POLICY 3 has been updated to include vulgarity, cyber-bullying, out of character threats, and doxing as disruptive behavior. Two new sections have also been included about vulgarity and buyer beware. The updates to POLICY 3 also reference POLICY 17 which also has been updated concerning privacy in Elanthia.
In January, our vulgarity policy and staff protocol was updated to be better at self-monitoring graphic language. Some clarification on what that all means is needed though, as we discovered many of you use offensive language regularly. If you need to swear, do so privately. If your character has been set up for vulgarity monitoring, every time you use profanity, it's resulting in strikes against your account. Enough strikes can get you placed into a lockin or a lockout. The new monitoring system is virtually invisible, but not everyone is automatically monitored.
If you do go somewhere private to use graphic language, make sure you have consent. Make sure the area is actually private or you're whispering. Tables are not private. Being alone with just your friend resting in a public area is not private. Bath houses are not private. Major Sanctuaries are not private.
Wyrom, PM
SIMU-WYROM
VANKRASN39
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/27/2017 11:14 PM CDT
>Tables are not private.
In working on the table wiki page, I found a note in the list of tables editing history ( https://gswiki.play.net/index.php?title=List_of_tables&action=history ) citing GM Talisker that tables were private: "(tables are private - confirmed by GM Talisker today.)"
Are tables not private for the sake of the vulgarity policy? Are they not private at all?
That GM is no longer on staff and I'm not trying to argue either way, but clarification would be helpful.
SIMU-WYROM
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/27/2017 11:18 PM CDT
POLICY 2 has a note about tables, and it's been there since 2007. So they've not been private for 10 years. Tables are definitely not private. We labeled them as "quasi-private" in the past, allowing for people to be OOC there. But they've never allowed vulgarity or intimate encounters. People eat at those tables.
Wyrom, PM
Wyrom, PM
OM1E5GA
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/27/2017 11:53 PM CDT
<If you do go somewhere private to use graphic language, make sure you have consent. Make sure the area is actually private or you're whispering. Tables are not private. Being alone with just your friend resting in a public area is not private. Bath houses are not private. Major Sanctuaries are not private.>
You've just listed everything I would have considered private other then private homes, which I'm now doubting is considered private as well.... perhaps it would be easier to list what IS private?
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
You've just listed everything I would have considered private other then private homes, which I'm now doubting is considered private as well.... perhaps it would be easier to list what IS private?
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
VANKRASN39
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 12:25 AM CDT
>POLICY 2 has a note about tables, and it's been there since 2007. So they've not been private for 10 years. Tables are definitely not private. We labeled them as "quasi-private" in the past, allowing for people to be OOC there. But they've never allowed vulgarity or intimate encounters. People eat at those tables.
ha, actually reading policy didn't occur to me. the policy also mentions Sages, I forgot all about those.
RATHBONER
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 06:10 AM CDT
>You've just listed everything I would have considered private other then private homes, which I'm now doubting is considered private as well.... perhaps it would be easier to list what IS private?
A lockable room which is locked. I'm not sure whether the existence of keys invalidates homes or not.
A lockable room which is locked. I'm not sure whether the existence of keys invalidates homes or not.
KRAKII
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 08:32 AM CDT
The issue with Major Sanctuaries is that you can get dumped out into a public roadway, "in the altogether", as it were.
Tables, there are the other (NPC) patrons of the Inn. It's a barroom, they're serving food & drink to the townsfolk.
.
Go with Rathboner's idea. Find a lockable room; lock it. Done.
Tables, there are the other (NPC) patrons of the Inn. It's a barroom, they're serving food & drink to the townsfolk.
.
Go with Rathboner's idea. Find a lockable room; lock it. Done.
BRAKIAN
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 09:37 AM CDT
>> Bath houses are not private.
>> - Wyrom
Does this bath house notification include latching rooms in the various bath houses, or do those remain private, alongside other latching rooms?
>> - Wyrom
Does this bath house notification include latching rooms in the various bath houses, or do those remain private, alongside other latching rooms?
LTLPRPRINCESS
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 09:38 AM CDT
I'm sure this will come up as I'm already discussing it with others, but you called out bath houses as not private. Does this include the latchable bath house rooms as being private or are those also not private?
#bardlife
#bardlife
VICIMER
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 10:24 AM CDT
>People eat at those tables.
"How was dinner?"
"Oh, I couldn't eat."
"Are you sick?"
"No, someone two tables over was saying bad words and it ruined my appetite."
**********************
A quick flick of Wyrom's wrist sends a dagger into flight!
The thorny barrier surrounding you blocks Wyrom's attack!
One of the vines surrounding you lashes out at Wyrom, driving a thorn into his skin! Wyrom flinches slightly.
"How was dinner?"
"Oh, I couldn't eat."
"Are you sick?"
"No, someone two tables over was saying bad words and it ruined my appetite."
**********************
A quick flick of Wyrom's wrist sends a dagger into flight!
The thorny barrier surrounding you blocks Wyrom's attack!
One of the vines surrounding you lashes out at Wyrom, driving a thorn into his skin! Wyrom flinches slightly.
PRICKLIES
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 10:35 AM CDT
>>"No, someone two tables over was saying bad words and it ruined my appetite."
Yes... bad words. That's what people want private spaces for.
>nod vigorous
Yes... bad words. That's what people want private spaces for.
>nod vigorous
DOUG
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 10:52 AM CDT
Sadly, none of this is really the problem. The upside is that most of this appears automated and should be a bit of a relief for staff.
And the irony. . . we loosen the boards (seemingly) and tighten (just a skosh, mind) in-game.
I give it another 125 years, or so, before the real problem gets addressed.
Doug
And the irony. . . we loosen the boards (seemingly) and tighten (just a skosh, mind) in-game.
I give it another 125 years, or so, before the real problem gets addressed.
Doug
SIMU-WYROM
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 11:36 AM CDT
>>You've just listed everything I would have considered private other then private homes, which I'm now doubting is considered private as well.... perhaps it would be easier to list what IS private?
POLICY 2 has what we define as private.
>>ha, actually reading policy didn't occur to me. the policy also mentions Sages, I forgot all about those.
I removed most references of sages as well. I see POLICY 2 has it in there, I'll get that.
>>Does this bath house notification include latching rooms in the various bath houses, or do those remain private, alongside other latching rooms?
>>I'm sure this will come up as I'm already discussing it with others, but you called out bath houses as not private. Does this include the latchable bath house rooms as being private or are those also not private?
Rooms that no one else can get into are private.
>>Sadly, none of this is really the problem.
I can assure you everything this update includes has been an issue. People threatening to cause harm to other players in their homes. People announcing player's personal information. Graphic and offensive language toward people they don't know. If you haven't been subjected to it, be thankful. Trust me.
>>And the irony. . . we loosen the boards (seemingly) and tighten (just a skosh, mind) in-game.
We didn't quite loosen the boards or tighten the game. We had to create a defined line on where to stop threads, so the accusations of picking and choosing could be put to rest. The game is just being made more consistent. You have to be set up to be monitored before the system will do the work, so it's still the same until that point.
>>I give it another 125 years, or so, before the real problem gets addressed.
What problem are you talking about? If you don't want to let me know here, drop me an email. I'm not piecing it together.
Wyrom, PM
POLICY 2 has what we define as private.
>>ha, actually reading policy didn't occur to me. the policy also mentions Sages, I forgot all about those.
I removed most references of sages as well. I see POLICY 2 has it in there, I'll get that.
>>Does this bath house notification include latching rooms in the various bath houses, or do those remain private, alongside other latching rooms?
>>I'm sure this will come up as I'm already discussing it with others, but you called out bath houses as not private. Does this include the latchable bath house rooms as being private or are those also not private?
Rooms that no one else can get into are private.
>>Sadly, none of this is really the problem.
I can assure you everything this update includes has been an issue. People threatening to cause harm to other players in their homes. People announcing player's personal information. Graphic and offensive language toward people they don't know. If you haven't been subjected to it, be thankful. Trust me.
>>And the irony. . . we loosen the boards (seemingly) and tighten (just a skosh, mind) in-game.
We didn't quite loosen the boards or tighten the game. We had to create a defined line on where to stop threads, so the accusations of picking and choosing could be put to rest. The game is just being made more consistent. You have to be set up to be monitored before the system will do the work, so it's still the same until that point.
>>I give it another 125 years, or so, before the real problem gets addressed.
What problem are you talking about? If you don't want to let me know here, drop me an email. I'm not piecing it together.
Wyrom, PM
DOUG
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 02:27 PM CDT
Sorry, Wyrom!
Didn't mean to paint this as a negative. I can appreciate these challenges more than most players - even though I've had very little of these types of experiences personally.
The problem I was referring to is really esoteric (hence the 125 year reference. ;)
We, as a race, have become more casual about whether or not our actions will commit affront, or potentially offend. At one time in my life, when 'caught red handed' (as it were), a goofy smile and a sincere apology would usually get a 'well, I never!' response from the other party. But that would pretty much be it. I was caught, I acknowledged, I apologized, the apology was heard and some form of return would be provided.
Today, I might not even acknowledge that my actions might have offended another. In fact, today I'm tending more towards the 'mind your own business - I do my thing my way' mindset, not even acknowledging another's 'right' to not have to suffer offense.
To make matters even worse, since those who are offended have little other recourse - the usual 'return' today isn't the form of 'well, I never!', it's much more vigorous and equally self-centric shouting of how no one should ever have to put up with that offensive behavior.
In short, we care less about others - their comfort, their opinions, their involvement or inclusion - at least up to the point where we 'like' someone. Then it is a whole new world.
Like I said, esoteric. But - if we were concerned with others' opinions and feelings, half the effluent we see we wouldn't see.
If you take my meaning. ;)
Anyways - drive on. It's good for the game, and I'm in support. Oh, and I blame computers and Internet for creating the conditions for this. . . so yeah, Simutronics did this! :P
Doug
Didn't mean to paint this as a negative. I can appreciate these challenges more than most players - even though I've had very little of these types of experiences personally.
The problem I was referring to is really esoteric (hence the 125 year reference. ;)
We, as a race, have become more casual about whether or not our actions will commit affront, or potentially offend. At one time in my life, when 'caught red handed' (as it were), a goofy smile and a sincere apology would usually get a 'well, I never!' response from the other party. But that would pretty much be it. I was caught, I acknowledged, I apologized, the apology was heard and some form of return would be provided.
Today, I might not even acknowledge that my actions might have offended another. In fact, today I'm tending more towards the 'mind your own business - I do my thing my way' mindset, not even acknowledging another's 'right' to not have to suffer offense.
To make matters even worse, since those who are offended have little other recourse - the usual 'return' today isn't the form of 'well, I never!', it's much more vigorous and equally self-centric shouting of how no one should ever have to put up with that offensive behavior.
In short, we care less about others - their comfort, their opinions, their involvement or inclusion - at least up to the point where we 'like' someone. Then it is a whole new world.
Like I said, esoteric. But - if we were concerned with others' opinions and feelings, half the effluent we see we wouldn't see.
If you take my meaning. ;)
Anyways - drive on. It's good for the game, and I'm in support. Oh, and I blame computers and Internet for creating the conditions for this. . . so yeah, Simutronics did this! :P
Doug
OM1E5GA
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 04:22 PM CDT
<another's 'right' to not have to suffer offense.>
This very concept offends me.
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
This very concept offends me.
Starchitin
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
SIMU-WYROM
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 04:43 PM CDT
I figured the 125 year comment was the clue. I just didn't pick it up. :[
Wyrom, PM
Wyrom, PM
GS4-SLEKEN
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 05:10 PM CDT
<<>>ha, actually reading policy didn't occur to me. the policy also mentions Sages, I forgot all about those.
>>
:( QQ
>>
DOUG
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 05:27 PM CDT
>>This very concept offends me.
Er. . . I'm sorry.
/smile
Doug
Er. . . I'm sorry.
/smile
Doug
KANDOR
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/28/2017 08:54 PM CDT
Having a 3rd party tool that converts not just the game window, but the game prompt, into an unmoderated OOC chat room may be convenient but it's been conditioning players the wrong way for a long time. Having no serious controls on the unofficial boards also doesn't help, and players giving rep points to each other is ridiculous. It's been attracting the players that like that and driving away the players that don't for years now. Finding ways to make the unofficial tools less relevant, more official, or both, would help.
CURTIS
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/31/2017 09:23 AM CDT
Counterpoint: Stuff like lnet, wiki, etc (which you're referring to) is a big part of why I started playing again. I appreciate and respect that the is an RP game and people generally don't use "gamer speak." With that said, I want a place where I don't have to be obnoxiously coy about about game mechanics (a big part of the game) and if I meet a cool person I can talk to them as a person. I actually think there's a pretty good balance going on.
KANDOR
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/31/2017 10:36 AM CDT
>Counterpoint: Stuff like lnet, wiki, etc (which you're referring to) is a big part of why I started playing again. I appreciate and respect that the is an RP game and people generally don't use "gamer speak." With that said, I want a place where I don't have to be obnoxiously coy about about game mechanics (a big part of the game) and if I meet a cool person I can talk to them as a person. I actually think there's a pretty good balance going on.
The wiki is great. It is an official forum and incorporates the game policy by reference. Its editors are generally mature and professional. I'm all for OOC/OOG communication, in the proper context. My main point about lnet, or any OOC chat, is that it has no business using the game prompt. Players are human, and humans make mistakes, and it's real easy to make mistakes when everything is in one big window. We need to respect the game better than this. Players who've returned to the game from a time before these things existed see a huge difference. The community aspect is good, but the trade-off isn't acceptable.
To reiterate my earlier point about relevance, if the amunet was opened up to:
(a) allow communication without RT, regardless of PC status, and
(b) allow PCs to communicate on multiple channels at once, and
(c) critically, always on, but players can choose which channels to tune into, yet
(d) all channels monitored by staff and subject to game policy,
This would give players fewer reasons to use lnet over the amunet. Players who want to can still use lnet for venting and griefing, or being obnoxious, or just chatting outside the policy restrictions, but it will be far less relevant to everyday game life. The things that are good about 3rd party tools should be incorporated in-game, as much as possible, so that the game and its players don't suffer from the things that are bad about 3rd party tools.
The wiki is great. It is an official forum and incorporates the game policy by reference. Its editors are generally mature and professional. I'm all for OOC/OOG communication, in the proper context. My main point about lnet, or any OOC chat, is that it has no business using the game prompt. Players are human, and humans make mistakes, and it's real easy to make mistakes when everything is in one big window. We need to respect the game better than this. Players who've returned to the game from a time before these things existed see a huge difference. The community aspect is good, but the trade-off isn't acceptable.
To reiterate my earlier point about relevance, if the amunet was opened up to:
(a) allow communication without RT, regardless of PC status, and
(b) allow PCs to communicate on multiple channels at once, and
(c) critically, always on, but players can choose which channels to tune into, yet
(d) all channels monitored by staff and subject to game policy,
This would give players fewer reasons to use lnet over the amunet. Players who want to can still use lnet for venting and griefing, or being obnoxious, or just chatting outside the policy restrictions, but it will be far less relevant to everyday game life. The things that are good about 3rd party tools should be incorporated in-game, as much as possible, so that the game and its players don't suffer from the things that are bad about 3rd party tools.
VANKRASN39
Re: POLICY 3 and 17 Updates
03/31/2017 11:25 AM CDT
>(b) allow PCs to communicate on multiple channels at once
you can
BECHDOLT4
