Forums-->Queries and help-->
| Author | Clarification of rule |
|---|
I have been playing here for years and I have never heard or seen this rule until yesterday –
Participants of a combat are not obliged to turn off the battlechat while the spectators (IF being asked to) must stop commenting/flooding in the battlechat otherwise they might be reported and penalized for flooding in others' battlechat.
I’m not questioning any admin’s actions, which is not allowed. I just have a few questions and want to clarify the rule I don’t quite understand.
1. Is this rule written anywhere or was it just introduced 1-2 days ago? I have checked General Rules, official clan profiles etc, and I don’t see this rule anywhere.
2. Has anyone heard of or seen this rule before few days ago?
3. I have read the rules and asked a mod and a sage and was told the definition of flooding is - Flooding is many relapses of senseless characters, same sentences, more than 2 smileys etc.
So looking at this battlelog and how a player was given a penalty for flooding in other players' battlechat
- https://www.lordswm.com/battlechat.php?warid=34386331
I don’t see this player committing any relapses of senseless characters, same sentences, more than 2 smileys etc.. So please can advise me where in battlechat did he ‘flood’ to earn penalty?
4. And if this rule is new and all of us have never heard of it, can penalty be given for backdated offenses like I have seen in the above player’s case? Can we use this rule to report other players too for committing this offense from past battles?
5. So if I follow exactly what this new rule say,
…the spectators (IF being asked to) must stop commenting/flooding in the battlechat otherwise they might be reported and penalized for flooding in others' battlechat.
I can write at the beginning of every of my battle, "Watchers, please leave/go away", and anyone who comes to watch my battle and say,
"Hi"
"How are you, Hallion?"
"This is interesting fight. :)"
I can report him and he will get a penalty?
Don’t you think this is the most absurd rule ever? What are others’ opinions on this? | And if this rule is new and all of us have never heard of it, can penalty be given for backdated offenses like I have seen in the above player’s case?
If this is in fact a backdated offence. Then it is very sad.
Then it would just be a license to fine for keepers (like a nerdy James Bond)
Also a problem that you for now on have to start watching a battle from start if you wanna comment because you never know when a person has asked for no comments in the start | Don’t you think this is the most absurd rule ever? What are others’ opinions on this?
blocked lol | I didn't know the rule either. I thought, admins had introduced the message filter in combat for cases like this.
Flooding is many relapses of senseless characters, same sentences, more than 2 smileys etc.
That was my definition of flooding. Didn't know that changed. | https://www.lordswm.com/clan_info.php?id=7373
Clan members’ competency:
¤ Insults in battles, tavern, private mail. Swearing, rudeness, threats, flood.
- first infringement, 5,000 gold
- second infringement, 10,000 gold
- third infringement, 20,000 gold
- fourth infringement, 40,000 gold
- fifth infringement, 100,000 gold
- sixth infringement = character block.
There is possibility of premature block in exceptional cases.
^^ First section and it has been there and enforced for as long as I can remember, probably even from before I started playing. | @DiN
This are very vague rules, could be nice with some clarity!
How do you this is flood?
Seems like there is many there don't understand the rules after the latest fines and lack of it. And for the health of LWM it would be good to know what we can and cannot do
And while we are at it, how can you tell from this text that:
Calling one a bad player & Noob don't fall under rudeness or insult catogory | 1. don't know if this exact wording was there before but there definately was a rule about posting in someone else's battle chat.
2. the rule is common sense.
3. flooding means posting multiple messages that are unwanted. however, the number of such messages is up to the admins and could potentially be just one message.
4. the new rules are not to be enforced backwards, that would be unjust. however, i believe this rule existed for a while. I have seen people getting punished for flood in battle chat as long back as 2 years.
5. I think to be penalized a visitor has to be aware you said something. So, you can wait until the visitor says something and then say "go away". Then if the person says something else, they may be a subject to a fine.
Saying something at the very beginning of the combat is not likely to cause penalties because the visitor will argue that your message scrolled out before he/she joined and was not visible.
P.s. It is my personal opinion that visitor's comments can be highly distracting. If it were up to me, I would not allow any comments from visitors until the battle is over. | 5. I think to be penalized a visitor has to be aware you said something. So, you can wait until the visitor says something and then say "go away". Then if the person says something else, they may be a subject to a fine.
Saying something at the very beginning of the combat is not likely to cause penalties because the visitor will argue that your message scrolled out before he/she joined and was not visible.
This just adds to the confusion and vagueness.
Battlechat only shows like 8 lines. So what if the “go away” comes right before someone cast a mass area spell like fireball/meteor rain, Ladon attack 5-6 targets, many players talking at the same time, the watcher turns away from screen for 10-20 seconds? The message will still be off the battle chat. So there’s no difference than writing at beginning of battle in the sense that the message can still be missed after a few seconds.
Rules should be clear cut, so everyone understand it. Not filled with ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. | Also,
i believe this rule existed for a while. I have seen people getting punished for flood in battle chat as long back as 2 years.
Those were for players who made relapses of senseless characters, same sentences, more than 2 smileys etc.
Afaik, no one was ever punished for making 2-3 ‘normal’ chat sentences like the player who was penalized in the above example. | Rules should be clear cut, so everyone understand it. Not filled with ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’.
It's very simple in my personal opinion.
Sequence:
You say: please don't talk
Visitor says: hi
Result: No penalty
Sequence:
Visitor says: hi
You say: please don't talk
Visitor says: why shouldn't i talk, i want to talk.
Result: Penalty
The visitor has to say something before and after your "please don't talk".
in the above example
In the above example, Jedi was not behaving harmlessly. His comments were distracting to the battle participants.
However, I do not think it even matters. If a visitor is asked to keep quiet, he must keep quiet. It doesn't matter if he/she is saying the nicest things. | | flood is not the same as talking, is it? | flood is not the same as talking, is it?
"flood" is a term for sending too many messages in a certain time window. It does not matter if the messages are coherent or not. The messages can be single characters, smilies or full sentences.
However, note that the quotes rule states:
the spectators (IF being asked to) must stop commenting/flooding in the battlechat
Jedi was not flooding in the example above but he was commenting/talking. Therefore, he was in violation of this rule the way it is stated. | Flour, your point goes back to what Hallion was trying to establish at the beginning: when did that rule appear?
Once established, if backdated offenses also warrant punishment then all one need to do is dig back, find 6 such offenses and the player in question can be blocked, regardless of when the offense was committed.
The analogy is similar to you getting into a fight in 4th grade and being slapped by your mom/dad when you're 39 years old.
The country where I live has durations affixed by law to reporting certain offenses e.g. you have 3 years to lodge a complaint against somebody if his/her dog harms you, thereafter no application can be filed. | @Dionysus
I don't understand your argument.
The battle sighted above took place on 2/25/2012 just a few days ago.
It doesn't appear as though anyone dug up anything from the past. | Well that specific section of the rules in the Keepers Clan has existed since *at least* 14 March 2011.
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1899101 - See post # 8.
I'm sure that it was there much earlier than that, as I was well aware of the rule at that time.
The Keeper Clan (https://www.lordswm.com/clan_log.php?id=7373) was created on 18 April 2009 so it probably wasn't formalised before then.
If I was to guess, I would say the rule probably was put in place in April 2009 when this post was made (https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1853328&page=0#149111 - Post # 3, note the identical language used in both cases).
Grunge | @Dionysus
Ok, I think I see what you mean.
The so called relapse #3.
The battle took place on 2/9, the complaint was posted on 2/26, 17 days later.
I am not a judge on any sort and I do not represent the administration or mods.
I can only provide my personal opinion.
My personal opinion is that that is on the border of reasonable timeline. Obviously it was not filed right away but 17 days is not ancient past either. | | Flour, I totally agree with you on reasonable time, in context of game time. Having said, the point, which you aptly pointed out is penalty/relapse #3 takes place after relapse #2 but the offense in #3 took place before #2. Which is what I intimated about digging back even further in time and dragging out similar offenses for punishment. | The interpretation given recently
Participants of a combat are not obliged to turn off the battlechat while the spectators (IF being asked to) must stop commenting/flooding in the battlechat otherwise they might be reported and penalized for flooding in others' battlechat.
is quite different from what's on keeper's clan page:
¤ Insults in battles, tavern, private mail. Swearing, rudeness, threats, flood.
Note the original rule says nothing about comment, but the recent interpretation obviously treats commenting as punishable as flooding. Isn't this a misinterpretation of the game rule? | ...penalty/relapse #3 takes place after relapse #2 but the offense in #3 took place before #2
That's awful! There should only be a relapse#3 penalty if the offense took place AFTER relapse#2 penalty was leveled, not just AFTER relapse#2 offense. In other words,
Offense 2
Penalty relapse 2
Offense 3
Penalty relapse 3 -> OK
Offense 2
Offense 3
Penalty relapse 2
Penalty relapse 3 -> not OK
Offense 3
Offense 2
Penalty relapse 2
Penalty relapse 3 -> definitely not OK
The point of a penalty is to discourage further relapses, and sequence 2 and 3 do NOT accomplish that goal. | | Participants of a combat are not obliged to turn off the battlechat while the spectators (IF being asked to) must stop commenting/flooding in the battlechat otherwise they might be reported and penalized for flooding in others' battlechat. | | closed by Empire (2012-02-29 11:37:34) |
|---|
Back to topics list
|
