrel 2,223]

I agree with As_I_Decay. You can't kill them. You can't call them out. You can stand and watch them do what they do.

[Rathgar 959]

this is now the pro name&shame thread.

[LorraineJ 1,099]

-1.

 

Stand by your word.

[Becket 843]

-1  hmm guess no one ever told you never do anything on  computer you would not want on the front page of the New York Times.

[Sklo:D 2,210]

No

[Gaeron 551]

@OP 

 

did someone post something that left you embarrassed?  what was it?

[Druidnature 1,118]

No. In fact, I'd change the rules to allow naming (and shaming) in the forums, making personal accountability/reputation actually mean something.

In example, "Person A" is a thief, and I have undeniable proof through a PM. I can not let the rest of the community know via the forums because it's against the rules, so I have to resort to whispering it around in game, hoping that the information circulates properly. That's entirely ###### that I have to tiptoe around the fact that there's a thief among us, "cheating" the community, when Rolf and team can forum name and shame every player that gets caught cheating (in a different way) and receives a ban.

The unsavory types of players last a lot longer around here because the community can't come at them with proverbial pitch forks. What actually happens is a GM comes over, gives them a little smack on the back of the hand and a reprimand, and they're back to doing what they do best next week: being an ######. The community, or person(s) that's affected, is told that the problem has been handled, but it really hasn't.

[necroe 696]

-1...

[Tissotx 217]

You think you are a company and everything you say is trademark and patent protected?

 

Please explain why you want this. We can't read your mind, incase you are afraid of that also!

[Samool 2,004]

[14:37:06] <Samool> -1

[LorraineJ 1,099]

Problem is, as crafty as a LOT of us that play wurm are, what's stopping us, you, or me, from creating a very plausible - real looking, false facts, story about someone just to lower there reputation? Especially when it comes to market competitors (God the story's I've heard from deli alone >,<)

[Baloo 709]

-1

However, maybe there needs to be a proper panel of judges, comprised maybe of experienced "older" players (like CAs maybe), who could look at each case and yes, name and shame, but once the "criminal" has served time (maybe in a prison?) / taken the punishment, returned the stolen goods and shown they have mended their ways, they be given a second chance to play as "decent" players.  Obviously repeat offenders would need to be dealt with more severely.  This could make for an even more community like environment in Wurm and might satisfy players who have been wronged too.  

[Hordern 2,177]

If someone posted a flat-out lie, couldn't a GM verify?