Author Topic: Question regarding rule 1d (Read 15507 times)

zrubavel

I thought sharing a char was against the rules, but reading rule 1d gives the impression that it is allowed, just discouraged? (the rule talks about sharing passwords- I'm assuming from reading the description this refers to using in game /shout or /tell to share a password...not other means such as telling your housemate your chars password)-is two people playing the same char actually against the rules?
Also, a player on today announced that he and his brother share a char-turns out the brother is 6 years old and he said he was helping him...I told him as long as he did not log on without his brother present, and simply helped his brother play it would not be char sharing...but the whole issue may be moot if char sharing like this is not really against the rules...
Any way I'm confused by this.

smacky

Yeah it is a bit confusing. The historical reason is the VOLs/GMs at the time I originally wrote the rules were not keen on the take I had on PW issues, so the sharing vs guessing rules got a bit of a shake up to come up with something everyone was reasonably happy with, emphasis on reasonably.

The way it is meant to work is PW sharing (ie, you and your best mate both having access to the same char) is not against the rules as such. However, this frequently goes wrong (you realise your best mate is not quite such a good mate after all).

When it does, if you then start whining to the VOLs or making a fuss about it ingame (ie, by spamming shout with complaints or bitching at each other) you're likely to get a kick up the arse (ie, the shared char is banned or sometimes one or both IPs of the sharers might be banned or whatever else seems appropriate).

PW 'guessing' is usually where B tries to 'break in' to A's account by brute forcing the PW. But it also includes where A announces 'I quit. My PW is xxx.' Here, the char's PW will be changed ASAP, but if anyone tries to login to the char using the PW xxx beforehand, they'll be done for PW guessing.

Now I did/do mean to discuss the whole issue with the VOLs/GMs at some point, because a particular post stated that sharing was always treated as against the rules, which is what you're confused about too, and which the GR explicitly state is not the case (this was the original controversy as well),

ThePlaneskeeper

I was under the impression that character sharing was against the rules by virtue of requiring the password to be shared. I believe this is why clan characters were banned, and also lead to alot of people leaving being in unrest about the lack of "clan systems," with cherbot gone, clans not yet implemented, and now character sharing gone... etc.

smacky

That's one reason it is not banned by the rules and I'm uneasy that the enforcement practice seems not to sit well with the GR theory.

Nobbit

hmmm, well, when i was banned for using another char, i was told this was against the rules. i accepted, understood, but didn't know the rule. However, now it occurs, that the ban was wrong, cause i didn't guess the pw, but got it via a tell from the char-owner who left the game. Actually, I didn't even do anything else but inspect his apt iirc.

I am not complaining abt the fact (in a look back it was the best thing that happened to me, cause after that i decided to get a long ban on my own request). I just want to note that i think a strict rule like "1 person for 1 char, no pw-sharing at all" would clarify thinbgs and be easier to handle.

Me, the one and only Nobbit
you were banned so a Zrub could grow

-honstly ~~there is a~~ (I have a) rule- no eating Zrubavel...-Zrubavel

smacky

A strict rule might be easier to enforce, in some respects, but in others is not, and it's unrealistic.

If we say 'you cannot do this, no ifs or buts' then on the face of it, that is really simple -- do it, you break the rule and get a penalty.

But, there's more to it.

The VOLs don't want to enforce rules so strictly without damn good reason (tempting as it is sometimes

). More importantly, the community won't stand for such strict rule enforcement unless there is a watertight reason AND the rule does not restrict perfectly legitimate/community-beneficial practices such as having a clan char as TPK mentioned, or sharing a char between family members.

Which is why the VOLs must interpret the rules and use their discretion to apply them reasonably and fairly to a given situation.

This interpretive approach to rule enforcement naturally means the VOLs must do somewhat more work before applying the rules.

In PW issues, this may involve searching the logs or extended dialogue with the perp.

This is a hassle you (a VOL) don't want to go through everytime A comes crying the best mate B turns out to be a horrid horrid person who has stolen everything from their shared char and put it all on B's solo char. So here, the VOL can simply ban the shared char (and/or go further, penalising the IPs for example, if deemed necessary).

So in the interests of reducing VOL work without just making the rules too nazi, and allowing a reasonable level of player freedom, the rules here are as they are.

PW sharing (A and B have a definite agreement with each other) is fine, unless/until the sharers can't behave maturely and start either disrjupting the game for the rest of the community or hassling the VOLs (which in the long run is disrupting the game),

PW guessing (A and B have no agreement) is always a spankable offence.

Nobbit

* Nobbit feels a punch

I am not really convinced, especially by the fact that you say "the community won't stand for such strict rule enforcement" - i am part of the community and idk how many people in detail u asked, but just to state that your opinion is that of the community in total is a bit ... brave. But that can be argued.

What i don't want to argue about actually is that you compare my suggestion for a strict rule with rules made bye a dictatorship 70 years ago. Yes, i am sensitive for such things, may be, cause i am a German. I know that this is a common phrase, but their are some common phrases out there and not all of them are being allowed for use in this forums - this should imo (no idea abt the community, though) be one of them. Reason: The use in such context downplays the evil thing sof back then. ty

smacky

Quote from: Nobbit on 19, July 2009, 19:06:47

What i don't want to argue about actually is that you compare my suggestion for a strict rule with rules made bye a dictatorship 70 years ago. Yes, i am sensitive for such things, may be, cause i am a German. I know that this is a common phrase, but their are some common phrases out there and not all of them are being allowed for use in this forums - this should imo (no idea abt the community, though) be one of them. Reason: The use in such context downplays the evil thing sof back then. ty

Fair enough. I apologise. But do you see the point I am making (you don't need to agree with it) without the emotive language? It's not helpful (and should not be acceptable) to anyone to have such zero tolerance policies unless there is a very good reason and no other way and they don't punish reasonable behaviour in order to prevent the bad stuff. It just creates a bad atmosphere and mistrust leading to anger, actually encourages the behaviour the rule is meant to prevent -- or equally bad if different behaviour -- and creates more work for the enforcers.

Quote

I am not really convinced, especially by the fact that you say "the community won't stand for such strict rule enforcement" - i am part of the community and idk how many people in detail u asked, but just to state that your opinion is that of the community in total is a bit ... brave. But that can be argued.

Well, how do I do it then? We have this thread in a public board expressly for the purpose of discussing the GR. Shall I wait until 50% of the whole community has expressed a shared opinion (that's about 9,000 people going by the website members)?

My opinion is indeed my opinion, but I think it is borne out by the express and observed desires and behaviours of players over time.

Mysteria

Usually with password sharing, we don't even know until someone has done something wrong and someone on the accounts are complaining or someone has broken a different rule. I always saw this rule as a preventative act, keeping people from sharing passwords and creating a huge problem later. We can't really stop everyone from sharing passwords, especially among families, but we can tell them we look down upon the act of password sharing and the warning that if one person does one thing wrong, all people on that shared account will share the blame. I once had to deal with a family of about 4 people (never really figured out how many people it was) that all knew each others passwords that ended up breaking other rules leaving me with literally hundreds of characters to sort through and punish, and to top it all off, they all spoke terrible english (yes, worse than Michtoen's). However, I also know that there are some families that have played that know each others passwords and have caused no problems at all. I think the rule is fine as is; people just need to realize that if they cause problems with shared characters, all those involved will also share the punishments.

Nobbit

I understand the argumentation, yes. As I see it (Mysteria's example) both ways will have their disadvantages. However, i still disagree in some details with the existing rule(s), np for me to accept them, though (otherwise i would have to search for another game). Just take it as A voice from THE community.

smacky

Quote from: Mysteria on 20, July 2009, 00:23:33

if one person does one thing wrong, all people on that shared account will share the blame.

How about:

Quote

When a shared character receives a character penalty (eg, a mute), that penalty will remain regardless of who is actually controlling the character now. So if A gets the shared character banned, the character will remain banned even if B now wants to play it.

When a shared character receives an IP penalty (eg, an IP ban) that penalty may, at the discretion of the VOLs, be extended to any or all IPs which have access to the shared character.

Interesting point: With accounts/B5, as well as character bans and IP bans, we get account bans and possibly email bans. Account bans: all characters under that account are jointly banned. But equally, shared PW means shared account. In fact I think accounts will make legitimate PW sharing (ie, between family members and clans) more likely. ISTM the account system is quite geared towards PW sharing.

zrubavel

After reading Smacky's original response to my question, I have been thinking a lot and here is my idea:
Basically there seem to be only 2 cases where shared chars are needed:
A. Clan chars, regarding this see my suggestion here
B. The second being family where one of the players is being helped by a family member.
I think that both of these are special cases and for them we can require that the shared char be "registered" with the vols/gm's-by this I mean simply that when a shared char is created, the creator needs to inform a vol/gm who will inform the rest of the vols/gms by posting to the vol/gm board in the forum, letting them know that char x is a designated clan/family shared char.
Problems arising from sharing a char ("my brother/clanmate took all the items from our shared char and sold them/put them on his own char") will not be dealt with-they are the risk people who create shared chars assume. Repeated whining about the problem will lead to the shared char being banned (and possibly get the whiner ip banned).
Un-announced shared chars are illegal- that is more then one person playing on the same character is against the rules and this character will be banned.
This, in my opinion, would both simplify the rule and its enforcement (which in my experience has been very inconsistent because I think many don't understand/know exactly what it means), and somewhat simplify dealing with issues arising from problems with shared chars (they would be known ahead of time and vols could keep an eye out for possible misuse).
This would not contradict the idea quoted in Smacky's post immediately above mine ("When a shared char receives etc.")

smacky

Yeah the idea to register shared chars was suggested prior to the GR: (VOLs only I'm afraid) https://www.daimonin.org/forums/archive/pw-sharing-new-game-rule/msg26210/#msg26210

I have a feeling this was actually put into practice, but I can't find the thread I'm thinking of.

The problem is hardly anyone register their shared chars. It's too complex and non-obvious a process.

Perhaps when game and site are linked, we could have a checkbox called 'shared char' in char creation. Tick it and the new char is automatically added to a db accessible to the VOLs.

It's a possibility, but I don't really see how requiring registration simplifies anything for anyone or really goes very far to solving/preventing problems. You'll still get cases where the players 'forgot' to register, or didn't understand they had to (for ex, a perfectly nice family of newby players).

zrubavel

Quote from: smacky on 20, July 2009, 16:54:53

It's a possibility, but I don't really see how requiring registration simplifies anything for anyone or really goes very far to solving/preventing problems. You'll still get cases where the players 'forgot' to register, or didn't understand they had to (for ex, a perfectly nice family of newby players).

In these cases I propose to be rather "draconian" and enforce the rule- non-registered shared chars are prohibited and will be banned. The family/person who forgot can go and create a new one that is registered.

Or go a diffrent route:
Change the wording of 1d completely and state something along the lines-
"Shared characters (i.e. characters to which more than one person has access.) are discouraged in Daimoninin. History has taught that more often than not they lead to all kinds of problems (examples may be inserted here). Although we do recognize that there are certain situations where they are helpful (and therefore have not made them illegal). People should use discretion in the creation and use of such characters.
Officials will not deal with interpersonal problems raising between those who share a character. In regards to other aspects of game play (breaking of game rules for example), the character will be dealt with as one entity and any problems it creates will be dealt with as such (regardless of which individual caused the problems"
(I know this needs some work)
Basically I find the whole "password sharing" thing very confusing and beside the point. For example if two friends are sitting in front of one computer and create a character together has password sharing occurred? I want the rule to focus on the real issue: two or more people having access to one character.
I also don't feel we need to give the vols more tools (i.e. rule based justification) to deal with the problems created by the characters, if we decide that they are for all intents and purposes "one entity before the law"- a shared char gets muted for spamming just the way any other char gets etc.
Your brother got your shared char banned? You chose to share the character with him, so don't complain.

smacky

Quote from: zrubavel on 20, July 2009, 17:24:58

Or go a diffrent route:
Change the wording of 1d completely and state something along the lines-
"Shared characters (i.e. characters to which more than one person has access.) are discouraged in Daimoninin. History has taught that more often than not they lead to all kinds of problems (examples may be inserted here). Although we do recognize that there are certain situations where they are helpful (and therefore have not made them illegal). People should use discretion in the creation and use of such characters.
Officials will not deal with interpersonal problems raising between those who share a character. In regards to other aspects of game play (breaking of game rules for example), the character will be dealt with as one entity and any problems it creates will be dealt with as such (regardless of which individual caused the problems"
(I know this needs some work)
Basically I find the whole "password sharing" thing very confusing and beside the point. For example if two friends are sitting in front of one computer and create a character together has password sharing occurred? I want the rule to focus on the real issue: two or more people having access to one character.
I also don't feel we need to give the vols more tools (i.e. rule based justification) to deal with the problems created by the characters, if we decide that they are for all intents and purposes "one entity before the law"- a shared char gets muted for spamming just the way any other char gets etc.
Your brother got your shared char banned? You chose to share the character with him, so don't complain.

Err... I'm not really seeing any difference between that and the current rule, except in wording.

Like the couple of paras I wrote above in response to Myst just clarify an underlying concept of the rule.

Nothing wrong with that. That's what the detailed explanations are for.

So how about you (or anyone at all) come up with the exact wording that you are happy with for this rule? So long as the meaning is not changed to actually prohibit PW sharing, there's NP. Be as explicit or not as you like that it's discouraged.

Author Topic: Question regarding rule 1d (Read 15507 times)

zrubavel

Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

ThePlaneskeeper

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

Nobbit

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

Nobbit

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

Mysteria

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

Nobbit

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

zrubavel

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

zrubavel

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

smacky

Re: Question regarding rule 1d

Related Topics