Rule Clarification

[Allanon]

You were in violation, yes, but given it was not spelled out in the rules at the time and you were likely unaware of the consequences, not to mention acting in good faith, we're not going to action you based on that so long as it doesn't happen in future :)

[umajon911]

You were in violation, yes, but given it was not spelled out in the rules at the time and you were likely unaware of the consequences, not to mention acting in good faith, we're not going to action you based on that so long as it doesn't happen in future :)

Im not trying to get a retroactive ban lol just want to try and clear up the gray areas so people don't make innocent mistakes and get a ban for it then flip out cuz they didnt know. Its the gray areas of the rules that upset most players.

[Allanon]

Im not trying to get a retroactive ban lol just want to try and clear up the gray areas so people don't make innocent mistakes and get a ban for it then flip out cuz they didnt know. Its the gray areas of the rules that upset most players.

Agreed, its why we're trying to clarify some of the less obvious rules, tho naturally some of the rules need to be left grey as we cannot predict every situation, and a lot of it comes down to a judgement call.

In this case, the rule was not specifically written down, but rather you were aiding in bypassing a ban issued for someone breaking another rule. We obviously need to ensure that when we ban someone from the forums, they cannot circumvent that ban, and to do that we need to ensure people realise that regardless of the content the banned person is asking them to post, posting it on their behalf is a violation. Given it is a bit of a grey area in terms of what is specifically written down, we have to judge intention in this case, and I believe you genuinely didn't realise you were violating the rules at the time and were intending to simply help a former player pass on a message of congratulations. Therefore, no ban should be issued. However, now it is written in the rules, and is no longer a grey area henceforth.

[azsxdcfv]

I apologize for the seemingly double standard. The stricter posting standards began being adhered to after those particular posts and retroactively administering punishments for different standards seems like a far worse course of action than just biting the bullet and having some seemingly glaring consistency issues for a while before older threads fall off.

You were in violation, yes, but given it was not spelled out in the rules at the time and you were likely unaware of the consequences, not to mention acting in good faith, we're not going to action you based on that so long as it doesn't happen in future :)

Thought stricter posting standards were already enforced and all of us have to bite the bullet and have some glaring consistency issues?

[realm of ding dong]

Thought stricter posting standards were already enforced and all of us have to bite the bullet and have some glaring consistency issues?

Apparently the glaring consistency issues include mods not being on the same page.

[Allanon]

So now it's everyone's responsibility to know who is and who isn't banned at any given point in time? That's pretty absurd.

If I get banned from the forums it's because I said something I shouldn't have. Likewise if I post on behalf of someone else (a forum member, a banned forum member, someone who never bothered to register to this forum, etc.) and that post includes something inappropriate, then I'm responsible for the post.

Telling me that I'm responsible for knowing who is banned and asking me to therefore appropriately filter my posts is something I have never seen on any forum ever. Because it's stupid and impossible.

If someone is asking you to post on their behalf, it is your responsibility to ensure that the content you are posting complies with the forum rules. If it does not, the consequences rest with you. This is standard practice whatever forum you are on.

Apparently the glaring consistency issues include mods not being on the same page.

More different ways of saying the same thing. It wasn't a spelled out rule at the time, he didn't know it was a rule at the time, he acted in good faith, so we decided not to action him on it even though we could have at the time. It is now spelled out in the rules, the grey area is completely removed on that issue, and it will be strictly enforced as per the new moderation standards from this point forth, but we're not going to judge someone retroactively based on the new standards and rules :)

[realm of ding dong]

If someone is asking you to post on their behalf, it if your responsibility to ensure that the content you are posting complies with the forum rules. If it does not, the consequences rest with you. This is standard practice whatever forum you are on.

It's my responsibility to enforce forum bans? Is the absurdity of that not self-evident to you? You seem a little confused, no offense btw. Obviously I'm not going to post hardcore sex videos "on behalf of" someone else and then try to pretend I'm not responsible. I'm not a psycho.

But seriously? Am I even allowed to mention a banned person? Reference anything the banned person has ever said or did in the past? Relay some opinion that this banned person has expressed to me in private? What is the implication here? That if I speak on behalf of a banned person then that means he has stuck a gun to my head and forced me to post his comment on the forum? That I'm some kind of weird forum slave that's around all the time to post this person's comments? Or that I, as an unbanned person who shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS, have elected to relay the thoughts and words of a banned person. Or maybe I made it up! Maybe I'm not actually speaking on behalf of that banned person. Who would know? It's ridiculous. Don't tell me this is "standard practice" on any forum.

[Allanon]

It's my responsibility to enforce forum bans? Is the absurdity of that not self-evident to you? You seem a little confused, no offense btw. Obviously I'm not going to post hardcore sex videos "on behalf of" someone else and then try to pretend I'm not responsible. I'm not a psycho.

But seriously? Am I even allowed to mention a banned person? Reference anything the banned person has ever said or did in the past? Relay some opinion that this banned person has expressed to me in private? What is the implication here? That if I speak on behalf of a banned person then that means he has stuck a gun to my head and forced me to post his comment on the forum? That I'm some kind of weird forum slave that's around all the time to post this person's comments? Or that I, as an unbanned person who shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS, have elected to relay the thoughts and words of a banned person. Or maybe I made it up! Maybe I'm not actually speaking on behalf of that banned person. Who would know? It's ridiculous. Don't tell me this is "standard practice" on any forum.

It is your responsibility to respect forum bans and to not aid others in circumventing a forum ban by communicating on these forums on their behalf by relaying messages for them. If you see fit to aid someone in circumventing a ban, then you will be violating the forum rules and it will be your actions that you will be facing the consequences of, not those of someone else. If you feel this could lead to uncertainty regarding your own posts, I would suggest you avoid communicating on others behalf in the forums and instead have them speak for themselves.

References to existing posts from before the ban is not a violation, as long as the posts you make referencing them conform to the other rules of the forum.

[azsxdcfv]

It's my responsibility to enforce forum bans? Is the absurdity of that not self-evident to you? You seem a little confused, no offense btw. Obviously I'm not going to post hardcore sex videos "on behalf of" someone else and then try to pretend I'm not responsible. I'm not a psycho.

But seriously? Am I even allowed to mention a banned person? Reference anything the banned person has ever said or did in the past? Relay some opinion that this banned person has expressed to me in private? What is the implication here? That if I speak on behalf of a banned person then that means he has stuck a gun to my head and forced me to post his comment on the forum? That I'm some kind of weird forum slave that's around all the time to post this person's comments? Or that I, as an unbanned person who shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS, have elected to relay the thoughts and words of a banned person. Or maybe I made it up! Maybe I'm not actually speaking on behalf of that banned person. Who would know? It's ridiculous. Don't tell me this is "standard practice" on any forum.

Maybe we should post like this:

He-who-shall-not-be-named wishes to congratulate mansoor for the win

lmao.

[Pestilence]

Maybe we should post like this:

He-who-shall-not-be-named wishes to congratulate mansoor for the win

lmao.

Does your arm hurt when Voldebart needs something?

[Sweetiepie]

It's my responsibility to enforce forum bans? Is the absurdity of that not self-evident to you? You seem a little confused, no offense btw. Obviously I'm not going to post hardcore sex videos "on behalf of" someone else and then try to pretend I'm not responsible. I'm not a psycho.

But seriously? Am I even allowed to mention a banned person? Reference anything the banned person has ever said or did in the past? Relay some opinion that this banned person has expressed to me in private? What is the implication here? That if I speak on behalf of a banned person then that means he has stuck a gun to my head and forced me to post his comment on the forum? That I'm some kind of weird forum slave that's around all the time to post this person's comments? Or that I, as an unbanned person who shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS, have elected to relay the thoughts and words of a banned person. Or maybe I made it up! Maybe I'm not actually speaking on behalf of that banned person. Who would know? It's ridiculous. Don't tell me this is "standard practice" on any forum.

This. I have never heard any thing so ridiculous in all my internet life.
Seriously grow up you mods and developers. I get that you hate Bart. I have never had interactions with him so I really don't know if he is any worse than Abs or any of the other cheating, farming kingdoms that there have been so, so many of over the years. But building rules pretty much specifically around one person you hate is just the most pathetic, childish, non productive thing you could possibly do. It reflects extremely badly on your group interpersonal skills and rational thinking that you have chosen to go this route. You need to face up to the fact that you cannot stop anyone playing this game who wants to, because they don't need an actual province to run a kingdom strategy or war. And you guys should know that better than most. So the next poster says 'Someone wants to say well done XX:XX', are you going to ban them too, because it MIGHT be a message from someone you hate? So probably anyone who knows Bart would know by now that he's banned. How on earth could any poster know about anyone else who is banned? You want to make the forum even more of an incestuous in group than it is already - that only people who know everyone and the politics of everything in the last 5 years of utopia can post?? Have you never heard of the saying 'Hard cases make bad law'? I suggest you look it up and ponder.

You guys should take a step back from your emotional Bart angst fest and see how this looks to outsiders. It's not pretty and it's not professional. It's not even clever or useful.