New Terms of Service - Page 3

Crono · #31 03-09-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Why not just use a clientside swear filter so players can swear all they want and staff who are offended by naughty words don't have to look at them?

because that would actually make sense.

Starfire2001 · #32 03-09-2012, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Why not just use a clientside swear filter so players can swear all they want and staff who are offended by naughty words don't have to look at them?

This exists (*SwearFilter). Generally, from what I see, another players feels harassed by the "naughty words" and then reports it to the GPs, or it's something going on in oms or mass messages, its not like the staff team are a bunch of prudes or something.

I'm not saying every situation is handled perfectly or every GP is perfect or anything, so please no sob stories, but I haven't personally ever had any problems with UN GPs ever regarding bad language, both before I was staff and since. Unless you are cursing someone out or being racist you are pretty safe.

Fulg0reSama · #33 03-09-2012, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starfire2001

I'm not saying every situation is handled perfectly or every GP is perfect or anything.

I can confirm this considering I was once jailed for simply calling a GP fat.

Cubical · #34 03-09-2012, 11:45 PM

I was jailed on UN for like 3 years because the jail script broke and everyone ignored me when I pm'd them asking about it. It took me participating the Era/UN Olympics to finally get out of jail.

NicoX · #35 03-10-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cubical

i was jailed on un for like 3 years because the jail script broke and everyone ignored me when i pm'd them asking about it. It took me participating the era/un olympics to finally get out of jail.

lol

SlikRick · #36 03-10-2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Apparently you managed N-pulse. Surely you had a "ban without warning when justified" mentality. It's standard stuff.

The only bans I allowed to happen,without warning, while I was manager was willful destruction of the server, deleting files, etc., and hacking.

DustyPorViva · #37 03-10-2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlikRick

The only bans I allowed to happen,without warning, while I was manager was willful destruction of the server, deleting files, etc., and hacking.

Exactly. You allowed it, therefor there was a "clause" for it, so to say. If it can happen, then in a set of rules typically you should disclose that it CAN happen. That's all that's going on here.

Fulg0reSama · #38 03-10-2012, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Exactly. You allowed it, therefor there was a "clause" for it, so to say. If it can happen, then in a set of rules typically you should disclose that it CAN happen. That's all that's going on here.

That's two different scenarios.

Rick was protecting the actual server's stability. Which yes is the same goal as UN's, but I'm certain that the scenario of why it had been allowed could have changed whether a warning was necessary or not.

These rules are merely dictations of punishment for committing them, They appear to say that they don't need to warn you AT ALL, no matter the situation.

DustyPorViva · #39 03-10-2012, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

That's two different scenarios.

Rick was protecting the actual server's stability. Which yes is the same goal as UN's, but I'm certain that the scenario of why it had been allowed could have changed whether a warning was necessary or not.

These rules are merely dictations of punishment for committing them, They appear to say that they don't need to warn you AT ALL, no matter the situation.

No it's not different. They would ban without warning if needed. It doesn't matter if it's for server stability, it's still the point that they would ban someone without warning them. UN is simply telling players that it can happen if it needs to happen. This is important because not every situation is the same. Massing porn for example. Maybe massing goatse would qualify to let them off with a warning, MAYBE(and that's being lenient). But massing CP? Does that mean because the rules say you're allowed a warning first that massing CP would get you off with a warning since it was just your first time? Do you think that's acceptable? No. Therefor the disclosure makes sense.

I seriously don't see what the hell all the commotion/confusion is about.

Fulg0reSama · #40 03-10-2012, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

No it's not different. They would ban without warning if needed. It doesn't matter if it's for server stability, it's still the point that they would ban someone without warning them. UN is simply telling players that it can happen if it needs to happen. This is important because not every situation is the same. Massing porn for example. Maybe massing goatse would qualify to let them off with a warning, MAYBE(and that's being lenient). But massing CP? Does that mean because the rules say you're allowed a warning first that massing CP would get you off with a warning since it was just your first time? Do you think that's acceptable? No. Therefor the disclosure makes sense.

I seriously don't see what the hell all the commotion/confusion is about.

Goatse I'm certain would not be a warning at all. Last I checked the ******* is as offensive as any other part of the middle region of the body, back or front.

But back on topic: I think I'm understanding better, I promise my intention isn't to play devil's advocate.
Like you said, there's commotion and confusion, I'm merely on the confused portion.

DustyPorViva · #41 03-10-2012, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

Goatse I'm certain would not be a warning at all. Last I checked the ******* is as offensive as any other part of the middle region of the body, back or front.

Exactly. No warning = the rule everyone is whining about is being applied. What's the problem? Certain situations call for punishment without warning, which is what that clause covers. It has to be vague because they can't predict or narrow down every circumstance that would qualify for action without warning.

I get the feeling people are throwing up their arms in protest for very little reason other than the fact they want to act like a problem is there when it's not for drama or something.

SlikRick · #42 03-10-2012, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Exactly. You allowed it, therefor there was a "clause" for it, so to say. If it can happen, then in a set of rules typically you should disclose that it CAN happen. That's all that's going on here.

It is a well known fact that if you delete content on the server without permission, you're done. As for the hacking that is in Graal's ToS that it will not be tolerated.

DustyPorViva · #43 03-10-2012, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlikRick

It is a well known fact that if you delete content on the server without permission, you're done. As for the hacking that is in Graal's ToS that it will not be tolerated.

Same ToS says your account can be terminated without warning.

Fulg0reSama · #44 03-10-2012, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DustyPorViva

Same ToS says your account can be terminated without warning.

You're right about this. But it doesn't hold relevancy towards UN's ToS for it's about the way undesired actions are to be treated and agreed upon not doing. This is merely stating that Graal itself holds the right to do what they wish with the account you've rented.

DustyPorViva · #45 03-10-2012, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fulg0reSama

You're right about this. But it doesn't hold relevancy towards UN's ToS for it's about the way undesired actions are to be treated and agreed upon not doing. This is merely stating that Graal itself holds the right to do what they wish with the account you've rented.

He's saying graal tos gives him the right to ban without warning; I'm saying the same tos gives un the same rights to do the same thing.