I just ran into a problem with the vulgarity flag feature. It reveals whole messages therefore if someone breached SMA on dwilight in a message of a sensitive nature flagging it would reveal that information to people who aren't supposed to know about it in character.
Messages you receive as part of a vulgarity report are considered IC knowledge by your character.
Yeah that's the problem I'm getting at.
Think of it like the guy who received the letter originally does in fact have IC knowledge of it, and thus sends off a copy of that letter to the skies where it is brought to you, the reviewer's knowledge. Therefore, it is, in fact, an actual copy of the letter as legit as the original, because clicking that link basically means the reporter sends it out ICly. He doesn't know to whom, but hey, messages in a bottle floating out at sea know not what ports they may see.
That's the problem, no one in their right mind would do that. It should be more along the lines of "rumor has it Jim curses like a peasant".
Suppose a letter has marching orders for an army, but also some curses in it. If anyone flags it the opposing army could receive marching orders. Huge flaw. I suggest either make the knowledge of the curses IC but the details of the letter OOC or rework the feature to prevent this from happening (like restrict peer review only to people who could see the original letter, or let the person flagging select who they want to review it).
well... it's not like marching orders can't be leaked anyway. only thing is, you can't be tortured into revealing you are the one who leaked it.
only thing would be.. people clicking vulgarity link maliciously for the purpose of leaking info to random people.
a while back, i think i got a vulgarity report of someone telling off someone else for being vulgar. can't remember how it goes, but there's nothing vulgar about that message at all.
but there's no helping that. making it a small circle thing renders the whole thing pointless.
Quote from: pcw27 on January 07, 2012, 08:53:45 PM
I just ran into a problem with the vulgarity flag feature. It reveals whole messages therefore if someone breached SMA on dwilight in a message of a sensitive nature flagging it would reveal that information to people who aren't supposed to know about it in character.
I often report sensitive messages as vulgarity as a way of leaking them out around the continent without incriminating myself.
It's a clever way of being a major leak and damage to a person or realm without almost no risk to yourself.
Quote from: Vellos on January 07, 2012, 11:58:56 PM
I often report sensitive messages as vulgarity as a way of leaking them out around the continent without incriminating myself.
It's a clever way of being a major leak and damage to a person or realm without almost no risk to yourself.
Isn't there a chance of a prestige hit to yourself if you repeatedly report things that others don't agree with?
Quote from: pcw27 on January 07, 2012, 11:40:32 PM
That's the problem, no one in their right mind would do that. It should be more along the lines of "rumor has it Jim curses like a peasant".
Suppose a letter has marching orders for an army, but also some curses in it. If anyone flags it the opposing army could receive marching orders. Huge flaw. I suggest either make the knowledge of the curses IC but the details of the letter OOC or rework the feature to prevent this from happening (like restrict peer review only to people who could see the original letter, or let the person flagging select who they want to review it).
Then you can flag the message, wait until the contents are no longer pertinent, then submit the vulgarity report.
If someone really wants to be sneaky and malicious, then H/P hardly matters to him/her.
Really Vulgarity messages are IC? I've always treated them as OOC information. To me it was always a game mechanic asking for my opinion as a player, not as a character.
Something like "If it's not explicitly stated that it's OOC, or if it's not immediately obvious that it's OOC, then it can be considered IC."
Hey, Magistrate section is right there. /me points at an imaginary point on that other axis. Maybe they can give better definition.
http://battlemaster.org/testing/MessageComplain.php?ID=3168982 (http://battlemaster.org/testing/MessageComplain.php?ID=3168982)
Quote
As a noble, you can expect to be treated with respect and dignity, and expect certain manners from your peers. That does not mean they can not be offensive or they can not backstab you, but it does mean their manner of speech and behaviour should stand above the common, vulgar peasants.
You can mark another noble's words as vulgar and unbefitting of his class, and they will be forwarded to several randomly selected distinguished nobles for a short peer-review. If they agree on your assessment, the vulgar noble will lose a point of honour for behaving in a non-noble way.
If you complain falsely too often, you yourself will lose respect among your peers, and suffer the consequences.
Note that it says, several times, 'noble', and not 'player'. That indicates that it is IG/IC.
Quote from: Vellos on January 07, 2012, 11:58:56 PM
I often report sensitive messages as vulgarity as a way of leaking them out around the continent without incriminating myself.
It's a clever way of being a major leak and damage to a person or realm without almost no risk to yourself.
...I really hate not being able to hear people's tone of voice, but I'm going to assume this is sarcastic.
Quote from: Bedwyr on January 08, 2012, 07:31:31 AM
...I really hate not being able to hear people's tone of voice, but I'm going to assume this is sarcastic.
I doubt it.
Quote from: Bedwyr on January 08, 2012, 07:31:31 AM
...I really hate not being able to hear people's tone of voice, but I'm going to assume this is sarcastic.
No, not at all. I thought of it when I received an extremely sensitive military message one time on Beluaterra that was not vulgar in the slightest; and it suddenly clicked for me: somebody was ahead of the game on how to undermine their realm. It's completely untraceable and, even if somebody did pin it to you, as long as you can fabricate some story about your honor being offended or something, it won't be immediately assumed your a saboteur.
It's clearly IC information on both ends. And, it's a fair tradeoff: I can leak invulnerably, but I get no control over who receives, and I risk losing H/P if I do it too much. Basically, it's one tier of betrayal below simply spying, IMHO.
H/P loss hardly matters if you make a character specifically to do just that: Send out untraceable leaked information out there. No guarantee it'll be useful, but a very high chance that it'll mess around with your realm's happy poo poo.
On the other hand, I can't seem to get my honor to 0 so I can be an outlaw without ever being an infiltrator. I mean, I play a goddamn cussing monkey on Colonies. You'd think every message would be flagged (They have been I think). Yet I'm still nowhere close >_<
Quote from: Vellos on January 08, 2012, 05:43:27 PM
No, not at all. I thought of it when I received an extremely sensitive military message one time on Beluaterra that was not vulgar in the slightest; and it suddenly clicked for me: somebody was ahead of the game on how to undermine their realm. It's completely untraceable and, even if somebody did pin it to you, as long as you can fabricate some story about your honor being offended or something, it won't be immediately assumed your a saboteur.
It's clearly IC information on both ends. And, it's a fair tradeoff: I can leak invulnerably, but I get no control over who receives, and I risk losing H/P if I do it too much. Basically, it's one tier of betrayal below simply spying, IMHO.
I literally have no words capable of expressing my feelings at this statement.
Quote from: pcw27 on January 07, 2012, 08:53:45 PM
I just ran into a problem with the vulgarity flag feature. It reveals whole messages therefore if someone breached SMA on dwilight in a message of a sensitive nature flagging it would reveal that information to people who aren't supposed to know about it in character.
Skipping over the issue of people flagging vulgar messages purely out of spite, in the above example, surely the obvious solution is to not be vulgar? If you are vulgar, well, broadcasting your letter is the price you pay.
Quote from: De-Legro on January 08, 2012, 02:17:59 AM
Really Vulgarity messages are IC? I've always treated them as OOC information. To me it was always a game mechanic asking for my opinion as a player, not as a character.
Ditto. I feel like I'm being asked to judge the people I'm playing with and I try to take it seriously. I'm sat there going 'Was there really any need to use a word like that?' or 'Oh, this guy has just gotten under someone's skin. There's nothing in it.' Though even if you take messages as IC, what are you really learning? Usually you're just getting a glimpse of some textbook intra-realm power struggle that's gotten a little heated. There's never any juice in it.
Using the vulgarity flag feature as an IC tool seems to me to be one of the clearest instances of OOC/IC abuse I have ever run across. Shouldn't this just be marked as something that is clearly OOC?
in practical and cynical terms.. does it make a blind bit of difference? if they want to use it, they will...
Quote from: bluexmas on January 08, 2012, 08:47:05 PM
Using the vulgarity flag feature as an IC tool seems to me to be one of the clearest instances of OOC/IC abuse I have ever run across. Shouldn't this just be marked as something that is clearly OOC?
Quote from: egamma on January 08, 2012, 06:21:09 AM
http://battlemaster.org/testing/MessageComplain.php?ID=3168982 (http://battlemaster.org/testing/MessageComplain.php?ID=3168982)
Note that it says, several times, 'noble', and not 'player'. That indicates that it is IG/IC.
Hello? am I invisible? The message is clearly between one noble and another.
I've only skimmed this.
But it seems we need to add another voting option to "vulgar" and "not vulgar" - "abuse".
Quote from: Tom on January 08, 2012, 11:20:44 PM
I've only skimmed this.
But it seems we need to add another voting option to "vulgar" and "not vulgar" - "abuse".
Agreed.
Or, simply list the sender of the vulgarity report, on every report.
Quote from: pcw27 on January 07, 2012, 08:53:45 PM
I just ran into a problem with the vulgarity flag feature. It reveals whole messages therefore if someone breached SMA on dwilight in a message of a sensitive nature flagging it would reveal that information to people who aren't supposed to know about it in character.
A SMA breach could also be handled by the titans.
I think the simplest policy would be to rule that a vulgarity flag is not literal. No noble in their right mind would send sensitive letters to random people just because their peer cursed, however a noble would certainly inform others if someone was spewing vulgar statements.
The rule could simply be that the act of vulgarity is IC but any other information is not. Quite simply if you get a peer review you've just heard that the person in question said SOMETHING unbefitting a noble, but IC you don't know what.
Such a thing is completely unenforceable.
I like the idea of an "Abuse" button on vulgarity reports. I know that probably half of the ones I've seen lately had absolutely nothing in them that could be considered vulgar, or even rude.
Quote from: Tom on January 08, 2012, 11:20:44 PM
I've only skimmed this.
But it seems we need to add another voting option to "vulgar" and "not vulgar" - "abuse".
Abuse referring to what?
It's an obviously IC tool. It says in its descriptions that it is IC. Nothing at all in it flags it as being anything other than a way to forward messages to a random set of respected nobles for the purpose of their judging it.
Quote from: egamma on January 08, 2012, 09:57:02 PM
Hello? am I invisible? The message is clearly between one noble and another.
Indeed. Totally IC.
Quote from: Vellos on January 09, 2012, 04:07:00 PMIt's an obviously IC tool. It says in its descriptions that it is IC. Nothing at all in it flags it as being anything other than a way to forward messages to a random set of respected nobles for the purpose of their judging it.
Wut? This last sentence on the vulgarity report page, the one that is emphasized by italics, tells you that flagging messages
based on their content is a misuse of the system:
QuoteThis is a tool to enforce proper roleplaying and keep the atmosphere and quality level of the game up. The focus is on the manner of speech, not its contents.
If you are flagging messages because of their content, then
you are blatantly misusing the tool.
I've never known how to interpret that, as the manner is the content.
That is, profanity is part of content. So I shouldn't flag based on profanity?
Alternatively: at least one of my characters (though not the one who has made most frequent use of the vulgarity feature) regards basically everyone around him as inherently inferior and vulgar. He reports the messages of people he dislikes, regardless of content or manners, because they are simply, of their very nature, honorless scum. No idea how frequently those messages have actually been ruled vulgar or not; my guess is they usually aren't. And my character has probably lost H/P over the issue.
Hm, now that I re-read it, the vulgarity page could use some re-work. The first two paragraphs are clearly all IC comments, never referencing players. The third paragraph is OOC. Could use more clarification.
Honestly, I never read the third paragraph until now. It's in italics at the end; that says "parenthetical clarification; not essential information" to me, but that's quite arbitrary.
However, upon actually reading it, yeah, reporting messages as a form of espionage would be abuse. I shall stop immediately. Though I certainly don't think it's abuse to report vulgarity just because a character personally annoys your character.
annoying you is not exactly vulgar. vulgarity is stuff like swearing like a peasant. surely?
Being a coward, being a pacifist, being a democratically minded person, being opposed to torture, being a non-combat class and presuming to have a right to an opinion, favoring the rule of law.... these are all insulting and vulgar opinions to Cyrilos Vellos. Also, sympathy for Enweil is vulgar. Also, any assertion of IVF's sovereignty is a vulgar offense to the very concept of sovereignty.
No, I don't report every message, not even a large percentage of those messages (that would be spamming the system, which I don't do). But periodically, yes, Cyrilos reports for those reasons. It's vulgarity. Advocating for democracy? What nonsense!
Again, you are reporting messages based on the
content, not the
manner of speech. While I admire your creative interpretation and definition of the system, it seems to me that you're still misusing the system for something other than that for which it is intended.
"Republics suck ass, we need a democracy, bitches!" is clearly vulgar.
"Nobles of Riombara, our republican system has failed us. I propose a referendum to investigate the possibility of switching to a more democratic system." is clearly not.
Quote from: Vellos on January 10, 2012, 05:59:01 PMBeing a coward, being a pacifist, being a democratically minded person, being opposed to torture, being a non-combat class and presuming to have a right to an opinion, favoring the rule of law.... these are all insulting...
So what? Insulting is not vulgar, as the Vulgarity system clearly intends:
QuoteThat does not mean they can not be offensive ...
You have taken a tool that was clearly and obviously intended as a way to improve the player atmosphere of the game, to enforce politeness and civility, and twisted it to do something that was not intended. If the way you're using the system is in any way indicative of the way the players at large are using it, then it is clear that the system is being widely abused, and needs to be removed.
that would be completely against the whole idea of that system and a clear abuse.. spamming or not spamming
on the other hand, i think a noble going around calling advy his bro would be vulgar.
Quote from: Indirik on January 10, 2012, 06:12:36 PM
Again, you are reporting messages based on the content, not the manner of speech. While I admire your creative interpretation and definition of the system, it seems to me that you're still misusing the system for something other than that for which it is intended.
"Republics suck ass, we need a democracy, bitches!" is clearly vulgar.
"Nobles of Riombara, our republican system has failed us. I propose a referendum to investigate the possibility of switching to a more democratic system." is clearly not.
So what? Insulting is not vulgar, as the Vulgarity system clearly intends:
You have taken a tool that was clearly and obviously intended as a way to improve the player atmosphere of the game, to enforce politeness and civility, and twisted it to do something that was not intended. If the way you're using the system is in any way indicative of the way the players at large are using it, then it is clear that the system is being widely abused, and needs to be removed.
"vul·gar/ˈvəlgər/
Adjective:
Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined: "the vulgar trappings of wealth".
Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude: "a vulgar joke"."
Lacking in sophistication or good taste. Democracy, republicanism, sympathies for Enweil, are all lacking in sophistication or good taste (according to one of my characters' IC beliefs). Profanity is not inherently vulgar; only if it is in reference to certain topics. Vulgar has a root word meaning common, as in common people: anything that smacks of commoner-ish behavior would seem to be generally associated with the word.
I'm sorry, if all the vulgarity feature is for is to police a list of words, then that list should be published somewhere. I grasp and, on considering it, ultimately agree that using the vulgarity feature as a leaking method is abuse. But you cannot seriously distinguish between the content of a message and the manner of the message; the manner is a component of the content. And in the eyes of at least a few characters who have been plausibly RPed this way, there is no way under which certain political ideologies can not be vulgar. It doesn't matter if a noble advocates for treating commoners as equals to nobles, to take just one example, with slang words or formal speech:
the very principle of the thing is offensive and vulgar, and against the RP culture of BM. I don't see why that shouldn't be reported as vulgarity: it would have the same or a similar reputational effect to be a serf-lover as it would to talk like a serf.
Quote from: Vellos on January 10, 2012, 07:14:44 PM
"vul·gar/ˈvəlgər/
Yes, I know that you know how to look up the definition of a word. We can all use Wiktionary, or dictionary.com without the copy/paste assistance.
QuoteI'm sorry, if all the vulgarity feature is for is to police a list of words, then that list should be published somewhere.
Simple word filters are completely insufficient, easily fooled, and don't account for regional and realm-based differences. This has been discussed in the past on the Discussion List. (Unfortunately, I don't think Tom was ever able to make the list archives available after the list server was shut down.)
QuoteBut you cannot seriously distinguish between the content of a message and the manner of the message; the manner is a component of the content. And in the eyes of at least a few characters who have been plausibly RPed this way, there is no way under which certain political ideologies can not be vulgar.
Political ideologies are Content, not Manner. The vulgarity feature is intended to police manners, etiquette, atmosphere, and quality. In other words, it's not
what is done (i.e. the Content), but the
way it is done (i.e. the Manner). (Since I know you already know how to look up the definition of words, I'll let you go look up the definitions of Content and Manner, and how they would apply to this discussion, at your own discretion.)
And are you seriously going to try and claim that discussing a democratic government destroys the atmosphere and quality of the game overall? That's so silly it doesn't even deserve a discussion.
And, again, you are mixing content and manner of speech. If you are reporting a message because of the ideas it contains or advocates, you are almost certainly misusing the feature. The feature is intended to punish improper manners of expressing those ideas, not for punishing the statement of those ideas.
But I know that you're a smart enough person to understand the difference here. I'm not going to spend the next 20 posts wordsmithing and ruleslawyering over esoteric definitions of words and applications of language.
Quote from: Indirik on January 10, 2012, 07:58:02 PM
Political ideologies are Content, not Manner. The vulgarity feature is intended to police manners, etiquette, atmosphere, and quality. In other words, it's not what is done (i.e. the Content), but the way it is done (i.e. the Manner). (Since I know you already know how to look up the definition of words, I'll let you go look up the definitions of Content and Manner, and how they would apply to this discussion, at your own discretion.)
And are you seriously going to try and claim that discussing a democratic government destroys the atmosphere and quality of the game overall? That's so silly it doesn't even deserve a discussion.
And, again, you are mixing content and manner of speech. If you are reporting a message because of the ideas it contains or advocates, you are almost certainly misusing the feature. The feature is intended to punish improper manners of expressing those ideas, not for punishing the statement of those ideas.
But I know that you're a smart enough person to understand the difference here. I'm not going to spend the next 20 posts wordsmithing and ruleslawyering over esoteric definitions of words and applications of language.
I'm not using esoteric definitions. I'm using very simple ones; like, the most common usages of the words.
I don't understand the distinction between "Manner" and "Content" that you're making. I honestly don't. When I think of the "manner" as divorced from content, I think of the message type (orders, report, etc) and the recipients list. Maybe also the timestamp on the letter. Those are clearly manner divorced from message content.
And, personally, I do think any advocacy for democracy (in any remotely modern sense of the word) hurts the game atmosphere.
You seem to be taking a purely OOC stance on the vulgarity: that we should all regard it as an OOC tool for policing manners. The vulgarity page does reference OOC concerns at the end.
But the vast bulk of the page is all about IC concerns! My characters have IC opinions about what they consider vulgar, and they report them as such.
I see this problem as two sided: sometimes, players get OOC upset when their messages get reported as vulgarity. I've seen it many times. Whenever it was a message I've reported, I've always owned up to it and stood by it. Usually, the thing that I say is something along the lines of "Vulgarity is not about you as a player. I'm not saying I think you're a vulgar person. I'm saying my character thinks your character is a vulgar person."
With some people, that doesn't fly. But with many, it does. The game deals out completely IC penalties for something framed mostly in IC terms that has clear IC functions and is judged ICly by people with IC power (it's based on H/P, isn't it?).
As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are arguing that, despite the above, it should be regarded in principle as an OOC tool we use to reign in players who are being vulgar, not characters who are being vulgar. In which case I have become deeply confused over the use of the feature, and why the bulk of its description and functionality seems to be so IC.
Quote from: Vellos on January 10, 2012, 10:06:07 PMI'm not using esoteric definitions. I'm using very simple ones; like, the most common usages of the words.
Possibly, but these are not the definitions of the words that were intended. We all know that words have multiple definitions, and depending on which definition you use, the meaning of the words, and the concepts expressed by them, changes drastically. You don't get to pick the definition of the word to suit whatever purpose you want it to serve
when someone else wrote the text. That type of free interpretation is why we have 65 page license agreements that you have to have a lawyer interpret for you. If you want to understand what the author intends to say, then you need to use the definitions of the word that the author intended.
QuoteI see this problem as two sided: sometimes, players get OOC upset when their messages get reported as vulgarity. I've seen it many times. Whenever it was a message I've reported, I've always owned up to it and stood by it. Usually, the thing that I say is something along the lines of "Vulgarity is not about you as a player. I'm not saying I think you're a vulgar person. I'm saying my character thinks your character is a vulgar person."
I, as well, have seen some people fly off the handle when one of their messages was reported as vulgar. Everything from "*#$*% you! I'll show you vulgar you *&!##$#!" all the way to "OMG! That message was super-private, now anyone who got it as a report will know all our secrets!" I think the only few messages I've reported as Vulgar were the super-obvious stuff where the player let out a string of cuss words that were obviously unsuitable for the game environment.
Quote...and is judged ICly by people with IC power (it's based on H/P, isn't it?).
I am not familiar with the criteria the game uses to select the message reviewers.
QuoteAs I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are arguing that, despite the above, it should be regarded in principle as an OOC tool we use to reign in players who are being vulgar, not characters who are being vulgar. In which case I have become deeply confused over the use of the feature, and why the bulk of its description and functionality seems to be so IC.
It can be thought of as an IC tool, and described and used completely IC. The descriptions on the page are kept IC as much as possible, in the desire to keep as much of the game and interaction as IC as possible. We want to keep as much IC as we can, so as to help maintain immersion, and try to keep the
character's actions from being transferred over and attributed to the
player. i.e. it's not Lyman Stone that said you're an uncouth braggart who's father should have been castrated at an early age, it's Hireshmont Vellos that said it, and Hireshmont Vellos said it to your character, not you the player.
Yes, it can be seen to have both IC and OOC components, but they
do overlap. Maintaining the atmosphere of the game for the players also maintains the noble atmosphere of the characters IG as well, and vice-versa. Maintaining politeness and courtesy keeps the game more enjoyable for the players, and simulates the manner of interaction that we are trying to model IC. Reigning in the character for being vulgar also reigns in the player, and hopefully their other characters.
The Vulgarity system is
not a general-purpose tool for adjustment of a character's honor based on any arbitrary criteria of your choosing. It is a tool to punish the expression of ideas
in a vulgar manner. Notice the emphasis on "in a vulgar manner", because that's the important part. It is not the idea or the expression of the idea that is being examined/punished. It is the way in which that idea is expressed.
IOW - It is
not intended to punish the act of expressing the ideas, or to punish the idea itself. When deciding whether or not a message is vulgar, you need to separate the ideas being expressed (i.e. the "content") from the way in which they are expressed (i.e. the "manner"). For example:
For those of you reading along at home, if you don't like reading profanity, then don't read the rest of this post...- Advocating friendship with Enweil, and a desire to see Eretzism spread across Riombara is not "vulgar" in the eyes of the BM Vulgarity system. Your character may view this as uncouth, or distasteful. (Both are definitions of Vulgar.) But if the other character expresses this in a polite manner that is befitting of a noble, then it is not "Vulgar".
- "Eretzism is a noble faith that would honor and enlighten Riombara with its presence." This may make you or your character gag, but in the eyes of the BattleMaster Vulgarity system, it is not vulgar.
- "Qyrvaginaism sucks! We need to get Eretzism in here to straighten your asses out." This... well, it's vulgar.
- Being opposed to the torture of other nobles is not vulgar. Your character may advocate torture, may think that it is completely appropriate to torture your enemies, and may think that people who advocate restraint in its use are somewhat less than noble. But their stating their preference for leniency is, in and of itself, not a vulgar act in the eyes of the BattleMaster vulgarity system.
- "You cruel beast! How dare you subject another noble, and a royal one no less, to such inhumane treatment? No noble should ever be forced to endure such as this. If I could, I would condemn you to the very same brutality which you have visited upon others, so that you may experience the unending pain which you so cavalierly visit upon others!" - Not vulgar.
- "You !@#$ing sick bastard! I'll rip your balls off and shove them down your !@#$ing throat! You're such an ass! It's sick !@#$s like you that ruin this for the rest of us!" - Vulgar.
I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than this. Perhaps, if you can set aside your current notions of how it should be used, and see it in this light, you can help re-describe it in a manner that more clearly gets across this interpretation I'm trying to describe.
Quote from: Indirik on January 11, 2012, 05:06:42 PM
- Advocating friendship with Enweil, and a desire to see Eretzism spread across Riombara is not "vulgar" in the eyes of the BM Vulgarity system. Your character may view this as uncouth, or distasteful. (Both are definitions of Vulgar.) But if the other character expresses this in a polite manner that is befitting of a noble, then it is not "Vulgar".
- "Eretzism is a noble faith that would honor and enlighten Riombara with its presence." This may make you or your character gag, but in the eyes of the BattleMaster Vulgarity system, it is not vulgar.
- "Qyrvaginaism sucks! We need to get Eretzism in here to straighten your asses out." This... well, it's vulgar.
- Being opposed to the torture of other nobles is not vulgar. Your character may advocate torture, may think that it is completely appropriate to torture your enemies, and may think that people who advocate restraint in its use are somewhat less than noble. But their stating their preference for leniency is, in and of itself, not a vulgar act in the eyes of the BattleMaster vulgarity system.
- "You cruel beast! How dare you subject another noble, and a royal one no less, to such inhumane treatment? No noble should ever be forced to endure such as this. If I could, I would condemn you to the very same brutality which you have visited upon others, so that you may experience the unending pain which you so cavalierly visit upon others!" - Not vulgar.
- "You !@#$ing sick bastard! I'll rip your balls off and shove them down your !@#$ing throat! You're such an ass! It's sick !@#$s like you that ruin this for the rest of us!" - Vulgar.
I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than this. Perhaps, if you can set aside your current notions of how it should be used, and see it in this light, you can help re-describe it in a manner that more clearly gets across this interpretation I'm trying to describe.
You might be right on every point there.
And if the judges of vulgarity agree, my character will lose honor. And guess what? My character cares about his honor. I think most characters reporting for the reasons I have cited would, in fact, care about their honor.
But if most of those vulgarity reports
in fact are judged to be vulgar (and I honestly don't know if they are or not; I know I've not had any notices about lost honor or anything due to excessive reporting)... then apparently most of the judges agree. It is vulgar. The judges are nobles we presume worthy to judge. I, thus, implicitly trust their judgment.
That is, IMHO, reporting a thing as vulgar which in fact is not vulgar is not abuse. Other people judge it to decide if it is vulgar. Reporting a non-vulgar thing as vulgar
simply to spread information is, contrary to my earlier statements (I was wrong), abuse, because it basically accomplishes your goal no matter the judgments made. But I hardly see how systematically erroneous reporting because a character is a pretentious ass is abuse.
I can think of many ways to describe your interpretation. Best one?
"These feature is to police for words which are offensive. Examples are:..." followed by a list of common profanities.
Alternatively, rename the darn thing. You're not talking about vulgarity. You're talking about profanity. Call it a profanities or obscenities.
Profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity are different (sometimes overlapping but still definable) things. I am not bound to interpret them incorrectly because someone else did.
Quote from: Vellos on January 12, 2012, 03:27:53 AM
You might be right on every point there.
And if the judges of vulgarity agree, my character will lose honor. And guess what? My character cares about his honor. I think most characters reporting for the reasons I have cited would, in fact, care about their honor.
But if most of those vulgarity reports in fact are judged to be vulgar (and I honestly don't know if they are or not; I know I've not had any notices about lost honor or anything due to excessive reporting)... then apparently most of the judges agree. It is vulgar. The judges are nobles we presume worthy to judge. I, thus, implicitly trust their judgment.
That is, IMHO, reporting a thing as vulgar which in fact is not vulgar is not abuse. Other people judge it to decide if it is vulgar. Reporting a non-vulgar thing as vulgar simply to spread information is, contrary to my earlier statements (I was wrong), abuse, because it basically accomplishes your goal no matter the judgments made. But I hardly see how systematically erroneous reporting because a character is a pretentious ass is abuse.
I can think of many ways to describe your interpretation. Best one?
"These feature is to police for words which are offensive. Examples are:..." followed by a list of common profanities.
Alternatively, rename the darn thing. You're not talking about vulgarity. You're talking about profanity. Call it a profanities or obscenities.
Profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity are different (sometimes overlapping but still definable) things. I am not bound to interpret them incorrectly because someone else did.
To my understanding it covers more then simple profanity. Things like unnecessarily belittling someone and other unacceptable behaviour are also covered, thus the more general vulgar which covers profanity as well. Vulgar is infact a good word since if covers unacceptable behaviour for a noble, that we would not consider profane
vul·gar (vlgr)
adj.
1. Crudely indecent.
2.
a. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
b. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish.
c. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious: the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
3. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people;
4. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.
Points 2a, 2b 3 and 4 are highly relevant. To use the running example
To use the content, manner division, if one was to express their admiration of the Republic system, but using the accent and vocabulary of a cockney drunk, it could well be judge vulgar without containing any explicit profane words.
De-Legro,
As I see it, you, are exclusively (and certainly explicitly) referencing definition 3, kind of definition 4, and largely actually ignoring definition 2.
I think that the word has a plethora of meanings. It should not be considered abuse when players arrive at different, IC conclusions that do not cause them to reap a great advantage from the system. The vulgarity system has a built-in means for addressing this diversity of opinion; there is no reason to label it abuse.
Quote from: Vellos on January 12, 2012, 06:10:15 AM
De-Legro,
As I see it, you, are exclusively (and certainly explicitly) referencing definition 3, kind of definition 4, and largely actually ignoring definition 2.
I think that the word has a plethora of meanings. It should not be considered abuse when players arrive at different, IC conclusions that do not cause them to reap a great advantage from the system. The vulgarity system has a built-in means for addressing this diversity of opinion; there is no reason to label it abuse.
You think using "Peasant" language is somehow not covered what definition 2a or 2b? Besides which one single word is not the only direction you are given with regards to the tool. My example is just one of the ways things can be vulgar, given the further advice the tool gives you.
"As a noble, you can expect to be treated with respect and dignity, and expect certain manners from your peers. That does not mean they can not be offensive or they can not backstab you, but it does mean their manner of speech and behaviour should stand above the common, vulgar peasants. "
Besides which you only assume it has a built in means for addressing the issue. I've not looked at this part of the code, but it certainly wouldn't be the first half implemented feature we have, so there is no guarantee that people overusing the feature do lose honour, nor is there any guarantee that you receive feedback if the honour penalty does work.
Quote from: De-Legro on January 12, 2012, 06:41:03 AM
Besides which you only assume it has a built in means for addressing the issue. I've not looked at this part of the code, but it certainly wouldn't be the first half implemented feature we have, so there is no guarantee that people overusing the feature do lose honour, nor is there any guarantee that you receive feedback if the honour penalty does work.
Indeed, there is no guarantee of receiving feedback. I think I indicated I was unsure if I'd lost honor or not. Personally, I think there should be feedback. That could potentially change my character's behavior.
The game text clearly indicates there is a penalty. If the programming is lagging behind and no penalty was actually implemented... then maybe it should be implemented to see how it works?
Quote from: Vellos on January 12, 2012, 06:10:15 AM
De-Legro,
As I see it, you, are exclusively (and certainly explicitly) referencing definition 3, kind of definition 4, and largely actually ignoring definition 2.
I think that the word has a plethora of meanings. It should not be considered abuse when players arrive at different, IC conclusions that do not cause them to reap a great advantage from the system. The vulgarity system has a built-in means for addressing this diversity of opinion; there is no reason to label it abuse.
In typical style, you're nitpicking definitions in order to distract from the fact that you abused a game system to act as a spy with virtually no chance of any repercussions. I think that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen in this game. Were it in my power I'd permanently lock your account for that sort of bull!@#$, and rest assured I'll be doing my best to ensure no character of yours in the same realm as mine ever receives any information that could possibly be sensitive.
For the record:
I agree 100% that using the vulgarity feature to spread messages around instead of getting a judgement on vulgarity is a plain and obvious abuse.
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 10:23:58 AM
In typical style, you're nitpicking definitions in order to distract from the fact that you abused a game system to act as a spy with virtually no chance of any repercussions. I think that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen in this game. Were it in my power I'd permanently lock your account for that sort of bull!@#$, and rest assured I'll be doing my best to ensure no character of yours in the same realm as mine ever receives any information that could possibly be sensitive.
Well. Now that's what I'd call taking an OOC thing IC.
Quote from: Tom on January 24, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
For the record:
I agree 100% that using the vulgarity feature to spread messages around instead of getting a judgement on vulgarity is a plain and obvious abuse.
And, for the record, after the issue was discussed, I agreed, and conceded that my earlier position was wrong.
The current (well, not current, but most recent) debate is not about that anymore, but about whether vulgarity refers to
only a set of words/phrases (how I interpret the position of several others), or whether it encompasses a broader swathe of behavior. This then boils down to whether the vulgarity tool should primarily be seen as an OOC or and IC mechanism, and whether any reporting of vulgarity that is not immediately within the purview of the vulgarity function should be reported as abuse, or whether the current penalties are sufficient.
Quote from: Vellos on January 24, 2012, 03:23:43 PM
Well. Now that's what I'd call taking an OOC thing IC.
If someone is willing to abuse game mechanics to the degree to which you obviously are, I think I have a right to protect those realms I am a part of. Given your actions have officially been classified as abuse, I'd happily have you OOC banned from any realm where you took such an action or bring you up before the Magistrates.
I think you're taking this slightly out of proportion.
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 04:26:36 PM
If someone is willing to abuse game mechanics to the degree to which you obviously are, I think I have a right to protect those realms I am a part of. Given your actions have officially been classified as abuse, I'd happily have you OOC banned from any realm where you took such an action or bring you up before the Magistrates.
funny. how do you know which character he did it with?
... or that he was the one that did it. Assuming you could even prove that it was done that way.
Also, it should be pointed out that Vellos has already admitted that his position was in error, and that he will no longer do this. It seems a bit irrational to now demand that his account be locked, and that his characters should now be OOC banned.
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
Also, it should be pointed out that Vellos has already admitted that his position was in error, and that he will no longer do this. It seems a bit irrational to now demand that his account be locked, and that his characters should now be OOC banned.
Kind of what I was going for.
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
Also, it should be pointed out that Vellos has already admitted that his position was in error, and that he will no longer do this. It seems a bit irrational to now demand that his account be locked, and that his characters should now be OOC banned.
And, also, it seems kind of like an ex post facto rule. Most nations restrict or prohibit such laws. The idea that I could be punished for an action that nobody had ever stated was abuse (and which I did not think was abuse at the time, as I "learned" how to do it after I observed others doing it) based on a rule made
well after the action seems a bit unfair. I'm not going to do it going forward; and I would hardly say I have a track record of abuse.
Quote from: fodder on January 24, 2012, 06:41:10 PM
funny. how do you know which character he did it with?
Funny. When did I say I knew which character it was?
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
... or that he was the one that did it. Assuming you could even prove that it was done that way.
Not difficult when he freely admitted to having done it often.
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
Also, it should be pointed out that Vellos has already admitted that his position was in error, and that he will no longer do this. It seems a bit irrational to now demand that his account be locked, and that his characters should now be OOC banned.
Yes, because in the real world, admitting you're wrong absolves you of any possible punishment for past actions. And no one ever lies about something they can continue to do with no chance whatsoever of ever being caught.
Anyway, I've alreay taken what actions I deem appropriate on this. Everyone else is free to make their own decisions on it. I certainly won't be trusting any characters of a player that has admitted and defended such "creative" interpretations of the rules in future.
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 07:27:57 PM
Funny. When did I say I knew which character it was?
You did. Right here:
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 04:26:36 PM...I'd happily have you OOC banned from any realm where you took such an action...
That kind of requires that you would know which one of his characters did it.
QuoteYes, because in the real world, admitting you're wrong absolves you of any possible punishment for past actions.
In the real world, you won't be prosecuted for doing something that was not illegal when you did it. i.e. If a law is passed
today making it illegal to wear a blue shirt, you won't be arrested for having worn one
yesterday.
Vellos has stated that his viewpoint on the rule has changed, and that he won't do it anymore. What more do you want out of him? His account to be permanently banned because he made a mistake, admitted it, and stated that he won't do that anymore? Crap, I'm all for hammering people who knowingly break the rules and show no remorse, but I'm not
that bloodthirsty.
QuoteAnd no one ever lies about something they can continue to do with no chance whatsoever of ever being caught.
So... pretty much everyone should be OOC banned because they
could do this and never get caught. And no one would ever not use something to their advantage even if it's against the rules, so long as they know they won't get caught...
There's a
huge difference between doing something when you think it's OK, and doing something when you know it's wrong but you also know you can't be caught doing it.
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 07:43:21 PM
You did. Right here:
That kind of requires that you would know which one of his characters did it.
You will notice I said
would happily do so. That kinda implies that it's not within my power. Because, you know, I don't know which character it was? Why on earth would I say I knew which character did it when I have no possible way of doing so? Jesus, what is it with forums and ridiculous nitpicking of every possible interpretation of a sentence?
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 07:43:21 PM
And no one would ever not use something to their advantage even if it's against the rules, so long as they know they won't get caught...
What planet do you live on? Can I live there too?
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 07:43:21 PM
So... pretty much everyone should be OOC banned because they could do this and never get caught.
No, but how about those that, you know, freely admitted to doing so?
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 07:43:21 PM
There's a huge difference between doing something when you think it's OK, and doing something when you know it's wrong but you also know you can't be caught doing it.
Most of the other people in this thread managed to figure it out. You're honestly saying it's hard to work out that using a game mechanic in a manner very obviously not intended in order to do something that can potentially be severely damaging to a realm with zero risk of being caught is abuse? Really? Is your estimation of the intelligence of the people playing this game really that low?
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 07:58:27 PMMost of the other people in this thread managed to figure it out. You're honestly saying it's hard to work out that using a game mechanic in a manner very obviously not intended in order to do something that can potentially be severely damaging to a realm with zero risk of being caught is abuse?
Lots of people have come up with all kinds of different interpretations of the rules. I can see how Vellos arrived at what he got, even if I don't personally agree with it. Nevertheless, he's changed his mind on the proper use of the feature, even before Tom spoke up regarding his intentions for the feature. So... let's move on, shall we?
As for the zero risk thing... He could have done the same, or worse, by just sending the messages to a foreign ruler/general/marshal/etc. It would have been even more damaging, because he would have a higher expectation of the information actually getting used, as opposed to just tossing it out into the ether and /hoping/ someone would get it and use it.
QuoteIs your estimation of the intelligence of the people playing this game really that low?
On the contrary, I think that the players of BattleMaster are, on the whole, a very intelligent group of people. But it is often those kinds of people that come up with these novel interpretations of the rules.
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 08:28:53 PM
As for the zero risk thing... He could have done the same, or worse, by just sending the messages to a foreign ruler/general/marshal/etc. It would have been even more damaging, because he would have a higher expectation of the information actually getting used, as opposed to just tossing it out into the ether and /hoping/ someone would get it and use it.
Sorry, doesn't fly. He specifically stated he did it so he could be "a major leak" with "almost no risk" to himself, as it was "completely untraceable".
Quote from: Indirik on January 24, 2012, 08:28:53 PM
Lots of people have come up with all kinds of different interpretations of the rules. I can see how Vellos arrived at what he got, even if I don't personally agree with it. Nevertheless, he's changed his mind on the proper use of the feature, even before Tom spoke up regarding his intentions for the feature. So... let's move on, shall we?
Quote from: Tom on January 24, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
For the record:
I agree 100% that using the vulgarity feature to spread messages around instead of getting a judgement on vulgarity is a plain and obvious abuse.
Plain and obvious.
And since Tom read this thread and saw Vellos' post, if he thinks it's that bad he can lock Vellos' account any time he wants, sine he's the one that would be doing it if it was judged that bad. Since that hasn't happened yet, it should be plain and obvious that he doesn't think it is, and it won't be. It should also be plain and obvious that your ranting probably won't change his mind.
You can argue till you're blue in the face, or red as the case may be, but the creator of the game stated it was an obvious abuse. Not to mention a number of other people, both here and in game. No real way to argue or nitpick around that, is there, mate? That should be rather...plain and obvious.
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 08:59:44 PM
You can argue till you're blue in the face, or red as the case may be, but the creator of the game stated it was an obvious abuse. Not to mention a number of other people, both here and in game. No real way to argue or nitpick around that, is there, mate? That should be rather...plain and obvious.
Yes, Velax. We've all acknowledged that it's an abuse. No one is disputing that.
We're just disputing the idea that Vellos should be banned from the game for not being as wise and all-seeing as you.
So maybe you can stop the strawman?
Yeah... I don't see how it makes it a worse crime because I admitted to doing it, and then admitted I was wrong on the matter. We have ex-multi-cheaters on the forum too, don't we: people who used to run multis, either got caught/confessed, and closed their multis/started new "clean" accounts? Don't we have such people? Should they be forever prohibited from playing?
Yes, it was abuse. I did not believe it was so at the time. My reasons for believing that were many and, at the time, seemed reasonably good. Those reasons were not predicated on some wildly deviant root-understanding of BM's rules. The main deviancy in basic understanding of BM society I have, historically, has been to demand hyper-realism, not laxity on abuse. What I did was abuse (though, curiously, I was never able to find any instance where any leaked knowledge was actually ever used to any effect, not that that really matters much). I know that now. I won't do it again. You can choose to disbelieve me if you want, I guess. But, crucially, what I did was
not categorized as abuse at the time. In hindsight, I absolutely see the flaws in my reasoning and see what I should have done.
Quote from: Velax on January 24, 2012, 07:27:57 PM
Anyway, I've alreay taken what actions I deem appropriate on this. Everyone else is free to make their own decisions on it. I certainly won't be trusting any characters of a player that has admitted and defended such "creative" interpretations of the rules in future.
I am extremely disappointed to hear that. I hope you are not saying that you will engage in IC discrimination based on an OOC debate. As it would happen, we do have two characters in the same realm: Kindara. I want you to know that I
do not intend to take out any OOC frustration I may have with you in an IC fashion, whatever decisions you may make.
*raises a paw* I would like to point out that I agree with Velax. Admitting you did something wrong does not bar you from the consequences of your actions.
Quote from: Vellos on January 24, 2012, 07:11:58 PM
And, also, it seems kind of like an ex post facto rule. Most nations restrict or prohibit such laws. The idea that I could be punished for an action that nobody had ever stated was abuse (and which I did not think was abuse at the time, as I "learned" how to do it after I observed others doing it) based on a rule made well after the action seems a bit unfair. I'm not going to do it going forward; and I would hardly say I have a track record of abuse.
I would also like to point out that such laws are in regards to laws that did not come into effect until
after the person in question committed the acts. They do not apply to someone admitting to it after they have done something against the law.
Quote from: Vellos on January 24, 2012, 10:10:55 PM
Yeah... I don't see how it makes it a worse crime because I admitted to doing it, and then admitted I was wrong on the matter. We have ex-multi-cheaters on the forum too, don't we: people who used to run multis, either got caught/confessed, and closed their multis/started new "clean" accounts? Don't we have such people? Should they be forever prohibited from playing?
Yes, it was abuse. I did not believe it was so at the time. My reasons for believing that were many and, at the time, seemed reasonably good. Those reasons were not predicated on some wildly deviant root-understanding of BM's rules. The main deviancy in basic understanding of BM society I have, historically, has been to demand hyper-realism, not laxity on abuse. What I did was abuse (though, curiously, I was never able to find any instance where any leaked knowledge was actually ever used to any effect, not that that really matters much). I know that now. I won't do it again. You can choose to disbelieve me if you want, I guess. But, crucially, what I did was not categorized as abuse at the time. In hindsight, I absolutely see the flaws in my reasoning and see what I should have done.
I am extremely disappointed to hear that. I hope you are not saying that you will engage in IC discrimination based on an OOC debate. As it would happen, we do have two characters in the same realm: Kindara. I want you to know that I do not intend to take out any OOC frustration I may have with you in an IC fashion, whatever decisions you may make.
I would like to point out that those multi-cheaters had their accounts locked, so they were in fact punished. I know that, since I was one of those multi-cheaters at one time. Velax isn't saying you should be forever banned from the game. He's saying you should face the consequences of what you've done. Which you really haven't. You've had nothing done to your account. An apology and admission of guilt does not equal no punishment.
Vellos/Gustav, you are missing the ex post facto comment earlier in the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)
Basically, he shouldn't be punished for something that wasn't against the rules at the time he did it.
Quote from: egamma on January 25, 2012, 08:28:28 PM
...Basically, he shouldn't be punished for something that wasn't against the rules at the time he did it.
It has been described as "...a plain and obvious abuse..." which to me reads as something that should not be seen as acceptable, even if it wasn't explicitly stated as an abuse before the actions were taken.
Yes, he has said he won't do it again and that his opinion has now changed which is great and commendable, however, it was an obvious abuse of the system, which I think is the point others are trying to make.
Quote from: egamma on January 25, 2012, 08:28:28 PM
Vellos/Gustav, you are missing the ex post facto comment earlier in the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)
Basically, he shouldn't be punished for something that wasn't against the rules at the time he did it.
Funnily enough, that is the exact law I'm referring to...
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on January 25, 2012, 05:46:08 PM
I would also like to point out that such laws are in regards to laws that did not come into effect until after the person in question committed the acts. They do not apply to someone admitting to it after they have done something against the law.
And the "law" in question has not come into effect until
after the act.
Are people seriously saying that I should have my account locked because I abused the vulgarity feature by interpreting it as a complete, total IC function? I will admit: I am shocked. I'm not surprised at hearing one person, like Velax, say it. I am surprised to hear more people agreeing with it.
I think this is teaching me that, henceforth, I should be less honest about how I play BM. Who knows what other things I may be doing that I think are perfectly fine that, if I bring them up for consideration by others, they may decide my account should be locked?
Ya'll do realize how crazy that is, right? Like, if someone ever finds a "novel abuse" (as I seem to have), and reports it, say, after having done it a while
before ever realizing it was abuse, they should be locked? What? That makes no sense. That's a wonderful way to get people to
not report potential abuses.
Incentives. They matter.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on January 25, 2012, 05:46:08 PM
I would like to point out that those multi-cheaters had their accounts locked, so they were in fact punished. I know that, since I was one of those multi-cheaters at one time. Velax isn't saying you should be forever banned from the game. He's saying you should face the consequences of what you've done. Which you really haven't. You've had nothing done to your account. An apology and admission of guilt does not equal no punishment.
I quote to you from "Threats of reprimand due to playing speed," a verdict arrived at in an 8-0 ruling by the Magistrates:
"Given that no punishments were actually handed out, and given that the player of Balewin clearly had no malicious intent, and given that the player of Balewin evidently understands that he overstepped his bounds, the Magistrates will only give a warning this time."
I think maybe only Velax has suggested I had malicious intent. I clearly understand that I was wrong. No player appears to have been harmed by my actions (much to my characters' consternation). Therefore...
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on January 25, 2012, 05:46:08 PM
An apology and admission of guilt does not equal no punishment.
I think you messed up your grammar, maybe?
But, I agree with you as you accidentally stated it: an apology and admission of guilt
does not equal no punishment. Conveniently, in many countries, apology is
often a component of punishment or sentencing, especially in civil cases, the premise being that it is a kind of social or reputational punishment, I think.
Quote from: Vellos on January 26, 2012, 03:15:14 AM
Ya'll do realize how crazy that is, right? Like, if someone ever finds a "novel abuse" (as I seem to have), and reports it, say, after having done it a while before ever realizing it was abuse, they should be locked? What? That makes no sense. That's a wonderful way to get people to not report potential abuses.
Incentives. They matter.
So you, and anyone else, should be allowed to abuse a game mechanic in a manner not intended in order to gain an advantage over other players (textbook definition of an exploit, by the way) for as long as they like, as long as they report it before it's officially declared an abuse? And they get away scott free? Really? Is this the sort of behavior we should be encouraging?
Edit: Should just point out that you did
not report this abuse, either. You mentioned it it passing because it was relative to the thread, and in a manner stating it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If this thread had never been created, you'd have happily continued using this exploit for months or years, so don't try to paint yourself as the abuse-finder here.
Quote from: Vellos on January 26, 2012, 03:15:14 AM
I think this is teaching me that, henceforth, I should be less honest about how I play BM. Who knows what other things I may be doing that I think are perfectly fine that, if I bring them up for consideration by others, they may decide my account should be locked?
I wish I could think you were joking there, but I don't think you are.
You know what? I don't think you did it maliciously. Well, no, you did, I guess. You were deliberately trying to hurt those realms you were a part of in a manner that carried no consequences for you. But I don't think you actually thought of it as abuse. I don't think you'd volunteer the information so freely if you thought what you were doing was actually abuse. Unfortunately, stupidity and ignorance has never been an excuse to get away with crimes. Anyone with the power to actually reason things through logically should have been able to tell this was blatant abuse.
This is starting to remind me of the case against the Zuma GM. Vellos made a mistake. Unlike most multi cheats, who are both violating a explicit rule, and generally having their family PROFIT from the action, there is no evidence that Vellos profited at all from his mistake. Thanks to his honesty we now have clarified how the vulgarity feature works.
This game is NOT a court of law. I have no idea how we appear to attract so many aspiring lawyers to the game either. As the social contract says, play the game like you are playing with friends. I sure as hell wouldn't enact punitive punishments against one of my friends if they came clean about a mistake they made regarding the rules.
Quote from: De-Legro on January 26, 2012, 09:21:26 AM
As the social contract says, play the game like you are playing with friends. I sure as hell wouldn't enact punitive punishments against one of my friends if they came clean about a mistake they made regarding the rules.
This
Quote from: Velax on January 26, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
So you, and anyone else, should be allowed to abuse a game mechanic in a manner not intended in order to gain an advantage over other players (textbook definition of an exploit, by the way) for as long as they like, as long as they report it before it's officially declared an abuse? And they get away scott free? Really? Is this the sort of behavior we should be encouraging?
Should we be encouraging people to report abuses? Yes. Absolutely.
Quote from: Velax on January 26, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
Edit: Should just point out that you did not report this abuse, either. You mentioned it it passing because it was relative to the thread, and in a manner stating it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do. If this thread had never been created, you'd have happily continued using this exploit for months or years, so don't try to paint yourself as the abuse-finder here.
No, I didn't report it, as in, I didn't bring it up as "I think this might be abuse..." because I
didn't think it might be abuse. But because I believed there was a social system in place where honesty was rewarded, I felt comfortable telling the truth about what I did. Yes, if I had never had any reason to think it was abuse, I would have kept doing it. Obviously. Equally obviously, I was mistaken.
Quote from: Velax on January 26, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
You know what? I don't think you did it maliciously. Well, no, you did, I guess. You were deliberately trying to hurt those realms you were a part of in a manner that carried no consequences for you.
Again, please separate IC/OOC. Yes, my character(s) was/were acting maliciously. I completely agree. Their targets were primarily individuals, not realms, but that's not important. The point, though, is that I
as a player was not acting with malice. Please, please, please separate IC and OOC.
Quote from: Velax on January 26, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
But I don't think you actually thought of it as abuse. I don't think you'd volunteer the information so freely if you thought what you were doing was actually abuse. Unfortunately, stupidity and ignorance has never been an excuse to get away with crimes. Anyone with the power to actually reason things through logically should have been able to tell this was blatant abuse.
If I had thought it was abuse
then I wouldn't have been doing it in the first place. If I had thought it was abuse and I was doing it anyways, no, I wouldn't have confessed.
But that's an irrelevant hypothetical. I made a mistake, I argued my case, I realized I was wrong, I am convinced of it. What I did was abuse. But, as I understand it (maybe I am wrong), you seem to be saying that I am stupid and ignorant, incapable of reasoning through things logically, and maliciously using a game feature to gain some kind of OOC power. And I don't understand where these accusations come from. One error does not an idiot make.
Am I correct in believing that you regard me as stupid and malicious? And, as I asked earlier, am I correct in believing you intend to take this IC? I ask because two of our characters share a realm, Kindara, and I want to know if it would be wiser for me to emigrate or pause.