Problems with Playerworld Rules

[Spark910]

Okay well I am going to look into the rules and see if I can change them to make them alot less controlling. Its clear to see playerworld managers dislike them, and I agree then can be less controlling but still secure.

So which rules do you dislike? I have made a list which I think are the ones.

Managers should have level4 RCs but no other staff member should have level4 RC as it’s not needed as the Manager should be active to perform certain task that can't be done without a level4 RC. A third RC can be given to the highest positioned admin, if needed

No playerworld should have more than 3 level4 RCs. If you want to use a 3rd then you must keep the level 4 RC on the admin-playerworld## account. Those playerworlds that were not setup by means of payment can give this RC to another account

No playerworld should have more than three other high levelled RCs (level3), as rights are not needed and people can ask for things instead of performing actions their selves.

Only managers should have full right RCs for security reasons.

Because bans are often done for incorrect or wrong reasons only people with level3 or level4 RCs should be allowed to ban. This means that 5 people (MAX) should be able to ban all the time. If you are a playerworld with a high playercount (70+) then a GP Admin may also be given banning rights.

Basically I think its the ones about the rights a person can have, is this correct? If there are any others people dislike or object to then please look at the rules [HERE] and see which ones are a problem.

[Crono]

Doing the right thing Spark, listening to the people.

Personally I don't have anything to say about the rules. They don't really affect me.

[R0bin]

Those are pretty much all the ones i disagree with.

[Loriel]

-All managers have to enforce and comply with the Graalonline user agreement (e.g. ban anyone who is offensive or abuse over mass messages)

That does not really look like the job of a manager, in my opinion; and also such a rigid rule about mass messages sucks.

-Managers are responsible for any and all content on their server and may wish to monitor and limit uploading to public folders.

That is kind of making it too easy for you to punish people, in my humble opinion.

No inappropriate, copyrighted, or unauthorized material should be uploaded into file-manager.

Please make clearer whether that means that I am not allowed to have the copyright on the things I upload.

Do not use images from another playerworlds without checking with the creator and manager of that playerworld. This applies for any files currently in use on another playerworld online.

There are a lot of files around that are commonly used, and rightfully. This rule is probably not possible to enforce.

you do not need someone to upload heads when the manager or graphics admin could control this.

Err, no. Why the hell would I, as manager or graphics admin, want to be bothered by people having their heads uploaded?

Rules concerning the distribution of RC rights, what staff positions to have, etc.

I figure you know why I would disagree with this
In my opinion, this does not fit as a rule but rather an advice. I think it is each playerworld's responsibility to give out as many rights as they deem neccessary

All RCs should be placed under an IP lock or range to limit unauthorized access to the RC account.
Nobody other than the manager should have rw access to any important logs such as rclog.txt

Those exceptions make sense.

NPCs should be used to substitute RC actions (e.g. warpto) where possible. These should be secure (e.g. account and guild checking).

On the serverside, btw. The GST stab you if you check clientsided

NPCs should be used to substitute RC rights if they can’t be made secure.

Err. ?

Bans:
All bans must be for a clear reason. You can not just ban someone as you dislike them.

I disagree.

Players should be warned and go through some sort of punishment system before a ban, such as warning then jail. [...]

Again, these things sound like advice and not rules, and whether a playerworld adheres to these should be their decisison.

This means that 5 people (MAX) should be able to ban all the time.

I think that rule is not good, I would give all `GPs', if I had those, the permission to ban.

Do not make guilds that mimic any special of global staff guilds (e.g.: GM, VIP)

?

No guilds should be offensive, allow players to be in the staff list, or have copyrighted names.

I do not think that names can be `copyrighted'.

Playerworld Websites:
[...] This includes links out of your website.

I do not think it is possible to adhere to that rule. And it should not be required.

Any scripts with ‘NPC Made By ’ need separate permission for their usage.

I think that such a line should not restrict the usage of a script but only serve as a kind of tribute. Scripters that want the usage of their scripts to be limited, which in my opinion is pretty egoistic, should explicitly say so.

NO NPC should interfere with or stop the automatic disconnection for not moving

I disagree. There are valid reasons to interfere with that, for example mini games that do not allow the player to move while active.
Of course, those should have their own checks for players being idle.

NO one should abuse the Graal system (against its intended purpose), such as multiple disconnecting, warping or player attribute editing, on anyone

I do not really understand this rule; and, do you want to shut down debug?


Oh, and I just read the rules for the first time, so forgive me if I failed to understand something.

[Spark910]

Originally posted by Loriel
[B]I disagree. There are valid reasons to interfere with that, for example mini games that do not allow the player to move while active.
Of course, those should have their own checks for players being idle.

Yes, if checks are done. But the rule was made as some NPCs were allowing players to idle, and it was made as an idle NPC.

Other rules need to be explained more, or re-worded. So thats fine I will fix those. And the typos.

[Darlene159]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bans:
All bans must be for a clear reason. You can not just ban someone as you dislike them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I disagree.

I disagree with you...I purposely upgrade to a VIP account, not only so I can access the forums, but so I can check out all the servers. I pay for this privilage, and they dont have the right to take that away from me as a paying customer just because of dislike....Breaking the rules, and having a reason to ban is one thing, allowing people to ban just because they dont like a person should NEVER be an option.

I also think that allowing PW's to allow unlimited level4 RC's is a very bad idea. The PWA will be very busy with people deleting whole servers and such, they are already fairly busy with it now even with the restrictions. It has been proven that some, if not alot of Managers are not responsible enough to decide these things.

As for level3 rights, I agree they may need to be spread out more for the gp's. Giving more level3 rights is alot less dangerous then handing out level4 RC's.

If you allow this, there will be servers again with way too many level4 RC's, thus putting way too many PW's in danger of corruption.

[dlang]

Originally posted by Spark910


Yes, if checks are done. But the rule was made as some NPCs were allowing players to idle, and it was made as an idle NPC.

Other rules need to be explained more, or re-worded. So thats fine I will fix those. And the typos.

What about idle npcs for Staff?

Originally posted by Spark910
No playerworld should have more than 3 level4 RCs.

I'm an Admin and there have been times where I've needed L4RC
ex: Person majorly abusing rights and Manager & Co-Manager not doing anything because that person is the Owner's friend.

I wont name any people...

[Spark910]

Originally posted by dlang


What about idle npcs for Staff?

Why do you need to idle?
It messes up the top playerworld system really.

[URBANLEGEND]

I really dont like the



ALL RCs need an IP range or lock. This should be no less than two numbers. It should contain 2 numbers in the IP range. e.g:
#.#.*.* =2 numbers

rules. Else im fine with them

[Darlene159]

Originally posted by URBANLEGEND
I really dont like the



ALL RCs need an IP range or lock. This should be no less than two numbers. It should contain 2 numbers in the IP range. e.g:
#.#.*.* =2 numbers

rules. Else im fine with them

lol, I suppose you would rather someone be able to hack the account (which is done often), and get on RC because there is no IP lock?

[dlang]

Originally posted by Spark910


Why do you need to idle?
It messes up the top playerworld system really.

You have a point...

[davidpsy]

Actually I'm fine with the current rules (but change all you want) as they are accept I would rather be able to have my own rules even if they are in conflict with the code of conduct.

I would like to never ban anyone and only give punishments that fit the crime such as I will make it so the only rule to break on my server is saying things like insulting people. And as a punishment they would be scilenced so they cant talk/pm. This would be undone after a time. The code of conduct says that I would have to ban someone if they were verbally abusing someone. I would rather scilence them thus they can still play the game just not talk for a little while.

Now if someone is hacking I would ban them.

As for glich abuse I know it says that it is just as worse as hacking and I would rather take all they got from the glich away and not ban them. Because I think the masses should not suffer from the mestakes of an individual.

Spark can I have these playerworld rules please.

[URBANLEGEND]

Originally posted by Darlene159
lol, I suppose you would rather someone be able to hack the account (which is done often), and get on RC because there is no IP lock?

no you goon u_u;; Some of my staff use AOL.... And guess what AOL Ips arnt static, therefore you can only set 1 line.

[zell12]

Loriel, look back. You said you agree with making a stupid position such as Head uploader... God, think please.

[Darlene159]

I would rather take all they got from the glich away and not ban them. Because I think the masses should not suffer from the mestakes of an individual.

1) How would you know what they had aquired from the glitch? I mean if it is a glitch that gives alot of money, or something like that? And how would a mass amount of people suffer from you banning one person who abuses glitches?

no you goon u_u;; Some of my staff use AOL.... And guess what AOL Ips arnt static, therefore you can only set 1 line.

Goon? No need to resort to name calling....
I realize AOL users IP's change, but you cant make the PW totally unsafe because some people have AOL....I think the PWA will be asking for real trouble if they change this rule...