Vortex Wars Rulebook Problem

[Fiendess]

I love how this is going into drama, so I'm gonna go straight to the point here.
I'm not a barbarian, i know when to draw a line, or let some silly act go.
I'm not gonna bother monitoring everyones accounts. I'll bother with troublemakers only.

if you do nothing malicious or wrong, then you shouldn't fear me, i am a nice person.

As for sef, Screenshots can be edited : Jpegsnoop detects that. very efficient technology.
I'm not easy to fool.

I am trying to hold a community up and keep it good and growing like it was.

Also Lopdo is not a member, he's the Owner, it's HIS game, he can do whatever he wants.
I asked lopdo about my rules, and made sure he agree'd.

The rules were posted under his permission.

[Try_it]

@Lopdo : IPv6 is a dynamic IP meaning that anytime you just turn your router off or reset your internet configuration, then you will have a new IP. IPv4 is a static IP meaning that you will see a specified router give the same IP to the users connected to it, making bans much more easier.

@Joriom : Ultimately, if Lopdo decides to ban a range of IP's, the most obvious form of trolling would clearly be to play this game and infringe upon the rules in a public area, like a library or a school. Then the entire area would not be able to play the game. Also, proxies usually utilize multiple networks, so you'd only have to refresh your browser once or twice to get a radically different IP.

Yes, yes, I'm just trolling, I would never do this stuff. But hypothetically, it could happen.

[Joriom]

IPv4 is a static IP meaning that you will see a specified router give the same IP to the users connected to it, making bans much more easier.

I've got dynamic IPv4. Catch that

Ultimately, if Lopdo decides to ban a range of IP's, the most obvious form of trolling would clearly be to play this game and infringe upon the rules in a public area, like a library or a school. Then the entire area would not be able to play the game.

Thats exactly why I can't use many foreign forums, as they've just blocked entire polish ISP which provides dynamic IPv4.

Also, proxies usually utilize multiple networks, so you'd only have to refresh your browser once or twice to get a radically different IP.

Account based IP history would help a lot, don'y you think?

But those are yet only pointless considerations.

[Optical9090]

@Lopdo : IPv6 is a dynamic IP meaning that anytime you just turn your router off or reset your internet configuration, then you will have a new IP. IPv4 is a static IP meaning that you will see a specified router give the same IP to the users connected to it, making bans much more easier.

I'm sorry what?
No, not in a million years.

IPv6 is a new format of IP adresses it's in no way bound to static/dynamic ips.
An IPv6 adress looks like this (example): 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334
It consists of a string of 16 hexadecimal adresses.
An IPv4 adress looks like this (also an example): 192.168.0.2
It consists of a string of four values between 0 and 255.

IPv6 isn't in full use yet meaning you cant rely solely on IPv6. You still need IPv4.

Dynamic IPs is what a DHCP distributes, most ISPs use DHCP which means most users have dynamic IP, although the lease time may or may not be set very high, usually ranging from 24 hours to 30 days.
You don't control your IP even if you have dynamic IP, the DHCP does.

Edit: Spellcheck

[BelgarionRiva]

I've just been informed (apparently) that I have received multiple warnings verbally and officially (Whatever that means). Ever since Fiendess joined, everything I say makes me a troll. I've been called a troll for talking, for asking questions, for absolutely nothing. A mod is not supposed to make fun of players, they're supposed to uphold the peace, and that doesn't mean to have self-righteous teenagers with low self esteem as part of the mod team. As far as I can see it, all mods except for mipster, techgump, jaime fit the description mentioned above.

I feel like the mods are calling someone a troll, insulting their point of view/way of thinking, then asking further questions in order to feed the bullshit, and then ban on impulse. Is there anything more childish? I was promised that this wouldn't turn into a thought police. And it hasn't. It turned into something much worse. I can't say my opinion without a gang of mods coming in and insulting my way of thinking, and as soon as I reply, threat of ban.

I have settled for implementing a rulebook, for cheating, spamming, and various other things, but I'm being harassed by the mods and I've been kicked multiple times from the lobby for no good reason at all. I demand less childish/self righteous mods that don't ban/threaten on impulse. I'm sick of this crap.

[Mipster]

I think this can all be resolved if players are given more information on what mods can do, and a copy of moderator etiquette is written, and provided for the general public to see. And maybe more importantly, for the mods to see If moderators act in a transparent fashion, the rulebook revised and expanded upon, to give definitions and examples of why we have these rules in the first place, there shouldn't be a need for this thread If mods act in a way where they abuse their powers, or in a way that you think isn't adhering to the rules... pm the situation to fiendess. Provide proof of course, through screenshots etc.


Mip

[Swordalchemist]

Hello everyone
I have been a part of the Vortex Wars Community for roughly a month or so at this point. I spend a considerable part of my day on the game via a site named Kongregate. I have through Kongregate spent money on this game, and purchased several of the bonuses offered in it.

Before I get started with criticism of these rules, and the manner in which they are enforced, I would like to say that I do indeed enjoy this game immensely. Jan has done a great job in his creation of this game, and I would like to thank him for his work to make this game the best it could be. I am not criticizing these rules, and the staff that enforces them solely for the sake of criticism in itself, rather I would like to see this game remain a popular and viable hub.

It is common knowledge and logic that there are rules to follow on a website/game such as Vortex Wars.
I will describe here our terms of service that will be applied to be followed by all members, and including the staff.

This first line of the rules echoes much of my sentiment. To maintain a community in which the game can be played fairly, there must be rules to ensure fair play. Rules in turn must be able to be enforceable, and punishments must be doled out to those who hinder the game play of others.
As the rulebook states, the rules must be equally applicable both to players and to staff. If a double standard is held, those who hold the power will quickly be corrupted. If anyone is priviledged, and given status as to be above the rules, the rules themselves are void of meaning. Rules must apply to all persons, not only those without power.
Specifically I am speaking in regards to the mods that will inevitably appear and believe that the rules somehow do not apply to them.

This brings up a second point that must be recognized. Moderators are enforcers of the rules, nothing more. They are volunteers (I assume) who ensure that cheating is not allowed within the game, and that each player's right to a fair game is preserved. To issue a "strike" (I believe that is the languaged used), moderators must have firm guidelines to follow, specific rules that member's must breach in order to be issued a strike. If the rules are subjective, the moderators will inevitably define those rules for themselves, and issue strikes based on their own personal views. Moderators are not judges, only a police force so to speak. They do not make the rules, only enforce them.

Members are only permitted to log in with ONE single Vortex Wars account at a time.

This rule is slightly open ended in my mind. Why is it negative for Vortex members to possess more than one account? This rule should be much more specific to multiple accounts being used in a single game by a member. This possible practice of game fixing would remove the rights of other players to a fair game, and would give the multiloggers an unfair advantage. Simply possessing multiple accounts should not be cause of alarm, and it is my opinion that this rule should be altered to become much more specific.

Accounts containing any foul language, anything deemed racist, discriminative, harmful, threatening, or inappropriate in nature will be permanently banned.

Using racist remarks, displaying discriminative, harmful or threatening behavior (including blackmailing or bribing) toward members or staff is considered cyber bullying.

As shown in the first note, harassing members and staff will result in a ban, no questions asked.

These next three parts go together in my opinion. Each of these rules is completely subjective. Who does the "deeming"? Who decides what is racist, innapropriate, threatening, harmful, discriminative, harassing etc? This is allowing the moderators to basically draw up their own definitions, and issue strikes according to their own personal beliefs. Let me give an example:

In a review of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel, J.P. Rushton, a well known Canadian psychologist and evolutionary historian, points out that over the course of the last century, hundreds of studies have found that the average IQ of Eurasians is on average approximately 17 points higher than that of average natives African and American peoples. While it may not be politically correct to say that Africans on average are less intelligent than Europeans, the countless scientific studies that Rushton points to would show that they are.

Here is a link to his paper if anyone would like to read it.

Is it racist to agree with his statement? I am sure some would say that it is indeed racist... however, countless facts back up his statement. His scientifically backed opinion may be in contradiction to the personal beliefs of moderators, or members of this site (and members of society) but that does not mean his ideas should be banned from this game. Racism is a broad, and subjective term (as are the rest of the terms). Each person can define racism differently and should not be punished for their beliefs. Here are examples of my point:

Should be allowed:

"Africans are not as smart as Europeans"

Should not be allowed:

"I want to kill those stupid African bastards"

The difference between these two examples are clear. The first may be offensive, but it is the genuine opinion of the author. His opinion can be taken or left by those reading it, and is not potentially harmful to the rights of anyone. Threatening to kill or harm others however is not alright. No member should be able to make threats to take away the basic right to life (or any other rights) of another member.
Moderators should not be able to decide what constitutes harassment, racism or any of the rest. The guidelines for appropriate ideas should go along these lines:

If an idea does not bring harm to other members (assault, rape, killing etc) that idea should be permitted into the game.

Exclusion of ideas is much to subjective to be handled in any other way, as if a firm guideline is not set, moderators will be issuing strikes simply based on their own definitions of each idea.

Trolling Other Members/ Harassment
Cussing
Abusive Caps
Spamming
Abusive Language
Discriminative Slurs
Disrespecting a member or staff member
Advertising
Impersonating Staff
Sexual Harassment
Hacking/Threatening to hack
Bribing Or Blackmail
Pornographic content

Trolling/Harassment: Very broad category. What does this constitute? Trolling is very simply making others angry, which can be done quite unintentionally. Many people get angry when I beat them in a game... does that mean that I have trolled them? Also what constitutes harassment? Saying something that another member does not like?
Both fo these areas are way to broad to be enforced effectively... since the moderator can decided what is or is not trolling.

Cussing: Also a bit broad. Are all swear words banned? And what actually is a swear word? When I think of "swearing" I think of the following words: Bitch, Ass, Fuck, Shit, Hell, Damn. (Pardon the language) I do know many people that do not consider all of these swear words... and use some of the accordingly. I would suggest putting a list of words together than should not be said. Also please remember that this rule must apply to moderators as well, so a warning/ban would have to be given to those moderators who cuss.

Abusive Caps: In all honesty I don't even know what an abusive cap is. Can someone explain?

Spamming: I'd say that this rule is fair. Spamming is pretty objective, even though some forms of frequent and possibly off topic posting can be toeing in the line. I would like to see this rule state some specifics, but I do think it is pretty self explanatory.

Abusive Language: Very, very subjective. Define abusive? My definition of abusive is no doubt much different than yours, and abuse is also relative to the receiving party. I may be feeling abused... while the action done to me is not wrong at all. Lets say that I cussed out lopdo and got banned for it. I would feel that the ban abused me, while in reality the action is still just.

Discrimintative slurs: Also subjective. I have already delved into the subjectivity of these rules enough however, so I won't go into it again. However, slurs that are not threatening in nature have no basis for issuing strikes. What is wrong with stating ones opinion (even if racist)? As long as it does not project a threat, it should not be censored.

Disrespecting a member or staff member: Will the subjectivity never end? This rule is relative to so many different parties... all parties involved actually.

Advertising: This rule is a fair one, but I would like it to be specified to advertising another product, as some people advertise for their match.

Impersonating Staff: Clear and to the point.

Sexual Harassment: A bit relative still. What does sexual harassment constitute? And what is wrong with harassment as long as it does not include harm to oneself?

Hacking/threatening to hack: Pretty clear and to the point.

Bribing/Blackmail: I'm not really sure what bribes or blackmail could affect within this game.

Pornographic content: A pretty fair and straightforward rule.

Thanks for taking the time to read my behemoth of a post

I hope to see some quality changes soon in order to keep this game as one of the best of its kind on the market at this time.

[Mipster]

I haven't read the post, but i know what its about >.> Ill read it after posting this, just thought I'd get first word in after the novel thats above me. The rule book is currently being redrafted. Ill read through your post sword, and suggest changes to the draft, that reflect the points raised in your argument.

The revised rulebook will be more concise, and a lot less harsh.

So before everyone starts getting all indignant and rebellious, threatening to burn the forum down and take a shit in the chat lobby etc, wait until the new revised rulebook comes out.

Mip

[Lopdo]

Thanks sword, that was very good post and I agree with most of the things. What I have problem with is "de-subjectiving" (if you know what I mean ) those rules. I have no idea how to approach it. You can't state all examples when this would apply and you can't make precise rules about it either. I agree that they are too broad and can be easily abused by staff, but do you have any suggestion how to fix this? I wanted to leave it mod's discretion, but I can see that lots of people have problem with that.

[BelgarionRiva]

Thanks sword, that was very good post and I agree with most of the things. What I have problem with is "de-subjectiving" (if you know what I mean ) those rules. I have no idea how to approach it. You can't state all examples when this would apply and you can't make precise rules about it either. I agree that they are too broad and can be easily abused by staff, but do you have any suggestion how to fix this? I wanted to leave it mod's discretion, but I can see that lots of people have problem with that.

Why not? The size of the rulebook including specifics would have a lesser volume than half the players taking a shit in the lobby, as mipster so eloquently pointed out. It would point down to specifics, so mods would know exactly what to refer to. The players that will read the full rulebook would have a higher sense of security, knowing that their opinion cannot be subject to a warning or a ban because it does not correspond with everyone else's beliefs.