Sign in to follow this  
Clatius

Should Theft Be Allowed

  

248 members have voted

  1. 1. Should theft be allowed on PvE servers?

    • Yes
      79
    • No
      147
    • Don't care
      22
  2. 2. In your opinion is theft greifing?

    • Yes
      128
    • No
      93
    • Don't care
      27


Recommended Posts

Theft is pvp? Well, economy is also a form of pvp really. How about we get rid of traders and marketplaces because they're a tool for economic pvp? Or is it enough to make undercutting someone's business count as griefing? It's an act where you gain something and the established market loses. It's almost like stealing something... stealing their profits!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theft is pvp? Well, economy is also a form of pvp really. How about we get rid of traders and marketplaces because they're a tool for economic pvp? Or is it enough to make undercutting someone's business count as griefing? It's an act where you gain something and the established market loses. It's almost like stealing something... stealing their profits!

 

Congratulations!

 

I think you earned the award to the most weak argument in the entire thread (not a small thing taking into account the amount of pages this topic had gathered), and most probably in the entire forum at least this year.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you earned the award to the most weak argument in the entire thread (not a small thing taking into account the amount of pages this topic had gathered), and most probably in the entire forum at least this year.

I believe you may have missed my point, but thank you for the award regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, server software does not have this thing called "common sense", it operates on cold logic alone. Formalizing the logic for ownership in a way that doesn't get in the way of casual teamwork might get a little bit complicated.

Cista was simply answering to Sarcaticous's proposal of having the game logic take care of the ownership issue and presented a counterexample where such a mechanic would be somewhat undesirable.

The game already distinguishes between strangers, citizens, friends, and allies so it would seem the 'cold server logic' has more common sense than some of the people commenting in this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only if Bachus can steal my heart ;) ;) :wub:


wait its to late


griefer!


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game already distinguishes between strangers, citizens, friends, and allies so it would seem the 'cold server logic' has more common sense than some of the people commenting in this thread.

Ah, the friend feature in Wurm. Actually, the first few months in Wurm I refused friend requests from all the neighbors because I was afraid I would be unknowingly granting them some permissions by doing so. To be honest, I still have no idea if being a friend actually has any effect on in-game permissions other than the places where it's explicitly stated.

Anyway, unless I've misunderstood your intent, apparently you propose that the friends list should override some of the default ownership rules? Or maybe it already does and I just don't know about it? Or maybe this thread has already descended into random banter and you weren't implying any of that...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your friend did not put the logs in your wagon and drive off with it and your horses to their deed and lock them all away where you could not retrieve them.  I am pretty sure if they did that you would not be referring to them as a friend but as a thief.  

Anyone with the tiniest bit of common sense can see the difference.

 

Exactly! You are maybe finally beginning to grasp something. What you are forgetting is that server software does not exhibit "common sense".

 

The guy passing buy and taking some of my logs I would not like, I would  maybe shout thief after him. Because he is a thief!

The whole point of the argument here is, we can not *under any circumstances* have a system created where something like picking up somebody else's logs is a punishable offense! Because the definition of who is a thief and who is helping out is 100% subjective. Any passerby could have helped me with picking up logs, without being a thief.

 

The friend that helped me of course got to take a whole bunch of the logs for herself, did I not say that before? However if I got angry with her afterwards because she would not give me a plate armour set, I could just report to a GM that she had stolen logs from me and BAM! There she goes, banned. There is no way in hell she could have made QL95 logs by herself, so of course they are mine. Logically she must have stolen them. On the other hand, if she should have the benefit of the doubt, then the same goes for any passerby that stole logs from the piles.

 

If you still don't get it then I really cannot help you. I can only surmise that you guys *want* to be able to ban other players on wholly subjective grounds.

 

Another guy after you states that "we already have friend lists" to show who is in good faith and who is not. Yea cool sure, and we already know that one of the greatest scandals in Wurm this past year, which drove my best neighbours out of the game as they were ###### by exploiters, came about because these thieves had bought an account and stole everything from deeds that they were befriended and in alliance with.

Edited by Cista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another guy after you states that "we already have friend lists" to show who is in good faith and who is not. Yea cool sure, and we already know that one of the greatest scandals in Wurm this past year, which drove my best neighbours out of the game as they were ###### by exploiters, came about because these thieves had bought an account and stole everything from deeds that they were befriended and in alliance with.

 

So you're in here vehemently defending people's right to steal on PvE servers....so more people like your neighbors that you enjoyed...can leave too? Because that's what it sounds like.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly! You are maybe finally beginning to grasp something. What you are forgetting is that server software does not exhibit "common sense".

 

The guy passing buy and taking some of my logs I would not like, I would  maybe shout thief after him. Because he is a thief!

The whole point of the argument here is, we can not *under any circumstances* have a system created where something like picking up somebody else's logs is a punishable offense! Because the definition of who is a thief and who is helping out is 100% subjective. Any passerby could have helped me with picking up logs, without being a thief.

 

The friend that helped me of course got to take a whole bunch of the logs for herself, did I not say that before? However if I got angry with her afterwards because she would not give me a plate armour set, I could just report to a GM that she had stolen logs from me and BAM! There she goes, banned. There is no way in hell she could have made QL95 logs by herself, so of course they are mine. Logically she must have stolen them. On the other hand, if she should have the benefit of the doubt, then the same goes for any passerby that stole logs from the piles.

 

If you still don't get it then I really cannot help you. I can only surmise that you guys *want* to be able to ban other players on wholly subjective grounds.

 

Another guy after you states that "we already have friend lists" to show who is in good faith and who is not. Yea cool sure, and we already know that one of the greatest scandals in Wurm this past year, which drove my best neighbours out of the game as they were ###### by exploiters, came about because these thieves had bought an account and stole everything from deeds that they were befriended and in alliance with.

When theft would be bannable offence, it doesn't mean, that every theft ends automatically with bans. It is capital punishment, it is the last option available. And definitely it doesn't mean, that when your friend picks up a log, she is automatically banned, like you are convinced. That brings me to another topic. When your friend picks up some logs and you report it, it doesn't mean she is even automatically guilty. That is why GMs are in the game, it is their job to investigate what actually happened. If you said to your friend, that she can have some of the 95ql logs for helping you, I think then it is simply a false report, there are chat logs to prove it.. And lets face it, most cases don't need punishment at all.. when you "find" something and someone starts looking the item you have found, the simplest solution would be to give that item back...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When theft would be bannable offence, it doesn't mean, that every theft ends automatically with bans. It is capital punishment, it is the last option available. And definitely it doesn't mean, that when your friend picks up a log, she is automatically banned, like you are convinced. That brings me to another topic. When your friend picks up some logs and you report it, it doesn't mean she is even automatically guilty. That is why GMs are in the game, it is their job to investigate what actually happened. If you said to your friend, that she can have some of the 95ql logs for helping you, I think then it is simply a false report, there are chat logs to prove it.. And lets face it, most cases don't need punishment at all.. when you "find" something and someone starts looking the item you have found, the simplest solution would be to give that item back...

What happens when there are no chat logs or any real proof? Who do you believe? How do you define ownership?

That's the problem here. There are too many variables and circumstances that can and do happen. It's not as just black-and-white as to say "make thievery against the rules".

Also, let's take into consideration that if such a rule were to be instated, there are plenty of people that would use it to their own agenda, probably in a scamming type fashion. In example, you would have people selling things via merchants, then claiming the item/tool purchased (with their name as creator) was stolen. With that specific example, there's no way to prove that an item was sold (there are no logs when it comes to dealing with merchants), nor is there a way to really prove the item was stolen.

I abhor thievery as much as anyone else with half of a set of morals, but honestly, there's no real way for Wurm to really police a rule against it, given the game's current set-up. Many changes/mechanics would need to be created in order to enforce such a rule, and quite frankly, there are not enough team resources to make that happen in any sort of timely fashion. They already struggle with their workload.

Edited by As_I_Decay
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when there are no chat logs or any real proof? Who do you believe? How do you define ownership?

That's the problem here. There are too many variables and circumstances that can and do happen. It's not as just black-and-white as to say "make thievery against the rules".

Also, let's take into consideration that if such a rule were to be instated, there are plenty of people that would use it to their own agenda, probably in a scamming type fashion. In example, you would have people selling things via merchants, then claiming the item/tool purchased (with their name as creator) was stolen. With that specific example, there's no way to prove that an item was sold (there are no logs when it comes to dealing with merchants), nor is there a way to really prove the item was stolen.

I abhor thievery as much as anyone else with half of a set of morals, but honestly, there's no real way for Wurm to really police a rule against it, given the game's current set-up. Many changes/mechanics would need to be created in order to enforce such a rule, and quite frankly, there are not enough team resources to make that happen in any sort of timely fashion. They already struggle with their workload.

So, if there can be couple of cases which are harder to solve(maybe a few which really can't be solved), that means every one of them(even those, which could be solved) should go unpunished? Everyone makes comparisons to real life, not every theft is being solved, but it doesn't mean that it is legalized based on that.

If we look back a bit into the past, when there was enclosure rule and theft was a crime.. guess what, the world didn't go down in flames and there was no unprecedented ban wave. Instead people didn't bash into the places, the system worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when there are no chat logs or any real proof? Who do you believe? How do you define ownership?

That's the problem here. There are too many variables and circumstances that can and do happen. It's not as just black-and-white as to say "make thievery against the rules".

Also, let's take into consideration that if such a rule were to be instated, there are plenty of people that would use it to their own agenda, probably in a scamming type fashion. In example, you would have people selling things via merchants, then claiming the item/tool purchased (with their name as creator) was stolen. With that specific example, there's no way to prove that an item was sold (there are no logs when it comes to dealing with merchants), nor is there a way to really prove the item was stolen.

I abhor thievery as much as anyone else with half of a set of morals, but honestly, there's no real way for Wurm to really police a rule against it, given the game's current set-up. Many changes/mechanics would need to be created in order to enforce such a rule, and quite frankly, there are not enough team resources to make that happen in any sort of timely fashion. They already struggle with their workload.

When you trade there is a log of it.  You can even see it in your own action logs, so it easy for a GM to see as well.

There is always a chat log too for both characters and the GM can see those and the local chat as well.  In addition to that the GM's have the ability to see every action performed in a local that is how they have found thieves and griefers in the past they just do not always bother to lose use it.

 

Ah, the friend feature in Wurm. Actually, the first few months in Wurm I refused friend requests from all the neighbors because I was afraid I would be unknowingly granting them some permissions by doing so. To be honest, I still have no idea if being a friend actually has any effect on in-game permissions other than the places where it's explicitly stated.

Anyway, unless I've misunderstood your intent, apparently you propose that the friends list should override some of the default ownership rules? Or maybe it already does and I just don't know about it? Or maybe this thread has already descended into random banter and you weren't implying any of that...

 

It is there already and it can and is being revamped by Tich right now.

What 'default ownership rules'?  

You already said that you do not own anything and anyone can take 'your stuff' without it being stealing.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look back a bit into the past, when there was enclosure rule and theft was a crime.. guess what, the world didn't go down in flames and there was no unprecedented ban wave. Instead people didn't bash into the places, the system worked.

This is because there are very few "career" thieves in Wurm, hence the risk of having anything stolen was miniscule. Now that the enclosure rule is gone though, there are plenty of cases where law abiding citizens bash fences and kill horses just because they feel they are entitled to do so.

 

What there is plenty of in Wurm is drama queens - people who have conflicts over and over with their neighbours, their villagers, their alliance partners. What we don't want is to give all these people the encouragement to try and bother GMs over things like what somebody took from the village chest and did not deliver back in time. Therefore, no blanket "thieving is prohibited" rule should be declared, it would kill first the GMs, then the game.

Edited by Cista
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is because there are very few "career" thieves in Wurm, hence the risk of having anything stolen was miniscule. Now that the enclosure rule is gone though, there are plenty of cases where law abiding citizens bash fences and kill horses just because they feel they are entitled to do so.

 

What there is plenty of in Wurm is drama queens - people who have conflicts over and over with their neighbours, their villagers, their alliance partners. What we don't want is to give all these people the encouragement to try and bother GMs over things like what somebody took from the village chest and did not deliver back in time. Therefore, no blanket "thieving is prohibited" rule should be declared, it would kill first the GMs, then the game.

Actually, people who waste GM time with lies or trivial matters are in a sense griefing the GM's.  People who do it can be given a warning and if they keep on doing it they can be dealt with in an appropriate manner.  

 

Your solution of "some people will abuse the system therefore we shouldn't have a system" is not a reasonable one for a PVE environment.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, people who waste GM time with lies or trivial matters are in a sense griefing the GM's.  People who do it can be given a warning and if they keep on doing it they can be dealt with in an appropriate manner.  

 

Your solution of "some people will abuse the system therefore we shouldn't have a system" is not a reasonable one for a PVE environment.

Well it's not exactly trivial if it was an expensive set of armour and weapons that was taken by someone in the village.

 

I am all for having a system, which is what we have already, which is - the mechanics of the game prohibit many forms of theft, especially on deeds. So there you go, the system works. The mechanisms can at times be adjusted, if we want that things like what happened to Rixk cannot happen.

 

I am not for some vague "thieving is evil" paradigm being seen as a rule, because it is not something that can be enforced - as many have already pointed out on this thread.

With great freedom comes great responsibility. It is our own responsibility to whom we lend our tools, who we invite into our village, how we manage our settings, and where we leave our horses standing while logged out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am all for having a system, which is what we have already, which is - the mechanics of the game prohibit many forms of theft, especially on deeds. So there you go, the system works. The mechanisms can at times be adjusted, if we want that things like what happened to Rixk cannot happen.

 

I am not for some vague "thieving is evil" paradigm being seen as a rule, because it is not something that can be enforced - as many have already pointed out on this thread.

With great freedom comes great responsibility. It is our own responsibility to whom we lend our tools, who we invite into our village, how we manage our settings, and where we leave our horses standing while logged out. 

 

Yes theft can be enforced. You just said it yourself. Although you are incorrect that theft cannot take place on a deed because it has happened many, many times in the past. A large cart can be taken off a deed by someone who does not even have deed or cart permissions. And yes, thieving is evil. Depriving someone of something for your own selfish gain is evil. And again, it can be enforced by coding the game in such a way that it is not possible. You don't even need GMs. Then you come up with a lame quote that has no relationship to the subject. Boring. After reading your posts I have come to the conclusion you have some self interest in allowing theft in the game. Why else do you so often get on your soapbox to shoot down those who don't want their 'stuff' stolen? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguing non sequiturs is completely clouding the issue (intentional or not), which is, should theft be *allowed.*  A very simple question.  Allowed or not allowed.  It's ok or it's not ok.   The question being, do people want theft on pve. 


 


They are currently working on a new permissions system, so it appears they are very well aware of what theft is without all the extreme claims of what being *not allowed* would do. 


 


Also, I would think that at least part of the reason for re-working the permissions system is because they recognize the deficiencies in the current system, and that theft is *not allowed.*  There's even a message for some actions that says -That would be stealing and is not allowed.-  So the question was asked in the op of this thread, if it should be *allowed.*


 


They are also very well aware of what they can and cannot do with the code, to get as near as possible to a system where outright theft isn't possible.  I would assume this will primarily deal with deeds, carts, boats, bsbs, etc., but if there's a way to do it off deed too, even partially, that would be nice.  Probably not possible to do easily without disallowing salvaging and/or helping friends, etc but it still doesn't hurt to look at the possibilities.


 


There is absolutely nothing wrong with people saying what they'd like to see in the new system.  Maybe it's possible to code it, maybe it's not.  It it's not then it's not.


 


But arguing that nothing should be changed because it might, maybe, perhaps, not be possible to make it all completely air tight in the most extreme unlikelihoods is causing this thread to completely de-evolve, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether *theft* should be *allowed* or *not allowed.*


Edited by Amadee
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a moral difference between salvaging things and theft, I think we can all agree on that.


There has been a conscious decision to allow salvaging of things within wurm, and as a sandbox there are certain things that are intended because the game world is supposed to be somewhat harsh and not hold your hand.  For example: If a cart is left unlocked out in the middle of the woods its really considered fair game because hey, if you are wandering around lost, half dead of hunger, in dire need of shelter, and you find a cart abandoned in the middle of nowhere with stuff you can use to survive..... you should be able to use it. That is not a decision that the GM team makes... that's more of a design parameter.


 


The problem is that given the limitations of the code, how some things work, and the number of exceptions that would have to be coded in that would end up invalidating other situations... the mechanics of theft and salvaging overlap in places with nothing that can be easily or readily done about it.


 


The new permission system is not going to change much in the way of how permissions overlap, as an example vehicle permissions will still trump deed permissions, and locks will be needed to secure vehicles and enforce the permissions on them. However..  When you manage a cart(or boat) with the new system, and it does not have a lock, there will be a giant red warning in the management window telling you that the permissions don't work until you lock it.


(similar warnings for other issues are also planned)


 


Requiring a lock as part of construction was discussed, but code wise it causes some issues apparently with how unfinished and finished items are handled, and also with needing to be able to pick the lock off and/or replace them if desired. Allowing those with a built in lock would be more difficult than it seems in this case apparently.


 


There will also be more fine tuning of options within the vehicle, house, and deed permissions, and all permissions will have an option to add players by name, so it will no longer be limited to broad groups like "friends" or "allies" in an attempt to reduce players being vulnerable to some of the weak areas that currently exist, (such as having ALL friends or villagers able to use a boat in order to let one or two people use it)


 


On the whole, if used carefully and correctly the current permissions allow you to 100% protect items on the Freedom servers, making theft as defined by the game's mechanics impossible, and it is the mechanics we are going by for the most part, because if it can be done, people will do it no matter what a rule says.


We do make occasional exceptions for those that are actively, repeatedly, and aggressively acting in a toxic manner (such as the deed thefts back in december), and we will act on scams as much as possible. (such as mail scams where people offer one thing but send another of much lesser value), but on the whole players are expected to take all the steps to secure items they wish to keep control over. Which is another reason for the overhaul of the permission system, to make it more understandable just how to do so, and to allow a bit more fine control when doing so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hierarchy is what is mysterious and ethereal to most people. It's never made clear that vehicle settings > deed settings but < writ setting and that writ settings > deed settings unless destroy is enabled on the deed then destroy > writ settings. Many of these settings are circular and exclude, override, or negate other settings. Settings that are higher up the tree than the setting doing the negating exist in multitudes. A lot of these have not been found and exploited so they get attention. In short, unless you do a security assault on everything you own every time a know and unknown change is made to the system, you have no idea what does what, if it actually does anything at all, and if it still does today what it did yesterday. 


 


That being said, nothing should be able to be taken off a deed that does not have a permission set to take things, even carts and boats, unless the vehicle is explicitly set for permission for it. Failure to have a lock on a deed with no pick up should override non-existent permissions as none exist without a lock. Also, nothing should be able to be finished construction on a deed that doesn't allow building (vehicles here as someone can walk up and finish your knarr and be the new happy owner of a 1 peg worth of work knarr). 


 


PvP? Knock yourselves out. It's a different ballgame there than over here and the number of PvP people chiming into these Freedom threads is crazy. Go police your own servers and let us worry about ours.


  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah morals... like trying to catch a greased-up piglet (don't judge).

Anyways, GMs on patrol! Guess which one is Jberg.

sFk1d58.gif

Edited by Klaa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the whole, if used carefully and correctly the current permissions allow you to 100% protect items on the Freedom servers, making theft as defined by the game's mechanics impossible, and it is the mechanics we are going by for the most part, because if it can be done, people will do it no matter what a rule says.

 

This. With many of the 'x is a thief, ban x' threads that we see occasionally popping up, the root cause seems to be either someone didn't actually lock up their items/cart, or left permissions open to way too many people without revoking it after. As the new permissions system should address the latter, all that really ought to be done, and seems to be happening is some sort of method of better informing players of how to protect themselves from salvaging. The new warning sounds like it should do exactly that. 

Inevitably, there will still be complaints, and the odd exploit or oversight, but at least when someone's unlocked large cart vanishes off their deed, it will be that much fairer and more reasonable to point out to them that it is the product of their own carelessness. 

Salvaging and theft ought to remain how it is, possible, and not bannable as long as not performed maliciously, players just need to be more aware of how to protect themselves. So, big thumbs up from me here, spellcast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the whole, if used carefully and correctly the current permissions allow you to 100% protect items on the Freedom servers, making theft as defined by the game's mechanics impossible, and it is the mechanics we are going by for the most part, because if it can be done, people will do it no matter what a rule says.

 

Until a server reset breaks the permissions.

 

Remember locks flying off ships on server crossings, remember bridges leaving deeds wide open.  Then someone gets robbed and "there are no rules" so the affected party MAAAY get the items back, but the exploiter will say "thought it was a feature, there's no rule against robbing" so all you get is a thief that now has more experience and WILL find new ways past the mechanics.

 

Aside from being potential thieves themselves, I can't think of a reason why some people are so adamant on it being imperative that the game leave open ways for players to screw others over, and sod it if that costs Wurm money.

 

End of the day, Wurm won't progress at any visible pace, neither will its financial situation, until CodeClub realizes that catering to the more toxic parts of the community won't even earn friendship, as folks like that are no one's friends but their own pockets'.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing is a person scavenging in the wilderness like Spellcast wanted to show as a feature and another thing is making a concious choice which a person makes before stealing from a deed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if active the theft on pve servers, the non premium players will leave, because, only premium players can do it, and some nonprem players play alone.


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