Sign in to follow this  
Aeris

Tragedy at Silent Hill

Recommended Posts

Disbanding a deed wasn't done via some building thou, so writs overriding wont help on that

 

In this instance, walls were bashed, and even without being mayor they can be knocked down in 3min at least by a non-writ holder.

Being able to pick things up out of those houses after a wall is bashed down is also a problem especially if the person isn't on the writ.

It's pretty broken...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it actively being discussed here and now? Because it looks like this particular case was outstandingly malicious and the individual involved outstandingly overt about exploiting what, with out a doubt, wasn't an intended "feature". Like you said, writ and deed permissions are in desperate need of revision, and the obvious implication is that they're not working as intended. I revised (or more accurately, completely rewrote) the post you quoted to take a guess at why moderators are so reluctant to intervene in cases of glitch exploitation. It's simply not possible to consistently prove whether or not a player knowingly exploited a glitch nor to prove their motivations, so they don't set foot on that slippery slope of case by case handling of such offenses. However, in this case, not only did the actions of the player harm another player, but they bordered on openly griefing in bragging about it in chat and mocking the victims and even crossed that line in doing what clearly serves little purpose beyond causing upset. In this case, it's impossible to ignore they knowingly exploited a dysfunctional "feature" (or "glitch") and that they did so with malicious intent. While I can understand you're afraid they're about to set down that slope and, come to think of it, potentially create an EVEN MORE disastrous issue by allowing enforcement to fall to the discretion of community managers

 

Edit: I am so sorry you had to see so many typos in one post. It's pretty late where I am and I'm not at my brightest.

hehehe no problem its late here as well. Just a couple things, yeah the hit was pretty bad, but I have seen just as bad plenty of times, and some of those didnt even bother to report it as they know what the ruling would be. Which is in fact why the offender was so brazen, because the ruling on such things has been this way for so long as to be a known stable quantity. If you want to change the rules fine, there is a ways and means to do just that. But it should not be retroactive. If they want to use this case as the "straw that broke the camels back" fine, np. But it cant be retroactive. If they want to say from here on out this activity will not be tolerated and we will be banning and giving the items back, Great Fantastic....but it cant be retroactive. It sucks, but that would be the way it would have to go.

 

Oh and one other thing, I like your spin there of its a glitch so its the problem of the game and therefore the items should be given back, nice try, really, pretty slick, but no. Aeris already said she didnt understand the full implications of the permission statement. And the game is working as intended. Nothing was wrong with the permission setting other than the one setting it didnt understand the full implications of it. If you could call not knowing the information about a given thing in wurm a glitch, then you would have to call most of wurm a glitch, lol, which some people definitely try and do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty broken, but to be able to evict the owner and disband a whole deed is somewhat worse I feel.
That is what happened on one of the three deeds on Xanadu that was hit.

Edited by Cecci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehehe no problem its late here as well. Just a couple things, yeah the hit was pretty bad, but I have seen just as bad plenty of times, and some of those didnt even bother to report it as they know what the ruling would be. Which is in fact why the offender was so brazen, because the ruling on such things has been this way for so long as to be a known stable quantity. If you want to change the rules fine, there is a ways and means to do just that. But it should not be retroactive. If they want to use this case as the "straw that broke the camels back" fine, np. But it cant be retroactive. If they want to say from here on out this activity will not be tolerated and we will be banning and giving the items back, Great Fantastic....but it cant be retroactive. It sucks, but that would be the way it would have to go.

 

Oh and one other thing, I like your spin there of its a glitch so its the problem of the game and therefore the items should be given back, nice try, really, pretty slick, but no. Aeris already said she didnt understand the full implications of the permission statement. And the game is working as intended. Nothing was wrong with the permission setting other than the one setting it didnt understand the full implications of it. If you could call not knowing the information about a given thing in wurm a glitch, then you would have to call most of wurm a glitch, lol, which some people definitely try and do.

 

I can definitely see your point about retroactively banning accounts. That would be a nightmare- everyone who's ever had something like this happen to them will come up looking for blood. But I guess that would be the least of the issue- CA's and other moderators having generally said this isn't against the rules and (let's face it) sometimes it's whether or not we're told something is okay that keeps us in line. In the end, though, I guess what's important is this sort of thing is prevented rather than people be banned so we "feel better". That being said, though, earlier in this topic I mentioned the individual in this case clearly did much more than steal; he did things the policy on griefing lists as an example of what constitutes a violation of that policy and I imagine he'll have to answer for that as something totally separate from the glitch exploitation and theft.

Edited by Zorrent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really makes me wonder for how long this broken mechanic is allready known to the staff and how much effort it would have been to put out a word about it.


 


Edit:


 


it seems like it is just another 'window of opportunity' that is held in place until the outcry of the community gets loud enough to be subject to change.


gj.


Edited by Herrfritz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The account used for this all was sold just short before that topic was started.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if something was allowed to happen in the past. As the impact of allowed actions builds and is better understood there will be investigations into the situation and hopefully resulting changes in how the rules are enforced.


 


This is how the game will evolve to be more supportive of the players. 


 


If PVE is about having a place where players can safely enjoy crafting/exploring and a community of friendly people without fear of dangerous actions then the rules need to enforce the desired environment even if the game mechanics don't allow it currently. 


 


It was appalling to hear the pain and anguish a friend went through when someone came and killed his prize herd of horses because of a bad permission setting. It is even more appalling to hear about someone losing their deed, having it shrunk and when actually restored to them it was severely less then before AND they had to pay to have it re-expanded to original size. All because of game mechanics.


 


If the intent of PVE is to allow nasty behavior like this to occur then why would we have a vibrant community of people helping each other? The PVE I am here to enjoy doesn't involve the type of nasty actions I have been reading about since joining the game.


 


Like someone else said in the thread, in real life this kind of behavior would not be tolerated in any civilized society. Why should it be tolerated in our Wurm civilized/PVE society either?


 


Of course, i am available to help in anyway that I can.


  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about this single account either, he used several/numerous when he hit Delones deed.
Might be good if Silent Hill check if more villagers were added also.

Edited by Cecci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for you Aeris I'dont know you but I also suffered grieffing several times.

Well I think I saw that guy a few hours ago by south east coast in Deliverance, only was a seconds in local , but seems that him is run away to Exodus or around this coast (SE in Deli).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the GMs wont police this thing because of "sandbox game philosophy", that is fine.


But following the same logic then the rest of the playerbase should be allowed to name, hunt, harass and ridicule the offender publicy without intervention from GMs.


In other words, sandbox justice.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly this is just another case showing how much unclear rules favor griefing on freedom servers.


 


Also the "no name and shame" policy, make people in charge looks like their function is to protect the griefer, and I don´t care how much they tell us that they feel sad and blah, blah, blah. The end result is, you play to be nice = you loose.


 


As much as I love Wurm and its sandboxines (obviously I will not be playing if not), it is clear that there is some huge flaws that need urgent attention.


 


In the end, you can tag this as "carebear issues", and mock of this while pointing at us, but this just makes the game looks bad, and you keep toxic people for the community going on while driving away costumers that are supporting your game,


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the pvp servers the players have the ability to make things right. since players don't have that ability on freedom it should be the duty of the GMs.


  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

players (victimizers, scammers, thieves) of this sort are not desirable upon the PvE servers and disrupt the concept of its community; therefore, GM actions should be taken to remove them from the game, as they have intentionally abused the concepts of the PvE servers. 

 

I have stayed away from this thread and haven't read all of it but seriously, please calm your bloodthirst man. I for one would not play a game where mob rule can ban a player for not having broken any game rules. Witch hunters should not be running this game with their tiny iron fists. Many of these that see themselves as "peace-loving" PVE citizens have been involved in one raging neighbour feud after another over the years. That's why we have rules you know.

 

I am not saying this person should not be banned for I have no idea if he has broken any game rules, and on Xanadu I think they might have.

But can someone explain to me what is the "bug" that is referred to in this case. All I have read is that the mayor had activated the "destroy buildings" setting for villagers. This is a very handy setting that allows a priest mayor (like me) to have an abandoned house removed. The name of the setting is very clear and tells you that houses can and will be destroyed.

Where is the bug in the setting? 

 

But hey, who cares about bugs anyway, when all you want is to ban players for playing by the rules, right?

If we went by your book, I would have been banned long time ago, because my first mayor did not take it gently when I left to found my own deed. All the mayor would have had to do was report me as a thief for, as a citizen, having used community items on the deed that he himself had given me permission to use through the deed settings. And bye bye Cista.

Edited by Cista
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey, who cares about bugs anyway, when all you want is to ban players for playing by the rules, right?

Eh, more like repeated offender and griefing... Warrants a ban as far as it goes I guess, I don't know, I'm not a cop.

 

ugnF8vI.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have stayed away from this thread and haven't read all of it but seriously, please calm your bloodthirst man.

Read all of it please.

Edited by Halebel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But can someone explain to me what is the "bug" that is referred to in this case. All I have read is that the mayor had activated the "destroy buildings" setting for villagers.

 

If I understand what happened correctly yes the "destroy buildings" setting was set. If it wasn't villagers wouldn't be able to modify their own houses. The problem is that this shouldn't give a general permission to destroy ANY building - whether you are on the writ or not. Villagers can't help anyone build their house for instance, unless they are on the writ. So why can they destroy it?

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

Couple that with a person who realizes they can bash any building in such a village, buys an account in a premeditated way to join such village, and then plans the time no one is online to bash all the houses and steal the contents to later sell for real money (although picking up stuff in houses you aren't on the writ for is also mystifying), and we hit some kind of territory that has nothing to do with what people expect on PvE servers.

 

It's premeditated, carefully planned theft - simple as that - and on PvE servers it shouldn't be allowed. Sure, it should be possible to set things up so it's impossible, but imo it should also be a game rule that intentional play AGAINST other players on PvE servers should be outlawed, even if someone finds ways around the actual rules to be able to do it by the mechanics.

Edited by Heboric
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 (although picking up stuff in houses you aren't on the writ for is also mystifying)

 

Once a wall is down it's no longer considered a safe / secured house, and players are free to pick up things from it (hence why in this instance, 1 wall was bashed down, freeing the items inside). Just wanted to clarify that part is not so mystical. :)

 

I think abusing game mechanics to grief other players goes against the nature of the PvE servers, and should have repercussions. I say that as someone who actively seeks out disbanded deeds and unsecured items to loot and pillage (I know, horrible person that I am). I think it's important to note a difference between working within the rules and finding rules / game mechanics to exploit. 

 

Just my 2c on this incident. 

Edited by Stargrace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, more like repeated offender and griefing... Warrants a ban as far as it goes I guess, I don't know, I'm not a cop.

 

 

You have to state what game rule the player has offended in this case though. 

 

Stealing is not griefing. The game rules state clearly that:   

 C ) You may not steal deeds

But theft of items is allowed ... or rather, when objects can be picked up then it is not considered a crime to take them.  I have to repeat, if you allow for players to have other players banned for taken things that are available to them through deed permissions, everybody will try to get everybody banned without end.

 

You can plea for the permissions systems to be changed though, that's another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think abusing game mechanics to grief other players goes against the nature of the PvE servers, and should have repercussions.

 

Sorry, but you can't have those kinds of rules about griefing except very explicit ones for very specific actions. Atm the game rules list blocking access, and killing animals with guards, as the only two forms of punishable griefing , and there is a reason for that.

 

Neighbours would have neighbours banned for any kinds of actions that they don't like them doing, if they got the chance. Clearing forests, digging canals, building tall houses, you name it. Here is a guy that explicitly demands someone else banned for placing a deed on the steppe.... I wouldn't want "peaceloving" wurmians sitting with their finger on the ban button in my game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Villagers can't help anyone build their house for instance, unless they are on the writ. So why can they destroy it?

 

 

About this specific setting, I explained in the post that you quoted that that would be the only way for me to have an abandoned house removed from my village.

 

Alternatively I would have to give up mayorship to someone else, an alt perhaps.

But

a: if the house is very solid, said weak alt would maybe have to spend weeks bashing the house alone, and 

b: I have never done it, but I seem to remember that giving up mayorship, then getting it back is not as smooth a proces as desirable.

 

Given this, having the ability to permit "destroy buildings" is very welcome IMO. Or if my arguments above are invalidated, by all means remove that permission then  :)

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you can't have those kinds of rules about griefing except very explicit ones for very specific actions. Atm the game rules list blocking access, and killing animals with guards, as the only two forms of punishable griefing , and there is a reason for that.

 

Neighbours would have neighbours banned for any kinds of actions that they don't like them doing, if they got the chance. Clearing forests, digging canals, building tall houses, you name it. Here is a guy that explicitly demands someone else banned for placing a deed on the steppe.... I wouldn't want "peaceloving" wurmians sitting with their finger on the ban button in my game.

 

Again, there's a huge difference between "abusing game mechanics" and just griefing. If you're abusing game mechanics it has nothing to do with "just banned for any actions". That isn't up to players to decide. That is up to staff to decide whether or not something is considered to be abusing game mechanics. Is it an intended feature of the game or considered an exploit by their standards. They make the call. Not players. 

 

If you're a player and don't know when something is an intended feature as opposed to breaking the rules, then you probably shouldn't be doing whatever it is you're doing. Ignorance isn't an excuse to be able to get away with things (ie: well I didn't know it was bad to murder those people!)

Edited by Stargrace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this