Sign in to follow this  
Muzzy

Scamming is not *literally* against the rules

Recommended Posts

Also it degrades the trust of other players making it more difficult for them to live in this environment so it is 'not constructive' to them and definitely not to the community.

 

Didn't notice this little bit, I'm going to have to address this separately because this is an especially dangerous form of thinking.

 

Let's say there's a powerful alliance that hates bear hats and has banned anyone from wearing them within their territory. If you wear a bear hat there, they put you on a blacklist and never trade with you again or even talk to you again. Wearing a bear hat is therefore not constructive because it makes it more difficult for them to live in this environment. It also harms the alliance because it undermines their authority. This means wearing bear hats in the alliance area just became griefing under the rules, mandating the GMs to act and force people to take off their bear hats at the threat of being banned.

 

Social pressure should never be a consideration for what counts as constructive. Each of us have our own subjective goals and the constructiveness of acts should be determined in strict isolation and only relative to these subjective goals. Otherwise one day there will be home owners associations in wurm that start issuing orders about how to maintain the local view, and it will become griefing to build ugly houses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just say if you cheat sooner or later you will be caught. ;)


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep referring to the definition of 'not constructive' as not useful to anyone that may be your own personal definition but it is not the general, legal, or factual definition of that phrase.

 

constructive

adjective

1.

constructing or tending to construct; helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement (opposed to destructive ):

constructive criticism.

2.

of, relating to, or of the nature of construction; structural.

3.

deduced by inference or interpretation; inferential:

constructive permission.

4.

Law. denoting an act or condition not directly expressed but inferred from other acts or conditions.

 

 None of your examples fit the definition even for the scammer themselves because they are not constructing, improving, or furthering advancement of themselves.  That would only happen through creating the item themselves or an item of equal value.

Also it degrades the trust of other players making it more difficult for them to live in this environment so it is 'not constructive' to them and definitely not to the community. 

 

  All three of the examples you describe are listed under the definition of 'griefing', and scamming would not even be allowed on a PVP server because you would have to be trading with an ally who would quickly become an enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer

 

Any method of reversing another player's progress, such as destroying or modifying other players' creations in sandbox games like Minecraft and Terraria. (or Wurm)

Edited by Arronicus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point as well. I'm talking about the rules as they have been written, i.e. what they literally state.

 

The rules simply say "You will obey any directive or instruction given by a Game Master". That means they can give any sort of orders, including an order to give up rares or anything else, and it will be perfectly OK by the Game Rules. In practice they won't do this lightly and there are good reasons for that, there might even be some set of secret GM rules that are unknown to players. From the player point of view, however, the GMs hold absolute authority and they can give any kind of orders. Not following the GM orders is against the rules, no matter what kind of order is given.

 

GM's have their own rules & guidelines + they have the game rules aswell to follow. 

 

A GM's decision is final, This is very true, However, A GM is not allowed to interact with the game world outside the situation, Meaning, They cannot force you to give up any possessions you may have, Unless its DIRECTLY related to the support ticket. a GM is pretty much a bystander of the situation until all the data they need is acquired, processed and then they will take the most delicate actions necessary to reach a resolution. So, With this said, if a GM told you to give up your possessions, I would highly recommend you report the GM for abusing their power, to the Lead Game Master. GM may have authority, But they aren't gods, Far from it.

 

Keep in mind tho, A GM still cannot intervene with you digging a pit outside your enemies deed. Regardless of its location, A GM may not interfere with you. It breaks no rules whatsoever, Its free land, nobody has perimeter on it, or deed, or anything. If you want to say it is griefing, that's impossible given the circumstances of this hypothetical, As they don't own it & they removed claiming land off deed. Even with GM word is final, The GM's do have their own rules, They can't come out and say you can't dig here because they wish it so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

muzzy:  


 


You are taking things a bit to the extreme, and I think you are doing it intentionally to try to make your points more dramatic, which is actually hurting your cause IMO.


 


You are correct that items unsecured off deed would not be returned to you if someone wandered past and took them, that is the point of having the game mechanics in place to allow you to protect them.  horses and items inside a house, O shaped or otherwise, are 100% safe from other players as long as you have locked the doors and not allowed them access to the writ. Horses and items on a deed are 100% safe from other players as long as you have used the deed settings to secure them correctly and made sure they are in locked pens. 


 


I want you to stop for just a moment and consider the game as a whole. How do you propose to keep things that have not been secured from being picked up... allow only the last person who carried them to take them? Then you could end up with hundreds of things all around your house that YOU can't clean up if someone comes by and does some tree cutting. Wouldn't that be worse?  How does the game know you are done with something to allow others to take it? 


 


How many items do you make in a day of playing?  how many shards do you mine, logs do you create, woodscraps do you drop on the ground while making planks? Multiply that by 1000 players at a time. Do you really think that its possible to track the logs you left out in the woods after you cut them to see who came past, saw some logs lying there and tossed them in a cart?


 


As for your odd interpretation of the definition of scamming/griefing as per our rules, I can assure you that the GM's don't see it that way so your concern is groundless there. 


 


Your concern about a GM issuing you a directive to give them that rare shovel is even funnier.  If a GM were to do something that insane and it was not because we had traced that shovel to you as part of some sort of duplication bug or scamming activity from a support ticket (which you would be informed about when we spoke to you), give them the shovel and then report it to another GM or to enki as the head GM. 2 things would then happen.


 


1, The head GM (enki), or another GM acting at his orders, would give you back the shovel, offer an apology, and probably some sort of compensation for the silliness.      


-and-


2, The GM in question would no longer be one. 


 


NOTHING A GM account does goes without being logged and examined on a regular basis. That is why we have a specific character that is ONLY for GM duties, to make such careful scrutiny possible. My GM account Vali has NO connection to any gameplay activity, the ONLY thing he is allowed to be used for is official GM duties, responding to support tickets, investigating bug reports, and lately, setting up treasure hunts. 


 


Your bear hat scenario is even more odd.  We would never consider bear hats to be griefing.  If a group or alliance wanted to blacklist anyone who wore them, that's their choice of course, but GM's would never get involved in enforcing that sort of silliness.


 


The way that you believe "constructive" is interpreted is wrong. There is no simpler way to say it. No matter how you think that rule should be read you are reading it incorrectly at this point and as a result all of your arguments and logic that stems from that false premise is, also, false. 


 


Akaedis: Your interpretation is ALSO not 100% correct with your pit example.  If you were digging the pit across an obvious point of entrance, you would have to have a very good reason for doing so or you would be in violation of: 


A ) You may not block access to deeds, merchants, or structures not belonging to you.


 


Also, digging such a pit could fall under "not constructive and with deliberate intent to do harm" depending on the circumstances, and you might be issued a directive to stop, either temporarily while the GM team reviewed the case, or permanently if the GM team decided that your actions were solely to cause harm to your enemy. A directive is a valid rule, and we ARE able to issue them for cases where the rules do not cover an activity that we feel is detrimental to the game as a whole or that is done maliciously and solely with the intent to grief or harass another player. 


-HOWEVER- We then have to back up that directive to the rest of the team and to the head GM according to our guidelines and rules that WE have to follow. Directives are not issued lightly, and almost always only in situations where there is an immediate and definite chance of obvious and continued harm being caused.


 


Obviously this is assuming you are on one of the PvE servers, Chaos and Epic are way more hands off due to the ability of players to solve issues there at swordpoint, the only directives that might be issued on the PvP servers would have to do with avoiding actions due to specific bugs (such as the recent no PvP directive for the area around the rome deed on elevation due to an influence bug that needed a server restart to sort out)


  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The way that you believe "constructive" is interpreted is wrong. There is no simpler way to say it. No matter how you think that rule should be read you are reading it incorrectly at this point and as a result all of your arguments and logic that stems from that false premise is, also, false."   (Spellcast)


 


Thank you Spellcast that is the point I was making and pretty much sums up this entire thread.


 


Also Muzzy you invalidate your point by trying to use the letter or wording of the law then substituting other words or using statements like 'I believe' especially when a GM is telling you that is not what they believe.  :lol:


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Akaedis: Your interpretation is ALSO not 100% correct with your pit example.  If you were digging the pit across an obvious point of entrance, you would have to have a very good reason for doing so or you would be in violation of: 

A ) You may not block access to deeds, merchants, or structures not belonging to you.

 

Also, digging such a pit could fall under "not constructive and with deliberate intent to do harm" depending on the circumstances, and you might be issued a directive to stop, either temporarily while the GM team reviewed the case, or permanently if the GM team decided that your actions were solely to cause harm to your enemy. A directive is a valid rule, and we ARE able to issue them for cases where the rules do not cover an activity that we feel is detrimental to the game as a whole or that is done maliciously and solely with the intent to grief or harass another player. 

-HOWEVER- We then have to back up that directive to the rest of the team and to the head GM according to our guidelines and rules that WE have to follow. Directives are not issued lightly, and almost always only in situations where there is an immediate and definite chance of obvious and continued harm being caused.

 

Obviously this is assuming you are on one of the PvE servers, Chaos and Epic are way more hands off due to the ability of players to solve issues there at swordpoint, the only directives that might be issued on the PvP servers would have to do with avoiding actions due to specific bugs (such as the recent no PvP directive for the area around the rome deed on elevation due to an influence bug that needed a server restart to sort out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Muzzy There is a time to stop. I think you've reached it. Whilst whatever original point ye had, is now extremely obfuscated in the endless rules lawyering. I'm not trying to shut down your thread, I'm just saying, know when to say when.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Belrindor, well spellcast keeps missing the point... yeah, it's probably not worth it trying to explain it again and again.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Muzzy you invalidate your point by trying to use the letter or wording of the law then substituting other words or using statements like 'I believe' especially when a GM is telling you that is not what they believe.  :lol:

 

The GMs didn't write the rules. I think someone who initially wrote that section about griefing had a completely different intent than how it's being interpreted today, the definition certainly shows a different intent. And that's why I made this thread, some of the rules seem to be ancient and they don't reflect what the GMs are enforcing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GMs didn't write the rules. I think someone who initially wrote that section about griefing had a completely different intent than how it's being interpreted today, the definition certainly shows a different intent. And that's why I made this thread, some of the rules seem to be ancient and they don't reflect what the GMs are enforcing today.

 

Iv been here and left, came back, left and came back, And in all that time, Only two big things have remained the same:

-GM's, and CA's actions are same as they were way back then

-Large cart model hasn't changed one bit(except seating positions, i miss the one in the floor u.u was so great)

 

[20:56:36] You entered through the portal to Wurm on Luck day, week 3 of the starfall of the Saw, 1016. That's 1366 days, 18 hours and 48 minutes ago.

Almost 4 years since my initial account creation ever on Wurm Online.

Edited by akaedis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GMs didn't write the rules. I think someone who initially wrote that section about griefing had a completely different intent than how it's being interpreted today, the definition certainly shows a different intent. And that's why I made this thread, some of the rules seem to be ancient and they don't reflect what the GMs are enforcing today.

 

Ah-Hah, I think we have come to the root of the problem here.

 

In point of fact... umm

 

The GM's did actually write the rules.  We review them constantly, Update them regularly, and we ARE the ones who write them, as such we have a background about what we intended. You are the one interpreting them incorrectly and reading the wrong meaning into them i'm afraid. 

 

They are somewhat vague and open to judgement calls by design because a set of rules to cover every situation in the game would be both far too long to expect anyone to read, and contradict itself every 20 pages or so as the rule to solve one problem would immediately cause others. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. For a PvE server, let it sincerely be PvE. Either that, or right on the sign-up page, explain that while you might join a PvE server - in the hopes that your only "adversary" will be the CGI monsters and environment of the game engine - other players WILL be allowed to target you, steal from you, harass you, etc., as long as it fits within the loosely-bound rules at xxx link. That way, right at the outset, people who don't want to spend their leisure time with angst from other RL players can take a pass, and not invest a lot of time and money only to find that one day they actually fall victim to other RL players, without redress. Or, since there seems to be some thrust to allow people who enjoy griefing to get their ya-yas out, make a clear statement that all current PvE servers truly are PvE, and no twisted interpretations of the rules will be tolerated any more. Then, make a new server where the rules can be twisted as they are now. The thieves, griefers, bullies, etc. can move there and enjoy themselves without any mild tension that one day, finally, they may be disciplined; and all the people who like to have that extra spice that a dug-out perimeter might provide can also migrate to this server, and flex their superior skills of understanding and show that they know fully how to secure their deed and belongings. I think this is a win-win-win situation, and everyone can stop bitching evermore.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid your twisted-pve-server would be empty.


 


The pve-player don't want to play there because he doesn't wants to be harassed by mental sick griefers.


The pvp-player don't want to play there because he wants to wreck havoc whenever he likes.


The mental sick griefer is feeding by your grief and is also a coward who needs to hide behind the pve-rules


(otherwise you could pay him back without risk a ban, and then he is in the same situation as in real life, every griefer/bully is a pathological coward).


 


It is like in real life, win-win-win situations are as rare as an elephant with two trunks.


Edited by Oldwolf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drama drama drama...  FM could colse all that sort of topics...  


 


what GMs made decide that way we gona play...   and more dots ...


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial impression that I get from the OP's post is utter nonsense camouflaged under the veil of legal justification for disruptive and egregious actions taken against other players in game. Thankfully there is no need for lawyers within this game since the GM's with their cooperative consultations will come to their own conclusions in these matters.


 


Now with Enki's latest post http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/121963-extreme-disruptive-behavior/?view=getnewpost a more flexible interpretation by them can be taken in resolving situations such as the blatantly obvious ones stated within the OP can be dealt with to the benefit of the population.


 


I view Wurm as more a benevolent dictatorship than anything else, where those in power attempt to protect their denizens from those not fit for this laissez faire type of system which enables many freedoms for those who pursue it's constructive purposes.


 


=Ayes=


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial impression that I get from the OP's post is utter nonsense camouflaged under the veil of legal justification for disruptive and egregious actions taken against other players in game.

 

Sort of, although I got the idea the exact opposite way.

 

In another discussion I wanted to quote the game rules, which I thought made it obvious that scamming was against the rules and not understanding the rules would be an indefensible position. Oops! It turns out it wasn't so obvious after all.

 

I had interpreted this griefing rule the "normal" way all this time, precisely because I already had a preconception about what "griefing" meant just like you all do. But there's a definition in the rules, and when a word has been defined you don't use your own definitions, you use the given definition. With this in mind, when I really read into what the rules EXACTLY said, it turns out the definition of griefing is much MUCH narrower than I had thought. And it's not just a loophole in the definition, it's a solid policy by itself that makes sense, although it is quite different than what is being enforced today.

 

I believe the rules can legitimately be interpreted in a way that scamming is NOT against the rules, and a scammer could 100% legitimately claim that he knew the rules but did not know he was doing anything wrong. From the scammer's point of view, GM interference would then understandably be a massive and unexpected injustice.

 

I also had a goal with this thread. I was hoping to either be proven wrong in case I had missed something about the rules (the cheating section turned out to be interestingly vague too) or the GMs would see the point and be, like, "Oh that could use some amendments" and the rules would be rewritten in a way that better reflected the intended practice. Instead I've ended up arguing with a GM about who's right and what the guys who maintain the rules are thinking. This thread is a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone refuses to pay you 1 gold coin for your 30 magic potatoes and claims they didn't mean to do you any harm by keeping the potatoes even after a written agreement to pay you 1 gold coin for your 30 magic potatoes? That is a scam as well as theft.

Intentional, regardless of trying to feign ignorance as offender went in knowing full well the terms of the agreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a catchall clause in the rules (its had various forms over the years) that let the GMs and other staff make group judgments on a case by case basis as they see fit. Such things are handy for catching the rule lawyers trying to use loopholes.

These abilities were bestowed upon the GMs (specifically the Head GM who then is delegated to dole out as he sees fit) by the owner of the game, Rolf. Whose word is pretty much law as far as the game goes. Definition of a designed game actually.

Besides most forms of scamming being illegal in many countries and international law. Sure theres a few out there that like to make a point of not.

Edited by Klaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many non-trade-window transactions occur on a daily basis and whether it would be feasible for GMs/CAs/Whoever to act as the facilitator for those transactions until a better permissions system is implemented.  GM teleports to location, both trade/transfer ownership to the GM, and the GM finishes the trade to the other party.


 


It would depend on how many of these types of tickets would occur in a day versus how much time the GMs tend to spend researching bad transactions.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many non-trade-window transactions occur on a daily basis and whether it would be feasible for GMs/CAs/Whoever to act as the facilitator for those transactions until a better permissions system is implemented.  GM teleports to location, both trade/transfer ownership to the GM, and the GM finishes the trade to the other party.

 

It would depend on how many of these types of tickets would occur in a day versus how much time the GMs tend to spend researching bad transactions.

 

About 1 a day atleast(of these transactions, not scams). That includes selling of carts, wagons, special wagons, and last but not least, boats. 

 

Regarding these kinds of tickets, They do exist and occur from time to time, And the GM Team will always intervene in this specific scam situation. But whether it reach s the forums and people make a big fuss out of it, close to none usually. And its better that way as the community doesn't get hurt like it did this time. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lesson learned? Don't do business with muzzy.

 

WTF?

 

This thread exists because the written rules do not match the REAL rules. If someone breaks some fences to steal 20 silver worth of goods in large crates from your undeeded home, no rules are broken and GMs will not take action - thievery is perfectly fine in the game. However if someone scams you in a trade and doesn't follow what was agreed to, it seems to be a different situation entirely and the GMs will always act. It's not obvious from the rules that one of these acts is griefing and one isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone breaks down a fence to steal 16 crates of bricks the GMs will do something about it they have done so in the past.


If you leave 16 crates of bricks sitting on your un-deeded dock, in an unlocked boat or cart then no they probably won't.


  Although it would be much simpler to make a minimum deed and then no one could break your fence or take your crates without your permission.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this