02DEC14 - A new editorial explains bans and policy

Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Taelin is correct in his distinction between criminal and civil law in terms of "burden of proof", at least in those countries whose legal systems are derived from the UK (which in this situation includes the US). A good example is the OJ Simpson case: he was found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court. And GM Stormcrow is also correct in his statement that corporations are often subject to laws that do not apply to individuals, or subject to different requirements under those laws. And of course laws and legal systems differ between countries; Illyriad is bound by laws in countries in which it operates (UK and US) which will often be different from laws in countries where many players reside.
As a totally disinterested spectator in all the recent drama concerning player bans, I have to say that the saddest thing I see is the amount of emotion and ego some people invest in what is, essentially, a somewhat silly online game.

Edited by Llannedd - 03 Dec 2014 at 01:17

Author	Message Rating: Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
Llannedd Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Wordsmith Joined: 28 Jun 2014 Status: Offline Points: 139	Post Options Post Reply Quote Llannedd Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 03 Dec 2014 at 01:14
	Taelin is correct in his distinction between criminal and civil law in terms of "burden of proof", at least in those countries whose legal systems are derived from the UK (which in this situation includes the US). A good example is the OJ Simpson case: he was found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court. And GM Stormcrow is also correct in his statement that corporations are often subject to laws that do not apply to individuals, or subject to different requirements under those laws. And of course laws and legal systems differ between countries; Illyriad is bound by laws in countries in which it operates (UK and US) which will often be different from laws in countries where many players reside. As a totally disinterested spectator in all the recent drama concerning player bans, I have to say that the saddest thing I see is the amount of emotion and ego some people invest in what is, essentially, a somewhat silly online game. Edited by Llannedd - 03 Dec 2014 at 01:17

Taelin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Wordsmith Joined: 22 Jan 2012 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 108	Post Options Post Reply Quote Taelin Report Post Thanks(0) Quote Reply Posted: 02 Dec 2014 at 21:54
	For what it's worth, in my view the article is a thoughtful piece which gives further context to recent decisions, it is worth reading and perhaps even I dare say thinking about. You will forgive me, I hope, if I come at it from certain angle. I suspect that one unstated difficulty which has been troubling the recent conversation is the standard of proof. In the US (I believe) and English criminal courts the standard to which a criminal matter must be proved (mostly) is beyond reasonable doubt (or in the English case these days, the jury must be 'sure'). The civil standard of proof by contrast is respectively (again as I understand it) on the preponderance of the evidence or on the balance of probabilities i.e in shorthand 'probably'. To those aggrieved by a GM's decision, particularly if they have ended up being banned for alleged misconduct, it is natural to appeal to and rely on arguments which might have some force if the criminal standard were applicable. Being more realistic, this is a game, a relatively small game but one which operates within many real constraints as referred to by GM SC. It seems to me quite reasonable that the standard by which infractions are proved is in reality somewhere between 'probably' and 'sure'. We players sign up to it knowing that ultimately the decision about our tenure here can be made by the devs, the only counter weight is that logically if they were to consistently act unreasonably there would cease to be viable playerbase, Based on what I have read, and I know it is only part of the story but it will have to do, I don't think they have been obviously unreasonable in so far as recent exploit bans have been concerned. I understand that going public about details and reasoning is unusual and invites the counter opinion of all and sundry but again in this instance I think the right balance has been struck and indeed knowing that the devs are fully aware of the capacity for 'discussion' that elements of this community are capable of I rather admire the decision to go public. To Nesse/Odd, if you happen to read this, and if you happened to be innocent, I am sorry about that, you join the honourable ranks of the wrongly convicted, worse things happen at sea as they say. To GM SC, if you happen to read this, you can pay me in the usual way.

GM Rikoo Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Moderator Group Community & PR Manager Joined: 28 Mar 2014 Location: Mars Status: Offline Points: 1233	Post Options Post Reply Quote GM Rikoo Report Post Thanks(1) Quote Reply Posted: 02 Dec 2014 at 18:36
	Check out this fantastic editorial that was written by our very own GM Stormcrow! It gives an inside look at how we handle bans and other issues, and explains how some things might work in the future. It was written for an audience outside of Illyriad mostly (the readers of the site) so some stuff had to explained for newbies. http://www.rtsguru.com/game/428/article/7588/Exploits-The-Unwanted-Gift-That-Keeps-On-Giving.html Thanks to RTSguru's staff for their continued support! GM Rikoo Edited by GM Rikoo - 25 Apr 2015 at 20:57
	Illyriad Community Manager / Public Relations / community@illyriad.co.uk