http://www.rtsguru.com/game/428/article/7588/Exploits-The-Unwanted-Gift-That-Keeps-On-Giving.html" rel="nofollow - 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

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.

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.

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.

There's a lot of background work needed to ensure a company is being responsible in a public environment. It often needs outside professional help to get it right. For something so complicated and involved, it's only natural that players will not understand all the relevant detail that goes into such policies and decisions.

Explanation posts like this are always welcome. Nothing terribly new here, but it's still a welcome development.

lolwut?

 - You're simply wrong.

 - There's no requirement for someone to have an impact on your life to be someone you met in person.

 - That supposed requirement doesn't exist for friends either, in case you're wondering.

 - You know that, uh, people you talk to on the internet are real people too... right?

 - I am pretty confident that the word 'friend' does not mean what you think it means. Then again, I'm not certain you understand 'real', or 'life' either; and 'sad' could go either way.

 - The only sadness here is for the folk you know solely through the internet that consider you a friend.

Edit:

Online friends are certainly real people in my life, and it is not sad.

Anyway, stay on topic.

GM Rikoo

Well, actually people are not found guilty in civil court. They are found liable, generally for acting negligently or inflicting some sort of harm, which without looking it up, I imagine was wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress in OJ's case. 

Guilt only happens in criminal court. However, the distinction between the two standards is relevant, while I do think the Devs got the Nesse ban 100% wrong, it does not have to be beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely a preponderance of the evidence or more likely than not to put it in the common vernacular. 

But ultimately, the game belongs to the devs and its their server so they could ban anyone for anything at anytime. 

The Devs are under no obligation or legal duty to allow anyone to say anything. Freedom of speech does not really exist in the context of an internet forum run by a corporation. 

The article was well written, and though I still disagree with the banning of Nesse, the article was helpful. 

So, moving on...

From the RTSGuru editorial: "Banning people (and even silencing people in chat, taking away the ability to speak across the server) is something none of us want to do."   Well... When a player can get silenced for merely asking why another player got silenced...  GM Stormcrow, your heart is in the right place on this point, but maybe you should see more of what goes on in GC when your moderator has a bu... er is in a bad mood.

"People often level the accusation at us that we're inconsistent with our application of the rules to different players, and this is definitely true - but only within context."   ONLY within context? LOL! Where did you get that idea?

"the Moka incident"   Is that to be cute, like "clay incident"?

"confessing her real-life age of 12"   should be changed to "joking about her real-life age", as Moka's real-life age is considerably higher than 12.

"But we also have no time whatsoever for the kind of trolls who ask us whether we're 'intentionally destroying the game" (or similar phrase) because...   >sigh<  The 'similar phrase' I used was 'intentionally destroying the community'.  The game is yours- you built it. If you want to take it offline, change it to an exact replica of Evony, or build it into the greatest MMORTS ever to grace the interwebs- that's your business. But the community- the main selling point of your game, by the way is ALL of us... We like each other, we love each other, we despise each other... just like the people that live on your street! The community is real! 

Call me a troll if you will- I've been called worse things by my mother- but (intentional or not) any time the community gets shaken up, expect blowback. That goes for any community, whether it's on a browser game or in Seattle.

That said:

GM Stormcrow, you and your team have built the most expansive, well thought-out browser game I have ever come across. You constantly update, fix bugs, and diagnose issues to the best of your ability. When you say you care deeply about Illyriad, that it's your passion, I believe you. What you are doing isn't an easy get-rich-quick scheme, it's a work-your-ass-off-and-hope-it-pays-the-rent endeavor! I realize this, and appreciate it!

The one thing I take issue with is this: A former player (who, as a player, formed friends and enemies; formed opinions and biases) gets hired as a chat mod. The mod is given the power to permaban players, arbitrarily abuses that power, and has full corporate backing. The players that question that abuse of power are harassed by his silence button, and threatened with permabans.

Most corporations fire employees who actively drive away their customers.