Tragedy at Silent Hill

[bootyliciousvip 47]

I'm sorry, but the argument of "it happened to me so dont cry if it happened to you" is ridiculous. Clearly we can all see a way in which there is an abuse of the system and we all want it stopped.

 

This isnt about who it happened to in the past, this is about making sure it doesnt happen to anyone in the future.

Because this I'm a special snowflake attitude is crap. Tons of people had this happen in the past. Sure, make a rule now and change it. I'm all for that. Nobody should receive any bans or item returns since it was never done in the past when the same thing happened with the same rules

[Kadore 926]

Because this I'm a special snowflake attitude is crap. Tons of people had this happen in the past. Sure, make a rule now and change it. I'm all for that. Nobody should receive any bans or item returns since it was never done in the past when the same thing happened with the same rules

Maybe people like Aeris and the folks of Silent Hill more than others, that perhaps a well known group of players had the same issues as others in the past might be the catalyst for change shouldn't change the fact this is a bad situation all around.

 

Maybe in all the cases presented before the GM team in past instances failed to light a fire strong enough to make them look closer at the situation then, but when would you like to see action taken on this ######, after 2, 20, 200 more instances of this kinda deal?

 

I think a feeling of " how about we finally fix this " is being cried out more than asking for a ban, I know the older community in Wurm will usually replace the items from within or buy them up and return them in most cases, PM's of the offender's name will ensure the remainder of their live as that character will be as miserable as they have made others.

 

The list of items seemed more a warning to not buy tainted goods, or the way I took it from the OP. 

[Heboric 808]

some ppl play as a character and see gamin and life completely seperate, being a nasty ###### in a game and in between the rules can be a hobby for some ppl. They like the way they play it, and we all love a different way of playin. thats why we love wurm.

 

I have no problem with that when it's factually true. However, it's clear as day to me that in this case the object is to steal stuff that has real life value, and profit from it in real life. So in this case there simply is no "separation".

 

And on another issue - this will probably end up being the third time a single player has caused rules to be changed. People are saying there is no basis for a ban - but there absolutely is - to whit:

 

Wurm Online may suspend, modify, terminate, or delete any player account at any time for any reason without notice.

 

Cheating

Definition:

* Obvious abuse of any exploit, bug or other method of gaining skill/items that is not as intended.

 

So unless someone is going to claim that in game theft is an intended part of a PvE server it seems clear to me that the cheating rule is obviously being broken.

 

I'd imagine that killing horses is also totally not allowed.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Heboric

[BrandonSF 250]

Maybe people like Aeris and the folks of Silent Hill more than others, that perhaps a well known group of players had the same issues as others in the past might be the catalyst for change shouldn't change the fact this is a bad situation all around.

 

Maybe in all the cases presented before the GM team in past instances failed to light a fire strong enough to make them look closer at the situation then, but when would you like to see action taken on this ######, after 2, 20, 200 more instances of this kinda deal?

 

I think a feeling of " how about we finally fix this " is being cried out more than asking for a ban, I know the older community in Wurm will usually replace the items from within or buy them up and return them in most cases, PM's of the offender's name will ensure the remainder of their live as that character will be as miserable as they have made others.

 

The list of items seemed more a warning to not buy tainted goods, or the way I took it from the OP. 

No. Would most definitely like to see a ban.

[bootyliciousvip 47]

I have no problem with that when it's factually true. However, it's clear as day to me that in this case the object is to steal stuff that has real life value, and profit from it in real life. So in this case there simply is no "separation".

 

And on another issue - this will probably end up being the third time a single player has caused rules to be changed. People are saying there is no basis for a ban - but there absolutely is - to whit:

 

 

So unless someone is going to claim that in game theft is an intended part of a PvE server it seems clear to me that the cheating rule is clearly being broken.

 

I'd imagine that killing horses is also totally not allowed.

 

It's intended because the settings say house walls. If you give someone those settings, you allow them the use to do that. You can't call it cheating when you check a button that gives someone permission to bash down house walls. Sorry. 

 

Edited December 24, 2014 by bootyliciousvip

[Kadore 926]

No. Would most definitely like to see a ban.

Ban seems pointless as the char is most likely FTP or too low skilled to matter, if IP bans worked we wouldn't play the game " will the real Tony Green please stand up ".

[Heboric 808]

It's intended because the settings say house walls. If you give someone those settings, you allow them the use to do that. You can't call it cheating when you check a button that gives someone permission to bash down house walls. Sorry.

 

I would dispute that you have described that actual intention. However - unless you are now going to claim that once a wall is bashed, it's actually intended that people can then help themselves on a PvE server it's still cheating.

 

Again - this isn't about what is possible within the rules - it's about the actual intention for the game play.

 

So it comes down to something very simple. Is it intended that a player can steal on a PvE server....or not. The mere fact that the rules may allow something to happen does not automatically mean that that is the intention.

[Alec 728]

It's intended because the settings say house walls. If you give someone those settings, you allow them the use to do that. You can't call it cheating when you check a button that gives someone permission to bash down house walls. Sorry. 

 

 

I wonder what would you categorize as "work around".

[bootyliciousvip 47]

it's not stealing in gm's eyes and never has been

You hit a box giving someone permission to bash a   house.
This isn't rocket science, it's pure emotion. I mean, continue to say it's not clear, but when theres a box saying it allows citizens to bash down house walls, and you don't realize the implicaitons that are worded in very clear english, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Edited December 24, 2014 by bootyliciousvip

[Vetarnic 41]

And this is what happens when your entire game becomes corrupted by a mentality that thinks everything is only good for cashing out, at the expense of the game world itself. And this has been going on for years. See: traders, indentured servitude, etc.

 

This is what happens when you allow people to sell not only goods but accounts, making impossible for one player to build a reputation if he can then sell his account to the highest bidder. Even one's name means nothing here, thanks to Rolf giving the OK to character sales.

 

It's kinda pointless to talk about making things clearer on deed settings, etc., when there is a core of players whose sole objective is to make money at any cost, whether it affects other players or Code Club itself, and when these players are not only allowed to do as they please but are also to be found pushing for (or against) any design decision that would benefit/hamper their ability to do as they please. (See how they told off Rolf himself when he suggested changes to traders last spring, and how they talk of everything as an investment.)

 

And it's something taking place at a much deeper level in this game's design than simple oversights which enable a few ill-intentioned griefers to work their magic. The real problem lies in Wurm's game-as-ideology (libertarian, here) construct, of which this is but a symptom.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Vetarnic

[Heboric 808]

The other problem with play like this is that it's bad for the game - it makes people leave.

 

I've seen that on JKH, Epic, I believe it happened on MRH as well, and if the situation doesn't change it will happen on Freedom as well.

 

Funnily enough, some people don't like spending their free time being robbed, harassed, and generally messed with by others.

 

 

edit: And btw - that same setting also gives the ability to lockpick, except that on Freedom it doesn't. How's that for "plain English"?

 

Allows destroying of building and fence plans as well as finished buildings and plans. Also allows lockpicking of structures and removing lamp posts and signs.

 

Edited December 24, 2014 by Heboric

[Castile 167]

Vetarnic only got one word for that...HUH???

[Evilvision 301]

Well I myself never knew deed overwrote writ permission for destroy. I also disable the destroy for the role i put new people in anyway because the word destroy alone just seems like something you don't want a new person to be able to do to anything(although i admit its extremely rare i add someone i don't know). I am all for a total rework of the whole deed settings though.

 

Its a wonky system to have to make a role for another deed and be forced to trust every member of said deed or alliance. Even if you do make the roles after doing a few you have reached your max and the menu says you have reached your max amount of roles if you need more to delete one. Lol because deleting one solves the problem right.

 

If you have all these roles managing them is a nightmare because you have to make the window the size of the whole screen to see them. I think a drop down box where you pick 1 role at a time to manage would be easier. We need to be able to add roles for individual players. I can see even if you knew completely what every setting does that its so clunky you can easily click the wrong setting.

 

Boats need a writ system also because I may want my friends to be able to drive my boat  but I may not want someone i add to my friend list for chatting or house entry to drive one.

 

Sadly though writ system can never really stop this kind of thing because a player can stick around and follow the rules and eventually be given more permissions because he has now become trusted and then rips you off. It pretty much just stops the grievers that are not patient.

[JudusX 199]

Because this I'm a special snowflake attitude is crap. Tons of people had this happen in the past. Sure, make a rule now and change it. I'm all for that. Nobody should receive any bans or item returns since it was never done in the past when the same thing happened with the same rules

 

would love to see you pull out a post about a theft in this manner. The whole problem is the ability of the player to bash down a house on deed without being on the writ and then being able to loot freely without being on the house writ. The intent was to harm other players plain and simple and for that those involved should be punished.

[Nappy 1,369]

Interesting arguments. 

 

Theft is actually something that is clearly intended to not be a part of Freedom PVE.

 

How can I say this? Here is the reasoning:

 

1) A primary tool of a thief is the lock pick

2) While lock picks are available in PVE they are very, very difficult to skill up in on a PVE island

3) Lock picks only work on your own deed. You can't pick locks off deed on wagons/carts etc. Even abandoned chests can't be picked off deed

 

Hopefully i have this information correct. If I am wrong point it out.

 

So if we are talking about developer intent and the rules I would argue that lock picks are much closer to the situation of thievery and they have been made absolutely useless in PVE by design in a clear show of intent for how much of a role theft should play in PVE.

 

~Nappy

[Vetarnic 41]

Vetarnic only got one word for that...HUH???

 

If I may expand on my original post, the problem with Wurm is that it created not so much a community as a market, where everyone is encouraged to try to make money off the game (even at Rolf's expense). It's only gotten somewhat better now that coins can be obtained by foraging, etc., but the idea that everyone should attempt to make a buck is still there.

 

At the time, it was the whole trader racket, which placed a few established players in a position where they could milk off their traders to reduce what they would normally have had to pay to keep on playing the way they did (and in some cases play for free despite being deeded and on premium).

 

Since coins couldn't readily be obtained from the game environment, it gave rise to all sorts of abuse on the part of players who did have coins. I remember that when GV existed, there was indented servitude (where established players would pay premium time to some unfortunate free player on their server in exchange for work). I'm not sure how widespread it was, but I've seen it being offered on this forum at the time. Then there was the entire "1000 clay for 1 silver" back-breaking work (I'm not sure about the current rate, but it's what it used to be), which was about the only way in which a non-premium member could make any money to buy what he needed from those same players who paid him. I'm pretty sure that drove out more players from the game than it brought in.

 

I remember when I was playing on Celeb when it opened. There were practically more personal merchants than there were players on the server. Everybody was looking to make a buck, and I was left wondering who was supposed to be their prospective buyer. (It was one of the reasons why this game was called a pyramid scheme by some people.) How much of that has changed?

 

I wouldn't think of selling my character in any game, and Wurm is the only one I play in which that this is approved by the company behind the game. Likewise, I'd never think of selling whatever coins I had. Yet Rolf approves of that even though it undermines his own sale of coins through the cash shop. He's even gone as far as to endorsing that shady trading site whose name I won't repeat here.

 

What Rolf and Code Club's design and business decisions have led to is a climate surrounding this game where attempting to cash out is seen as perfectly normal, and where everything created in game is consequently seen to have an (arbitrary, yet undeniable) real-life value. 1 Silver sells for X on private exchanges outside the game, and a QL 90 sword sells for Y silver inside the game.

 

Rolf and Code Club's design and business decisions have attracted the kind of people dedicated to taking full advantage of this. People who do not play this game as a game, but rather as a money-making venture for themselves. If I play, say, World of Warcraft (shudder), I do not expect this rare sword of mine to carry a value outside of the game. Perhaps it sells for a great deal of money in the game universe, but those gold coins it is worth do not translate legally into money outside of the game. Indeed, most games make it clear that private transactions in RL money for game items are a bannable offense. Wurm went in the opposite direction and allowed all of this.

 

The net result is that a large part of the player base of this game seems to play with dollar signs in their eyes. Maybe you, as an individual player, or your community, play Wurm because you like the game and couldn't care less about playing the market in real dollars. But it's a sure bet that someone else is here for the money, and he doesn't care what you play Wurm for, he knows that your QL 90 rare sword is worth something in real bucks. Is it then really surprising that there will inevitably be someone who doesn't care about how he acquires it, as long as he can make money off it?

 

And the OK for private transactions in Wurm allows his crime to be hidden by a forest of perfectly normal (by Wurm's standards) character and item transactions. It also means that there will also be a buyer who doesn't care where the goods come from, as long as they serve him.

 

If Wurm applied the rules that exist in other online games, every buyer and seller would automatically break the user agreement. And every transaction taking place that way would be easier to spot and ban.  And perhaps, just perhaps, the Wurm community would become something more appealing than a motley collection of people looking to make a buck.

[demondan 1,865]

Ahh, thief alts made purposely to grief other players when said mayor and village only wants to grow the game. Been there many times here in chaos. Want to grow your village? Grow your community? Guess what, there will be some who will join with the sole intent to steal as much as they can and leave.

Think you can trust a new player? Nope. Think you can trust a valued member of your village? Nope. Think GM can do anything about it? Nope.

[saraie 141]

it's not stealing in gm's eyes and never has been

You hit a box giving someone permission to bash a   house.

This isn't rocket science, it's pure emotion. I mean, continue to say it's not clear, but when theres a box saying it allows citizens to bash down house walls, and you don't realize the implicaitons that are worded in very clear english, I'm not sure what to tell you.

No..it is not rocket science...but even then I fear you do not understand at all.

 

They checked a box...allowing that ONE person, the ability to bash the walls of their OWN house.  The INTENTION of their action, and the INTENTION of that checkbox, is to allow villagers to work on their houses.  Do you think for one moment, that the checkbox was created by a developer..or checked ON by a mayor..with the intention of alowing a person to bash the walls of EVERY other building on the deed...and stealing everything?

 

This is what is meant by the SPIRIT of the action.  And the SPIRIT of the mechanic.  Did the developers intend for that checkbox to allow such a dangerous activity...or did they intend for a villager to be able to work on their house on a deed?

 

All over this thread people are saying no "rule" was broken.  This is what we have judges for in real life...and a responsibility I wish GMs and Devs would embrace in this online world.  We cannot expect the developers, GMs, or ROLF to write out documentation to cover every possible infraction.  Sometimes, maybe you have to do what is done in courtrooms all over the world:

 

Would the action taken, be considered by a "REASONABLE" person...to be a crime...one done with forethought and intent.  Do the persons actions before, during and after, also lead a "REASONABLE" person to believe that the suspect ALSO believed the act to be a violation.

 

The biggest issue of all though, is if a GM, Dev, Rolf...determines that these actions are indeed a violation...they should build COMPLETE mechanics in game to fix this loophole, and clear documentation regarding its use..and/or state clearly, and publicly that actions such as these are indeed a violation and will incur punishment.

[bootyliciousvip 47]

No..it is not rocket science...but even then I fear you do not understand at all.

 

They checked a box...allowing that ONE person, the ability to bash the walls of their OWN house.  The INTENTION of their action, and the INTENTION of that checkbox, is to allow villagers to work on their houses.  Do you think for one moment, that the checkbox was created by a developer..or checked ON by a mayor..with the intention of alowing a person to bash the walls of EVERY other building on the deed...and stealing everything?

 

This is what is meant by the SPIRIT of the action.  And the SPIRIT of the mechanic.  Did the developers intend for that checkbox to allow such a dangerous activity...or did they intend for a villager to be able to work on their house on a deed?

 

All over this thread people are saying no "rule" was broken.  This is what we have judges for in real life...and a responsibility I wish GMs and Devs would embrace in this online world.  We cannot expect the developers, GMs, or ROLF to write out documentation to cover every possible infraction.  Sometimes, maybe you have to do what is done in courtrooms all over the world:

 

Would the action taken, be considered by a "REASONABLE" person...to be a crime...one done with forethought and intent.  Do the persons actions before, during and after, also lead a "REASONABLE" person to believe that the suspect ALSO believed the act to be a violation.

 

The biggest issue of all though, is if a GM, Dev, Rolf...determines that these actions are indeed a violation...they should build COMPLETE mechanics in game to fix this loophole, and clear documentation regarding its use..and/or state clearly, and publicly that actions such as these are indeed a violation and will incur punishment.

 

 

What? The mechanic clearly says you can bash houses. Not "house walls you own" You can ALWAYS bash your own house walls.I guess we're just making stuff up at this point. No point of making points to people who are just going to ignore them. 

Edited December 24, 2014 by bootyliciousvip

[saraie 141]

What? The mechanic clearly says you can bash houses. Not "house walls you own" You can ALWAYS bash your own house walls.I guess we're just making stuff up at this point. No point of making points to people who are just going to ignore them. 

 

Actually...no.

 

What is says is "Destroy buildings."

 

Fences, buildings, plans, signs, lamps...oh..and lockpicking.

 

 

If you think this one checkbox, is plenty enough to cover every eventuality...I think you missed this entire thread...cause thats why it is here.

[Heboric 808]

Well - Enki has already stated that what happened is griefing, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see for the rest.

[bootyliciousvip 47]

 

This says specifically what the destroy buildings option does. Also, 4 year olds know houses are buildings.

Edited December 24, 2014 by bootyliciousvip

[bootyliciousvip 47]

Well - Enki has already stated that what happened is griefing, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see for the rest.

 

 

Yep, if anything happens, which i doubt it will. It'll be a personal big"**** YOU" to every single person this has happened to in the past by the gm team. 

[saraie 141]

 

This says specifically what the destroy buildings option does. Also, 4 year olds know houses are buildings.

 

So...let me make this easy...if you moved a villager into your deed...and said.."Hey...knock down that fence there...where I used to keep horses...and you can build your house there."  So you gave them that ability.  You come on deed the next day..and they knocked down a wall in every building on your deed...and stole everything.

 

Would you say that their actions...matched the reason you gave them permission to knock down a fence?

 

I can ask my 4 year old that...and I know what he will say.

[saraie 141]

Yep, if anything happens, which i doubt it will. It'll be a personal big"**** YOU" to every single person this has happened to in the past by the gm team. 

 

This..I agree with.  Unfortunately...while I think it was wrong what happened to the OP, they have to be treated the same way as everyone else has.  BUT...I think it is clearly an issue that needs fixed.  Add more finite permissions perhaps.  While it would make things more complex in the management of deeds...it might help to separate some of the abilities, one from the others.