Discussion of new playerworld rules

[Bell]

Originally Posted by fowlplay4

It was never about "legal issues" or that crap.

The original wording of the new rule discouraged people from creating/having external communities, and that in order for your community to be allowed you had to moderated in a similar fashion to the Graal forums/services.

Upon reading the original rule my response was "You want me to moderate my forums like this place otherwise I can't display it in-game? **** off." Which clearly wasn't your intention with the rule.

Which is why this discussion is a good place to find out since everyone's interpretation seems to be different.

I for one am not going to check everyone's forums to see if they are being moderated to the nth degree of Graalian law, but if we get a complaint about something serious going on within that forum then at least we can do something about the problem without having to spend days warning, explaining, coercing and badgering said party.

Is it that much to ask to not allow porn/cheat tools/abusers and thieves from using websites directly connected to a Graal server?

[Imperialistic]

Originally Posted by Bell

Is it that much to ask to not allow porn/cheat tools/abusers and thieves from using websites directly connected to a Graal server?

I don't think people are stressing over what you're asking for more than how you're actually going to go about controlling that situation if no one will be 'moderating' third party sites. It almost sounds like a little tyranny or a way to control the players of the community.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Imperialistic

I don't think people are stressing over what you're asking for more than how you're actually going to go about controlling that situation if no one will be 'moderating' third party sites. It almost sounds like a little tyranny or a way to control the players of the community.

I would worry less about this until they actually start doing something. They won't enforce it unless it becomes beneficial for them, like they did on Era regarding a misinterpreted rule to force us to fire a couple staff members they didn't like. And even if it wasn't a rule, they'd just do it under "GraalOnline reserves the right to make special-case amendments and additions to its rules and policies [...]" (like they did on Era).

If the rules were enforced literally, Era and every other server would have to be shut down for stuff like "Scripts should not interfere with any built in part of Graal [...]".

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Bell

Is it that much to ask to not allow porn/cheat tools/abusers and thieves from using websites directly connected to a Graal server?

No, it's not too much to ask. However the wording was originally very negative in nature and misworded.

[Fulg0reSama]

Originally Posted by Bell

Which is why this discussion is a good place to find out since everyone's interpretation seems to be different.

No disagreements here.

Originally Posted by Bell

I for one am not going to check everyone's forums to see if they are being moderated to the nth degree of Graalian law, but if we get a complaint about something serious going on within that forum then at least we can do something about the problem without having to spend days warning, explaining, coercing and badgering said party.

I know it may seem strange; but would you mind going further into explaining the definition of this statement for us? What constitutes as a serious query report?

Originally Posted by Bell

Is it that much to ask to not allow porn/cheat tools/abusers and thieves from using websites directly connected to a Graal server?

I think this is an unnecessary question to ask considering the fact it's justified reason to protect the integrity of the game's image. Though last I checked Graal hasn't had a porn ring just yet