Fix the damn PvE rules!

[Bachus 462]

 

I love all of this, the idea that more rules are needed is hilarious.

 

Is this paranoia due to something in the water?

 

dont want it stolen? lock it.

dont want it broken into? deed it.

 

 

How does "play nice" need to be defined? IF you do actions purely to upset others and cause drama, that's not playing nice.

 

Some exploits are exploits, the implications of destroy on village roles, and various other things, but stealing an unlocked cart/wagon/boat/child is not against the rules, or against playing nice, unless the only reason youre doing it is to cause grief.

 

hence the term, griefing

So breaking into places and stealing stuff is 'playing nice'?

  Pretty much every society that has ever existed in history disagrees with that.  If you stole or destroyed property of another member of your kingdom you, paid restitution, went to jail, and/or became their slave.

 

PS: Before anyone jumps on the usual bandwagon we are not talking about any starving noob finding an unlocked cart on an abandoned deed in the middle of nowhere.  You know what stealing means. 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2015 by Bachus

[Slickshot 1,195]

 

 

 

 

So breaking into places and stealing stuff is 'playing nice'?

  Pretty much every society that has ever existed in history disagrees with that.  If you stole or destroyed property of another member of your kingdom you, paid restitution, went to jail, and/or became their slave.

 

 

 

 

...or had your hand removed, or your head removed.  Depends on the society. lol

[Bachus 462]

Independent NON-player based moderation is the only true solution, imo.

 

Any player GM / moderator is placed in the impossible situation where by any decision they are forced to make is going to be perceived as favoritism, bias, or corruption by those on the negative end of that decision and in some cases (in other games i have played ) these decisions have been influenced by the risk of in game consequences as a result.

 

A solution to this would be to set minimum punishments for each common act of grievance.  Much like in IRL if you speed the minimum fine is printed on the back of the speeding ticket.  of course the GM's could always adjust the penalty based on the severity of the crime just as fines are higher for speeding in a school zone or if you have been ticketed for speeding before.

Then there would be fewer calls of favoritism and less confusion as to what is not acceptable behavior. 

[Pashka 707]

If I get caught speeding, I can go to court and plead my case.  Perhaps it will be a slap on the wrist or a fine.  Hell the cop can make that judgement call himself.  It isn't even announced to the town that I was tripping down their roads doing 90.  Just me getting out of a ticket.  Happens every single day of the week.  Perhaps if he runs my license and sees that I have had a few tickets, he might not be inclined to let me off scott free.  But he does still have that option.

[spellcast 983]

just for the record:

 

The main reason we do not post the punishments that we enact as GM's has nothing to do with a desire to respect the privacy of those we have to punish.

 

No, it's far more simple than that.

While shaming people IRL can work fairly well, what happened (<note the bold text) when we used to do that here is that there was a certain type of player that went out of their way to be named. Some came from outside groups, others were home grown, but it actually worked out over a couple of years that we were seeing more  issues, people would decide to quit, and on leaving would TRY to get themselves on the list for posterity, and some from outside groups would actually join the game with the specific intention of getting onto the list so they could go back to the group and brag about it.

 

It became sort of a "red badge of courage" for those with disruptive intent.  Thus, we discontinued the practice. 

[Klaa 4,872]

The Infamy! The Outrageous! The Scandalous!

[Bachus 462]

If I get caught speeding, I can go to court and plead my case.  Perhaps it will be a slap on the wrist or a fine.  Hell the cop can make that judgement call himself.  It isn't even announced to the town that I was tripping down their roads doing 90.  Just me getting out of a ticket.  Happens every single day of the week.  Perhaps if he runs my license and sees that I have had a few tickets, he might not be inclined to let me off scott free.  But he does still have that option.

Yes the Gm's will still have that option but it will be much more difficult for you to claim ignorance of the speed limit once the signs are posted.  Currently there are no speed limit signs posted and it is like the cop picks who to pull over and sets the speed limit and the fine at that time.

[Battlepaw 585]

just for the record:

 

The main reason we do not post the punishments that we enact as GM's has nothing to do with a desire to respect the privacy of those we have to punish.

 

No, it's far more simple than that.

While shaming people IRL can work fairly well, what happened (<note the bold text) when we used to do that here is that there was a certain type of player that went out of their way to be named. Some came from outside groups, others were home grown, but it actually worked out over a couple of years that we were seeing more  issues, people would decide to quit, and on leaving would TRY to get themselves on the list for posterity, and some from outside groups would actually join the game with the specific intention of getting onto the list so they could go back to the group and brag about it.

 

It became sort of a "red badge of courage" for those with disruptive intent.  Thus, we discontinued the practice. 

 

Heh now ya'll gone and dunnit, you got spellcast riled up.      I do see where your coming from, and I can see where you go about it.   But then again it all depends what you reveal.    

 

Don't make a wall of shame, just put up the facts of cases and let players look at them.    That way we aren't always guessing what happened and can see both sides of the complaint and the actual ruling.    The whole grey area does a lot of damage to the game, and often keeps players guessing the precedents being set.    

 

When I first join a game, or play on a new server on a game that has an active set of mods, the first thing I do is spend a long while reading ban appeals.   I do this so I know what has gotten other players banned.  This is after I read the rules, but it's very important for me to know how those rules are applied.   

Edited August 14, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Chiqa 742]

I can only blame myself for reading most of this thread and the ensuing headache I am now suffering from

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

I can only blame myself for reading most of this thread and the ensuing headache I am now suffering from

 

There is a quick cure for that -- To The Cat Thread!

[LorraineJ 1,099]

just for the record:

 

The main reason we do not post the punishments that we enact as GM's has nothing to do with a desire to respect the privacy of those we have to punish.

 

No, it's far more simple than that.

While shaming people IRL can work fairly well, what happened (<note the bold text) when we used to do that here is that there was a certain type of player that went out of their way to be named. Some came from outside groups, others were home grown, but it actually worked out over a couple of years that we were seeing more  issues, people would decide to quit, and on leaving would TRY to get themselves on the list for posterity, and some from outside groups would actually join the game with the specific intention of getting onto the list so they could go back to the group and brag about it.

 

It became sort of a "red badge of courage" for those with disruptive intent.  Thus, we discontinued the practice. 

 

This seems to me like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If there are people psychotic enough to want consider getting banned to be some kind of badge of courage, then don't post their names, just tell the incident. At the very least get rid of the edict that people can't request a review of rulings, or talk about what happened to them.

[Slickshot 1,195]

This seems to me like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If there are people psychotic enough to want consider getting banned to be some kind of badge of courage, then don't post their names, just tell the incident. At the very least get rid of the edict that people can't request a review of rulings, or talk about what happened to them.

Yeah even if there are those select few who do such a thing, it is still extremely counter productive to close down the entire operation of transparent knowledge just to weed out a few pests.  That's just ridiculous.  The bigger picture certainly out-weighs the minor.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Slickshot

[spellcast 983]

heh, except it wasn't "a few" it was becoming a lot of our hassle for a while.

 

Is the current system perfect, no. I agree that a certain amount of transparency is indicated, but it tends to simply move the drama around.

 

Right now people agitate because its not transparent enough, Yet i can pretty much assure you that if we posted things like enki did here: on a regular basis we would simply get lots and lots of people trying to tell "the real story" to make themselves look better, making dozens of threads and crying about censorship as we locked them when they spiraled out of control.   For that matter we get it already, and have had it in the past as well. 

 

The other side of this, is when does it become pertinent to the community at large for us to post about an action we are forced to take.  We issue directives reasonably often and most players are willing and able to accept the correction and move on with their gameplay. There are literally millions of tiles in wurm, and with very few exceptions we usually don't have to revisit situations where there are perfectly natural disagreements between players.  Much of the time we can mediate them, get both parties to agree to a compromise, or at least have them agree to ignore each other and progress in different directions.

 

I suppose one criteria could be if we are called back more than a few times, but even then the situation often remains a local concern without affecting much of the community as a whole. 

[Kianga 219]

It might even help a bit in the trust-department if staff would just make a list, say two times a year. Directives: xx cases. Banned for 3 days: xx cases. Banned for a week: xx cases. Banned permanently: xx cases.  No names, no cases explained.

Would that somehow hinder staff-work too? I don't see any chance for self-glorification if this was done at least.

[Leroy 315]

On the last page I saw the phrase "undeeded private mine".

Just to be clear, the "undeeded" part makes the second part invalid.

If you fail to deed something, you fail to make it private and fail to own it. I love bashing off-deed mine doors because I've got a horrible curiosity at times. Also, if you're going to deed a mine, you should also consider that someone can easily approach it from off-deed.

An example of a private mine would be:

• On Deed
• Doored and managed properly
• Reinforcing the last on-deed rock tiles.

Anything less and your mine is far from private.

Wow. So you say it'd be cool for me to go to your apartment complex and drop a dice on your front step because you didn't ask for a doorstep fence in your rental agreement?

And if someone uses a spell to gain entry? Guess they didn't do ___________ properly???

[Oberrill 8]

Fix the damn whining first.

Offer a solution or stay away from the forums.

 

I would suggest making deeds, roads and waterways the only protected constructions. This means the ability to bash undeeded houses.

 

As for the referenced killing of so many horses - which had nothing to do with bashing but was done by an alliance member - there are rules against that kind of griefing that just need to be enforced. In a clear cut case like that deleting the offending character would seem quite appropriate to me. Temporary bans (account or IP) would probably be the most common punishments.

 

Whatever happened to that horse hater by the way?

 

 Wow!! What a genius you are!! Make sure that a game that consists of a pitiful number of players stays that way. Would not it be great to be able to bash undeeded housing and constructions? That way we could wait for a new player (or a veteran player starting a new character) to finish building an FSB or BSB and then smash it. What great fun!

 

 The high cost of premium is just not enough. We need more ways to drive players away, correct?

[JakeRivers 2,921]

Wow. So you say it'd be cool for me to go to your apartment complex and drop a dice on your front step because you didn't ask for a doorstep fence in your rental agreement?

And if someone uses a spell to gain entry? Guess they didn't do ___________ properly???

 

Why do people keep insisting on comparing wurm gameplay to real life?

[nekoexmachina 172]

Wow. So you say it'd be cool for me to go to your apartment complex and drop a dice on your front step because you didn't ask for a doorstep fence in your rental agreement?

 

Wow. So you say I should guess that this small something laying in the middle of nowhere is belonging to you without exceptions? Even if it is laying near public garbage zone? O.k.

[Audrel 2,223]

Why do people keep insisting on comparing wurm gameplay to real life?

 

Because realism is used to have many fanciful things removed from the game but not liked when it comes to other things. In this case, realism doesn't work because the legal system would drag a lot of these folks over the coals then toss them into a cage. Since it negatively impacts what they want, they are against the real aspect. While in another thread about roads, "would your town allow you to move a highway because you built a house next to it and didn't like it?" Here, however, they can't accept realistic consequences. 

[Battlepaw 585]

Because realism is used to have many fanciful things removed from the game but not liked when it comes to other things. In this case, realism doesn't work because the legal system would drag a lot of these folks over the coals then toss them into a cage. Since it negatively impacts what they want, they are against the real aspect. While in another thread about roads, "would your town allow you to move a highway because you built a house next to it and didn't like it?" Here, however, they can't accept realistic consequences. 

 

If we used realism in Wurm's legal system, and took it from certain areas at a comparable time period you could declare your neighbor a heretic or guilty of witchcraft and get them burned at the stake, while you get the land confiscated by the church then resold back to you.   

 

Here is one of my favorite quotes from historians about the inquisition:

 

"The Spaniards told the Indians that they had a disease that only gold could heal. They demanded that the Cuban cacique Hatuey reveal the location of the gold. He denied that he had any hidden gold and as a result he was ordered to be burned alive.

When the cacique was bound to the post, a Franciscan friar ... told him some of the matters of our Faith, which the chieftain had never before heard. . . . The padre told the cacique that if he wished to believe these things, he would go to Heaven ... but if not, he would go to Hell and suffer eternal torment and sorrow. The cacique ... asked the friar if Christians went to Heaven, and was told that the good ones did. The cacique, without further thought, said that he did not wish to go to Heaven but to Hell, so as not to be with Spaniards or see such cruel people." - (Las Casas, The Devastation of the Indies: a Brief Account, p. 45).

 

The game isn't real life, and while you can use examples from RL to make comparisons, trying to have the same expectations is just pure stupidity in it's true and finest form if you want it to apply to wurm.    

 

That is why, I do compare this game to other games quite often, but I don't expect this game to be another game simply because something works better there, within that environment.    

 

Wurm has it's own culture, community and environment.    You can't  make it something it's not, even if something "works better" outside the game.    Changing how wurm works requires changing it's mechanics, and it's community.   Rules don't change the mechanics, they just change how the community uses them.    Trying to circumvent what can actually be done via rules isn't a replacement for mechanics, and there are many mechanics that make Wurm fun because they are different from how things are in real life, even historically.    

Edited August 16, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Audrel 2,223]

If we used realism in Wurm's legal system, and took it from certain areas at a comparable time period you could declare your neighbor a heritic or guilty of witchcraft and get them burned at the stake, while you get the land confincated by the church then resold back to you.   

 

The game isn't real life, and while you can use examples from RL to make comparisons, trying to have the same expectations is just pure stupidity in it's true and finest form if you want it to apply to wurm.    

 

That is why, I do compare this game to other games quite often, but I don't expect this game to be another game simply because something works better there, within that environment.    

 

Wurm has it's own culture, community and environment.    You can't  make it something it's not, even if something works better outside the game.    Changing how wurm works requires changing it's mechanics, and it's community.   Rules don't change the mechanics, they just change how the community uses them.    Trying to circumvent what can actually be done via rules isn't a replacement for mechanics, and there are many mechanics that make Wurm fun because they are different from how things are in real life, even historically.    

 

Yet stupidity wins out time and again. As I said, it's only stupidity when it affects certain things. Otherwise, the thing needing some realistic touch to it is the stupidity.

 

The rest of what you say is quite true however. It's the reason most of us stay. :-)

[Battlepaw 585]

Yet stupidity wins out time and again. As I said, it's only stupidity when it affects certain things. Otherwise, the thing needing some realistic touch to it is the stupidity.

 

The rest of what you say is quite true however. It's the reason most of us stay. :-)

 

Heh yep, re-read my post again I added one of my favorite quotes about the inquisition.    If Wurm was like history, I doubt many of you would want to live there, unless you want to deal with how messed up things are.   And with how messed up things are in the modern age, I certainly wouldn't want wurm to be modeled around it either.   

 

You can't take the good points of a law as it works in the RL and forget, just how brutal it can be when it is applied unjustly, or is used by a corrupt system to destroy an innocent person.    You can't pick and choose, you build a functioning society with what works in your environment not what you wish would work.    

Edited August 16, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Hula_Girl 266]

If we used realism in Wurm's legal system, and took it from certain areas at a comparable time period you could declare your neighbor a heretic or guilty of witchcraft and get them burned at the stake, while you get the land confiscated by the church then resold back to you.

In "Wurm times" (1000 A.D.) the Catholic church officially taught that Witches did not exist, and it was a heresy to say that they were real. The Church authorized the Inquisition to investigate Witchcraft as late as 1326 A.D.

By the way, although it is true, that "Children's testimony was accepted. Essentially unlimited torture was applied to obtain confessions. The flimsiest circumstantial evidence was accepted as proof of guilt.", and there were other outrageous violations of what we now consider a fair trial, it is worth noting that the suspected witches were mainly tried by secular courts.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Hula_Girl

[Battlepaw 585]

In "Wurm times" (1000 A.D.) the Catholic church officially taught that Witches did not exist, and it was a heresy to say that they were real. The Church authorized the Inquisition to investigate Witchcraft as late as 1326 A.D.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Leroy 315]

The real issue is some in charge are blind to seeing intention while others go by letter of the law, which results in greivous actions going unnoticed and at times unofficially supported. While chaos and epic look on and wonder why we get frustrated to the point of insanity... we can't do suit about it, kos is a joke, reciprocation of action results in punishment and the system as a whole is completely useless for the targets of mischief.