Zera

Silver Trading

Recommended Posts

While I don't intend to bully anyone, and Zera is in no way obliged to read this, I consider the affair settled. Retro said that Deed Planner design for ingame deeds is considered legitimate ingame service.

 

Maybe there will be an explanation for all the reasons in detail, maybe not. There is no obligation for the team to disclose internal decision finding processes.

 

As to the why, imagine somebody offering you to sell the service to build your complete deed as a turnkey deed, you paying ofc for all bulk materials, doing or paying for all terraforming. To show you your deed the contractor would of course show you some kind of design, and almost certainly not in AutoCad [tm] but in Deedplanner, to confirm, or desire amendments.

 

Would anybody deny this to be an ingame service? Similarly: Somebody is selling her deed, terraforming done, along with a design plan, in .. guess what, and charging for the place as well as for the design. Legitimate transaction?

 

  • Cat 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the definition, anything created outside the game, even if later imported into the game in some fashion, falls under forbidden practice with regards to payment.  This includes files created with external programs, and thus deedplanner would normally fall under this geas.

 

However, it has been stated that it does not, and now one is left to wonder what specific attribute of deedplanner renders it an exception to this rule.

 

Indeed, one is left to wonder if other such exclusions exist, and if so is there a pattern to them or are they merely whim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange assertion. The decision whether a practice is forbidden is with the GM and the company. They are in no way obliged to let it conform to any "principles" or contradictions players invent or assert to exist. They are perfectly entitled to say "You can do this" (e.g. slaying a lamb) "but not that" (slaying a player, or NPC) though both are creatures, mammals etc. They can invoke a fencing rule, and lift it later.

 

Any text file or spreadsheet etc. with information about ingame plans, designs, resources etc. is "created outside the game, .. later imported into the game in some fashion". I already mentioned mine plans, certainly less sophisticated than deedplanner designs (and I never sold one :) ) but I have no doubt that it could be offered as an ingame service. And if not, and I would be told so, then not.

 

It seems to me that none of you argueing that way ever has read jurisprudential textbooks or law comments. Even the real world of legislation, not just game rules, is full of exceptions, exclusions, amendments, additions.

Edited by Ekcin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

Strange assertion. The decision whether a practice is forbidden is with the GM and the company. They are in no way obliged to let it conform to any "principles" or contradictions players invent or assert to exist. They are perfectly entitled to say "You can do this" (e.g. slaying a lamb) "but not that" (slaying a player, or NPC) though both are creatures, mammals etc. They can invoke a fencing rule, and lift it later.

 

Any text file or spreadsheet etc. with information about ingame plans, designs, resources etc. is "created outside the game, .. later imported into the game in some fashion". I already mentioned mine plans, certainly less sophisticated than deedplanner designs (and I never sold one :) ) but I have no doubt that it could be offered as an ingame service. And if not, and I would be told so, then not.

 

It seems to me that none of you argueing that way ever has read jurisprudential textbooks or law comments. Even the real world of legislation, not just game rules, is full of exceptions, exclusions, amendments, additions.

While I am certain your "legal background" checks out; you'll have to forgive me for not considering it trustworthy.  Attempting to compare the ideas of democratically (or judicially) imposed law to dictatorial law would be quite foolish as both of the former require justification or a case made (with this being made public), whereas the latter does not.

 

No-one is arguing against the power being in the hands of the game developers, we are merely questioning their reasoning which appears reasonable in and of itself.  Refusing an explenation is quite within their rights; though this may well be interpreted as quite sinister by some.  Especially given that this rule was put in place due to the removal of RMT and no-one wants to be under any doubt of the matter.

 

Now, if the devs simply say "we are deliberately leaving this area grey because we want to judge each point on a case by case basis as we're doing this by gut feeling to allow players as much freedom as possible without annoying Steam" then that would be a simple and logical reason that everyone could get behind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

Under the definition, anything created outside the game, even if later imported into the game in some fashion, falls under forbidden practice with regards to payment.  This includes files created with external programs, and thus deedplanner would normally fall under this geas.

 

However, it has been stated that it does not, and now one is left to wonder what specific attribute of deedplanner renders it an exception to this rule.

 

Indeed, one is left to wonder if other such exclusions exist, and if so is there a pattern to them or are they merely whim.

At least someone here understands why I'm a little puzzled by this decision here and why they have come to said ruling on the matter.

 

3 hours ago, Ekcin said:

Any text file or spreadsheet etc. with information about ingame plans, designs, resources etc. is "created outside the game

Except as I pointed out with your Mine example that your Mine Layout is planned and plotted in-game and recorded based on in-game action.
Where as a Deed Planner blueprint is not. Exportation of a chunk of land is hardly considered "gathering data" by any means. Especially when said actions are not performed in anyway in-game by the seller.

 

4 hours ago, Ekcin said:

While I don't intend to bully anyone, and Zera is in no way obliged to read this, I consider the affair settled. Retro said that Deed Planner design for ingame deeds is considered legitimate ingame service.

Yes, the original question has been answered and solved.
Glad that was enough for what seems like most of you to consider the door closed and move on with your lives having truly been none-the-wiser on the subject.

Some of us however, cannot just accept a "Yes" or "No" without the logic behind it and an understanding of the "Why". Simply because the "Why" is what answers so many other questions and grey-areas and propositions and so forth.

 

I am not the only one who is confused by this ruling on the matter and would like to know, as I've stated several times now, where is that line drawn.

 

So your answer has been provided. Glad I could help by asking it for you I suppose. Now please, move on so I can get the rest of the answers I'm seeking.

Edited by Zera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

While I am certain your "legal background" checks out; you'll have to forgive me for not considering it trustworthy.  Attempting to compare the ideas of democratically (or judicially) imposed law to dictatorial law would be quite foolish as both of the former require justification or a case made (with this being made public), whereas the latter does not.

 

Obviously you did not fully understand, and dragging ideology into the subject is unhelpful to say the least especially when displaying at least wanting perception of history and philosophy of law. Whether a legal rule about, say ownership, inheritance, right of way, conduct in public etc. is set up in a monarchy, theocracy, authocracy or democracy does not tell anything about the topic or my argument.

 

If that was not clear, I wanted to point to the difference between rules in a board game like chess, checkers, go etc., or more general, in any system of mathematical logic (of which such games may be considered a simpler subset), and the rules of a multiuser environment, especially one with sandbox characteristics.

 

In any mathematical system, it is not only legitimate, but required and absolutely necessary to care for freedom from contradictions (leaving aside antinomies which are another story) which turn a system wrong and invalid unless "repaired" (you may start with any set of axioms, but from there on, the system must be consistent and free of contradictions). Contradiction in mathematical logic means proving false. A multiuser sandbox MMO is no such system, only smaller subsets of it resemble it, and those are widely handled by algorithms of game design and mechanics. Rather it is widely a social system where most rules regulate the relationships of humans inside the gaming environment. That is why the comparison with legal and social systems in RL is valid and relevant.

 

Rules in social systems, be they laid down in laws or more general principles, or customary, are definitely not like those in mathematical systems. They are dynamic and their possible variations are infinite for practical purposes. It is completely normal therefore that there can be fuzzy lines between the allowed and the illicit, and that single activities are considered tolerable why others are not. Recall the discussions about griefing, fences etcetera. That is why I mentioned legal systems which always also strive for consistency and general principles, but also are dependent on shifts of society, economy, and culture. While the scope of fuzzyness inside a gaming environment is arguably smaller, still rules are to some extent makeshift, deliberate, and derived from everydays situations and conflicts (like conflict regulation is one of the foremost tasks of any judicial system).

 

Quote

 

No-one is arguing against the power being in the hands of the game developers, we are merely questioning their reasoning which appears reasonable in and of itself.  Refusing an explenation is quite within their rights; though this may well be interpreted as quite sinister by some.  Especially given that this rule was put in place due to the removal of RMT and no-one wants to be under any doubt of the matter.

 

Now, if the devs simply say "we are deliberately leaving this area grey because we want to judge each point on a case by case basis as we're doing this by gut feeling to allow players as much freedom as possible without annoying Steam" then that would be a simple and logical reason that everyone could get behind.

 

No disagreement to that. Other than I do not see so much left open. The decision "DeedPlanner is ok as ingame service" is clear, and there may be a number of reasons why. And well, offgame artswork, 3D printer figures with Wurm motives and similar (let alone intellectual property questions of GC/CCAB) may be traded by RMT not by silver, that was clear too. I could name a couple of reasons for that decision without knowing whether any or which of those were exactly the motives of the team decision. But I fail to see that they owe explanations about the decision making process. Assume they discussed it, and there were differing views, do you think they owe us to disclose that?

Edited by Ekcin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

offgame

Here's that keyword and you've said it yourself.
Not everyone considers Deed Planner to be "part of the game", let alone use it in the first place.

 

Although if we are to consider such a tool "part of the game" then there are plenty of other tools out there that I suppose also fall into that category, now don't they?
Asking for a "Why is this considered part of the game" isn't too much to ask.

You don't have the say-so of why or what qualifies any of them to be considered so. So far I cannot help but feel you're just here to try to argue that "Deed Planner is approved, stop it already!" at this point...

However having you nearly constantly repeating yourself as to "this should be enough for you!" essentially is not constructive and not getting anyone, anywhere except extremely annoyed if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, lets review here:

 

8 hours ago, Ekcin said:

Obviously you did not fully understand, and dragging ideology into the subject is unhelpful to say the least especially when displaying at least wanting perception of history and philosophy of law. Whether a legal rule about, say ownership, inheritance, right of way, conduct in public etc. is set up in a monarchy, theocracy, authocracy or democracy does not tell anything about the topic or my argument.

 

Here I think you're conflating my point; I did not bring up law, I pointed out that using law was a poor example.  Law (as most of us know it) has public oversight and is not dictatorially imposed; here the point argued was not idealistic, merely that it was a natural consequent of your comment on law textbooks (which I must admit, I've only read the ones on land law, and those are some of the worst written books I have ever had the displeasure to read).

 

8 hours ago, Ekcin said:

If that was not clear, I wanted to point to the difference between rules in a board game like chess, checkers, go etc., or more general, in any system of mathematical logic (of which such games may be considered a simpler subset), and the rules of a multiuser environment, especially one with sandbox characteristics.

No, you were being quite clear; you were just in error.

 

8 hours ago, Ekcin said:

In any mathematical system, it is not only legitimate, but required and absolutely necessary to care for freedom from contradictions (leaving aside antinomies which are another story) which turn a system wrong and invalid unless "repaired" (you may start with any set of axioms, but from there on, the system must be consistent and free of contradictions). Contradiction in mathematical logic means proving false. A multiuser sandbox MMO is no such system, only smaller subsets of it resemble it, and those are widely handled by algorithms of game design and mechanics. Rather it is widely a social system where most rules regulate the relationships of humans inside the gaming environment. That is why the comparison with legal and social systems in RL is valid and relevant.

Firstly, this raises a new question; can I charge you 50 silver to correct your misapprehensions in my field (I jest).

 

No system proves its own consistency (thanks Gödel!), and we are (to my extensive knowledge) always dealing with relative notions of consistency or assumed consistency when working with foundational systems.  There is no "must" in mathematical logic; merely the notion of utility: a system that contains contradictions has a perfect right to exist, but it is entirely useless for the purpose of constructing true statements since ⊥⇒T and ⊥⇒⊥ ("you can derive anything you want from a contradiction") are both assumed in sentential logic regardless of which foundational school you subscribe to.

 

You're conflating the game itself and the system from which the medium by which the game is created is derived; the "algorithms" you speak of are not a subset of logic, they are a derivative by combining logic with a foundational system that we assume to be consistent (or if you're a platonist they just always were and we discovered them).  For the rejection of your comparison to law, see the first comment.
 

(Small aside that is genuinely meant to encourage your interest in this field, not as a patronising stab; the book "Introduction to the Foundations of Mathematics" by R.Wilder is a really good introduction to this field as it covers a lot of the ideas that you're really close to getting; if memory serves there is a pdf of it floating around the web and I can definitely recommend it.  It's a good book for getting past common misconceptions and building a nice intuitive "feel" for the field.)

 

8 hours ago, Ekcin said:

Rules in social systems, be they laid down in laws or more general principles, or customary, are definitely not like those in mathematical systems. They are dynamic and their possible variations are infinite for practical purposes.

I disagree, but some mathematicians would not.  It's a grey area in mathematical logic as some (like Hilbert) considered mathematics merely to be a symbolic game whereas others (like Brouwer) considered it to be a natural consequence of human intuition.

 

8 hours ago, Ekcin said:

It is completely normal therefore that there can be fuzzy lines between the allowed and the illicit, and that single activities are considered tolerable why others are not. Recall the discussions about griefing, fences etcetera. That is why I mentioned legal systems which always also strive for consistency and general principles, but also are dependent on shifts of society, economy, and culture. While the scope of fuzzyness inside a gaming environment is arguably smaller, still rules are to some extent makeshift, deliberate, and derived from everydays situations and conflicts (like conflict regulation is one of the foremost tasks of any judicial system).

For the rejection of the law comparison, see my first point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To deflate all of your reasoning: First to "your field": I had good reasons to leave Goedel, Russel etc. out just mentioning in a short remark that I left a few antinomies  and apories out. The Goedel theorem is not even one of those. I did not say that a system has to prove its own completeness, I am aware it can not (everybody and my dog is since over 80 years), this does not mean that it stays true and flawless with inconsistencies leading to contradictions. But this leads to nothing. The crisis of the foundations of mathematics was stated a century ago already, and while mathematicians are working around finely, it does not mean that "anything goes". Disproving a theorem or proposition by contradiction still works.

 

Much less convincing are your perceptions of power, rulership, and democracy which may seem nice but in no way based in reality. Maybe C.Wright Mills might suffice for the beginning to shatter a few of your illusions about decision making machines in countries claiming to be democratically ruled, or that e.g. Popper and Hayek (similar to the rest of the Mont Pelerin crowd) openly denied the significance of people's souvereigncy seeing the usefulness of democracy widely in a way of nonviolent switch of power of the ruling elites. And if you travel to countries where just you did "coup whoever we want" you have to respect traffic rules and property laws no matter which military strongmen and/or evangelical fanatics run a country against the will of the electorate. About the decision making process in democracies read Lippman to name just one.

 

And, to say that, while I have no better offer than existing democracies either, your rosy illusions do not add up. And trying to extend them to decision making administrative teams of a small gaming company is certainly absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Zera said:

-.- The two of you, enough. You're now offtopic entirely.

Aye, I think this thread isn't the place for it; I'll move it to PMs I think since I reckon it's time someone took Ekcin to school XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Etherdrifter said:

Aye, I think this thread isn't the place for it; I'll move it to PMs I think since I reckon it's time someone took Ekcin to school XD

Throwing insults is just a sign of immaturity.

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