>A- it's obnoxious.
B- it's a pretty clear violation of policy.
C- it encourages people to use free to play characters for harassment, eating up both game and personnel resources.

So I mean, there's just a few of the issues.<

That right there is the nail in the coffin Maz!

" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "

>>To be clear,

Persida meant, I believe, that people would just trigger off of SEND or quotations to immediately log out, thus evading the script check entirely, bypassing any conversation.

>Persida meant, I believe, that people would just trigger off of SEND or quotations to immediately log out, thus evading the script check entirely, bypassing any conversation.

If that's what was meant, then I would consider that to be a failure, or at the very least, suspicious and warranting another check. Repeated logout fails = failed script check.

>>Re: logging out at the start of a script check: If that's what was meant, then I would consider that to be a failure, or at the very least, suspicious and warranting another check. Repeated logout fails = failed script check.

Unfortunately, no, that would not be feasible to consider it a failed check if someone logged out at the beginning, even if it happen frequently. People do have unstable internet connections and still play DR.

It would be suspicious, sure, but we can't prove why they disconnect, and it would result in enough potential false positives to the point of making policy unenforceable. People play from all over the world, and on all types of internet connections. Sometimes they cut out a lot. Those people deserve to be able to play without the constant fear that their cruddy internet connection is going to result in them losing progress on their character and getting warnings when they haven't done anything wrong at all.

While I'm very supportive of this discussion and open to feedback here being used to potentially inform changes in policy, I would absolutely not support any change in our policy that would shift the burden of proof onto the player to have to show staff that they legitimately had a cruddy internet connection, instead of it remaining on staff to prove that the player is legitimately unresponsive while gaining benefits in the game.

-Persida

>>I live in the 3rd world and have had a really bad internet connection, and can confirm that would suck a lot. =(

And weren't you one who suggested it?

>>Which you would think would be a fail if it happened enough to show a pattern.

Input is good, but let's put thought into what we suggest.

It would also strain coincidence to the breaking point if people developed bad internet connections only when being script checked so otoh, maybe it could work if one were inclined to go that way.

Mazrian

>>What about changing exp to just take the benefit out of afking? I'm trying to think of a way to check people that can't be triggered off of to produce a disconnect and coming up with not much.

You should read back in the thread. You kind of came in in the middle of a discussion, and some of these points (TF, changing exp, etc) have been brought up and discussed already, answering some of your questions. Not at all saying don't discuss them, but maybe read what's there and suggest pertinent ideas.

>>If we were just looking to auto-drop anyone who might be afking, we have a tool we could use for that. That's not what we want to accomplish, though, and that would also be amazingly trivial to account for in a script that could then just log you right back in a short bit later. We'd never be able to enforce anything related to the scripting policy then, because the player could just claim to have an unstable internet connection.

This is kinda why I'm wondering if policy needs to be revised so those "auto-drops" result in some kind of afk-check avoidance penalty.

In other words, if you opt out of a script check by stopping all actions, logging out, etc, does that get recognized (and penalized) somehow?

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>>Hey Maz do they call soccer Football where you live? ;)

Futbol

Mazrian

>>"You might be checked this way so ignoring everyone talking to you is probably a bad idea."

Ignoring someone that looks like a regular player is my prerogative and not against policy (as of right now, and likely never will be). Dismount thine high steed, sire, and possibly move the talk to scripting policy away from imposing your desired play style on other people. Also, check into the 'How do you play' thread in the general discussion forum. I am far from alone in my opinion, here. "Roleplay Stance: None" is a profile setting for a reason.

Some posts were hidden.

I am going to say this one time. Quit with the back and forth insult slinging. If it continues, the thread WILL be closed and I will issue out TAC violations. If you have something constructive to say than that is fine.

-GameMaster Signi

>"Roleplay Stance: None" is a profile setting for a reason.

I think this kind of brings up another point - if people want to set this, it seems to me that DR is not really an RP enforced game world, and thus policy demanding people be responsive to the game world may be incongruous with the option to declare your RP Stance as "None".

I'm not saying RP Stance None need equate AFK 24/7

> Also, i was thinking as maybe a first (and subsequent) penalty for a failed afk check could impose free to play experience drain levels on prime characters for increasing amounts of time. While it doesn't sound like much, I can guarantee at the higher end, that would be a massive pain for any progression to be made during the penalty's timeline.<

Now something like this is a great idea to me. Still a big penalty for afking but will prevent players from quitting and simu losing revenue. In the end from a Simu stand point eet should all be evaluated as a money scenario. They have lost so many do to exp hits. A change in policy of that nature would be a great idea to keep players spending money... Which I mean isn't that the goal of simu.

" Its like when I'm right I'm right, when I'm wrong I could been right, so I'm still right cause I coulda been wrong, you know, and I'm sorry cause I could be wrong right now, I could be wrong, but if I'm right... "