Game Rules Update

[Keldun 335]

General update.

Not itemising the changes but it would be prudent for you to read the whole set of rules anyway.

Ok, being dense today, I read the whole thing again, but didn't notice any changes. Sounds pretty much like I remember it.

Could anyone point this out to me?

Edited December 3, 2012 by Keldun

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

I noticed this line was removed:

A player account gives personal and individual access to the Wurm Online game. Unauthorized access to another player's account is not accepted as any part of the Wurm Online game or some kind of strategy, but a violation of their private data. Any player who accesses any account without authorization will have their own account and any subsidiary accounts permanently deleted from the database. <<< this entire section was removed

Could also be other changes, here is a google cache for those who want to compare line by line. oh just noticed also -- a very large section was removed, following the part about account sales, that removed the entire listed process for disputing a ruling ... Could be other changes but I am guessing most deal with account security, it may be that they want more flexibility in handling specific cases by removing a rigid set of guidelines and allowing the internal team more leeway on a case by case basis.

hmm this entire section also seems to be removed, very interesting:

Trading

Freedom/GV server trading with players is considered a contract, whether it be for money or services. There isn't any insurance on trading or contracts, but failure to comply to a contract could be considered theft and will be dealt with as "Griefing" under the game rules. <<< this entire section was removed

Does this mean it is no longer griefing to "scam", because GMs don't have the resources for policing this? Or does it mean something else?

So the three changes I spotted, are three sections deleted that overall seem to suggest GMs want out of the business of policing trades and sales, and to leave things more on a "Let the buyer beware" status...

Edited December 3, 2012 by Brash_Endeavors

[Keldun 335]

Ok thanks for the clear up Brash.

The removal of too strict procedures and absolute overly severe punishments seams reasonable.

The removal of the trading policy is a bit worrying though.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Keldun

[Pingpong 1,070]

Thanks brash.

[Ruger 610]

I looked it over just briefly and it all sounds like the GMs are no longer getting involved in account/item sales. Its a completely at your own risk adventure with or without evidence as well as account sharing. So scamming is legal now, this will be interesting.

[Sklo:D 2,210]

Really hope that the trading policy update will not cause as much trouble as I guess.

Means 50% prepayment for every service I do for a not 100 percent trusted person, well done!

[Guest Docterchese]

EDIT: I misread Brash's post, oops x)

Either way, it's true that these removals are about giving GMs more flexibility to make decisions on a case-by-case basis opposed to being bound specifically to rules. I'm currently looking into the trade changes a bit though, some more clarification would be useful.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Docterchese

[Ruger 610]

I don't see the changes as a GM pull-out from user affairs. Trading is still considered a contract - that word is absolutely key - and the other changes pointed out by Brash are instead more about providing extra flexibility. Although there is now no instant perma-ban on using someone else's account it doesn't mean that the violator can't be perma-banned. Likewise, breach of a contract could still be considered theft, just this is no longer in writing. That's potentially better because a "could-be" isn't particularly clear.

Yet the whole section on trade agreements was removed? I don't think so.

[Pingpong 1,070]

I don't see the changes as a GM pull-out from user affairs. Trading is still considered a contract - that word is absolutely key - and the other changes pointed out by Brash are instead more about providing extra flexibility. Although there is now no instant perma-ban on using someone else's account it doesn't mean that the violator can't be perma-banned. Likewise, breach of a contract could still be considered theft, just this is no longer in writing. That's potentially better because a "could-be" isn't particularly clear.

Hmm, how are we to know if this is a rule reversal or simply just allowing GM's to have more flexibility?

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

Just one clarification (and it would be real sweet if we could get an official response instead of player guesswork, but I am guessing there may be a legal reason that Oracle is sidestepping it a little) -- I bolded some sections where the specific wording interested me, but also mentioned that the entire section of quoted text was removed. So the line "Freedom/GV server trading with players is considered a contract" was actually completely removed and not only the part about it falling under "griefing" rules. There is no longer any mention of trades being considered a "contract" in any way. However, REMOVING A SECTION IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING IT IS OK TO DO IT, and it may indeed merely mean GM's want more leniency to judge everything on a case by case basis. OR -- it may mean it is no longer against the rules and that GMs don't consider it appropriate to police it; OR - the former wording may give them some legal liability they cannot risk and they might have been professionally advised to quietly take those words out.

We won't know unless they officially clarify that. And it's possible they were advised not to be too specific anymore. There may be some changes in international law and real market transactions in online games that put them a bit more on the spot for liability if they appear to be giving official company sanction to the trading and use of legal wording such as "contracts".

Edited December 3, 2012 by Brash_Endeavors

[Pingpong 1,070]

Well the CM's in game are saying this is perfectly clear and so we're unlikely to get a clarification, I DON'T understand what this change means (see my above post). But based on the cm's in game we're not getting clarification anytime soon.

[Darkmalice 242]

Bottom line: be wary of strangers in any transaction and prepare for the worse.

Has there been a lot of scams recently? I know some have mentioned it but I haven't encountered anyone on the receiving end.

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

Has there been a lot of scams recently? I know some have mentioned it but I haven't encountered anyone on the receiving end.

Possibly these threads played a part:

http://forum.wurmonl...ord-of-warning/

http://forum.wurmonl...-gold-scamming/

The person in the first thread had his account banned (maybe just during an investigation, I dunno) even though it appears he was simply an innocent bystander who unknowingly bought stolen gold without knowing it

I am sure a lot of us would feel frustrated if our game account was banned because we purchased gold without realizing the seller was shady ...

Edited December 3, 2012 by Brash_Endeavors

[Wossoo 1,915]

I will get some clarification on this.

[noermel 122]

yeah - please.otherwise i must chancel or change my auctions (to pickup only etc.)

[Ruger 610]

Dark, tons of scamming lately. I had 2 incidents this month and know of at least five more. Careful out there people gettin funny!

[Ruger 610]

Apparently can't edit from the iPhone. I meant two incidents for November. I keep forgetting we are in December now for some reason every now and ten.

[fatboy 448]

so glad i stick to the same people for coins/tool imps etc!

[Alyeska 2,621]

I think they made amistake in the account sharing section - it says it's not condoned. I think it's supposed to say it is condoned but entirely at your own risk.

[Pashka 707]

Remember we do not offer our support or services for such activity and Code Club AB will not be held responsible for any remedial action or loss that occurs, as any such activity is entirely at your own risk.

Fount that in another thread as an update by Oracle to a post Pacer made. So that makes some of this make more sense to me at least.

[Kediec 280]

I think they made amistake in the account sharing section - it says it's not condoned. I think it's supposed to say it is condoned but entirely at your own risk.

No, no mistake as far as i'm aware .

Account sharing isn't condoned, but there is no rule against it ( ie no action will be taken for account sharing). However , any action taken on a shared account is the responsibility of the owner (no matter who is on it) so it is at the players own risk that a player shares.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Kediec

[Ayes 3,715]

If in the future the staff of Wurm will no longer *babysit* those who make purchases from other players of items, coins and characters, I think this is a good policy to have in effect. It really dosen't take much common sense to discern other players characters only from their forum posts and history behind them. These would be the reliable people to purchase these types of items from. If one chooses to by pass these players and purchase from *unknowns* with few forum posts tied to a history of only trying to sell these types of items, the risk should be placed upon them for making that decision, not some handholding from a big mother Wurm.

Does this make scamming legal? Not in any way, it merely puts the responsibility for making these types of purchases upon the proper individual, the buyer. For those who lack the common sense to make responsible choices in these transactions, there really is no solution for trying to abdicate the responsibility for making ones own decisions. As for myself, I only deal with people I know from in game interactions or those who have proven themselves to be reliable with their postings and dealings on these forums. No handholding from big mother Wurm for me, thanks.

=Ayes=

Edited December 4, 2012 by Ayes

[Ruger 610]

Logging started 2012-12-04

[12:24:51] <Ruger> Hey I meant to message you on IRC, with the game rule changes does that mean GMs will no logner be getting involved in account/item sales at all?

[12:25:17] <Ruger> so pretty much my guide being useless? and what about freedom trade agreeements, are those no longer being enforced?

[12:25:24] <Enki> we are trying to make it clear that we will not be responsible for item reparations or money returns

[12:25:37] <Enki> but we will still go after those who we have proof of scamming others

[12:25:49] <Enki> in otherwords we will ban them

[12:26:06] <Ruger> Okay so yall will no longer be returning the stolen coins/accounts then ontop of it all?

[12:26:39] <Enki> we have not finished our policy reviews, but htati s likely to be our stance

[12:27:36] <Ruger> What about freedom trade agreements? That whoel section was removed as well

[12:28:07] <Enki> I haven ot fully read up on that yet

As clear as I could get it. Sounds like they're still in process of getting new policies in place.

[Pingpong 1,070]

If in the future the staff of Wurm will no longer *babysit* those who make purchases from other players of items, coins and characters, I think this is a good policy to have in effect. It really dosen't take much common sense to discern other players characters only from their forum posts and history behind them. These would be the reliable people to purchase these types of items from. If one chooses to by pass these players and purchase from *unknowns* with few forum posts tied to a history of only trying to sell these types of items, the risk should be placed upon them for making that decision, not some handholding from a big mother Wurm.

Does this make scamming legal? Not in any way, it merely puts the responsibility for making these types of purchases upon the proper individual, the buyer. For those who lack the common sense to make responsible choices in these transactions, there really is no solution for trying to abdicate the responsibility for making ones own decisions. As for myself, I only deal with people I know from in game interactions or those who have proven themselves to be reliable with their postings and dealings on these forums. No handholding from big mother Wurm for me, thanks.

=Ayes=

If the GM's had come out and said this? Problem solved...

[Oracle 318]

Ayes sounds like a good PR candidate.