Atmosph3rik

You mean teleportation devices called container hubs?
Interdimensional elevators? 
Or tesseract like containers?
Or warp?  

Indeed, I think I do follow the guidelines, rules and at least always try to correctly grasp their intent and act accordingly. However, I don't consult NQ on most decisions I make - if I did they could do the moderation themselves as I would just be a relay and not helping at all. Do you follow the rules and accept their intentions too tho? Regular members/players are required to follow the rules and not act against the provider's intent just as well, hence I don't feel like that's a valid argument for or against anything. Your statement almost reads as if you'd imply that this separates me from regular members and by that it could mean you don't consider yourself bound by the rules in place. If that's the case it would not be a wise thing to say to a moderator who is the main instance of achieving the opposite in order to keep this forum a place where everyone feels empowered to have an open and friendly discussion. The last part of the previous sentence is a direct quote from the first statement in the forum rules and part of the intent that you seem to question.
 
 
Again a violation of our forum rules - see section V, which I explicitly pointed to in my previous comment. Actually there's a chance that my previous as well as this comment might be seen as acting against company guidelines, rules and intent - I did not request authorization to do this in public and it's usually not how things are done, so if you like to take your chances with section V: now would be a good time.
 
However, since you keep spamming your agenda across several threads (yet again, spamming as well as something close to cross-posting also being violations of section III) I've decided to take this public stance and maybe help others to understand how my decisions are made and things are handled by me, basically giving you the tools to have me spanked or even taken out in case I'm wrong. After all communication is one of the most criticized things and I'm doing my part in what I feel is best to take this community's wishes into account.
 
I don't really need to provide proof in public and I've given you the chance to dispute this in private by sending you a direct message to which you didn't reply. But since I'm already out here I will honor your request and just point at your message from which I'm quoting as most relevant proof in this context. This thread's topic is "Mistakes made in the Code of Conduct" and disputing moderation got nothing to do with that - it is 100% off topic and not only in violation of the forum rules section V, as said above, but section III point 1 as well. The same is true for the comment you made before that (edit: the one you made 18 hours ago, not the first of the next double-post). To remind you of its content: among other non-constructive things you offered your personal guarantee that this thread will be locked (which so far is up to me) and you provided a list of alleged preferences regarding entities that I doubt you know well enough to know their preferences - all of which doesn't have anything to do with the optimization of the "Code of Conduct" and therefore is considered off topic by me.
 
So yes, usually I follow the forum rules by the letter, tho right now I'm pretty much in open waters myself. If you disagree with my interpretation of the rules, the actions I take or my decision to make an exception here, please see section V. If you disagree with the rules in place you can make a new thread (as the topic starter did regarding the "Code of Conduct" on this thread, which you repeatedly tried to hijack for your own agenda) and provide a constructive statement about how you think the rules should be improved. If you fail to do this within the rules in place you become subject to moderation, as is evident by the situation we are in right now. If however you refuse to follow the forum rules I'd ask you to refrain from posting in the first place, otherwise I'll have you seen out. My "threats" ain't subtle at all, I just keep it polite and rational while trying to stay neutral regarding involved opinions as long as they're expressed properly. Still, I'm just human too and sometimes try to help by giving my personal take on things, never knowing exactly if I got it right or if NQ fully approves since distribution of responsibilities is rather strict and I'm not involved in matters outside of forum moderation.
 
 
Yes, the way I know them I actually do. The decision to do this here in public is all up to me and that is probably the reason why the forum rules section V exists. Moderators are there to help ease the weight on CMs' shoulders and it's always possible that a moderator makes a mistake - after all I'm just interpreting guidelines, rules and intent myself and again, being human, it is not guaranteed that I'm without any flaw - or any other member, moderator or employee for that matter. I feel rather sorry that you seem to rule out objectivity on NQ's side regarding section V and I'm not sure how I could possibly change that assertion of yours or find an organizational structure to suggest that ensures that players are represented on the evaluation of such a report. Actually since I am just a player and volunteer on the moderator role, I basically consider myself being part of that representation of the player base. If you take the fact, that I might have been chosen for having the well-being of the community and this project at heart, as reason not to trust me for being a "henchman", I admit I don't know how to help with that issue. In that case all I can refer to are the forum rules that clearly state to "abide by moderators and Novaquark employee’s instructions" and I'm instructing you to follow the rules as I laid them out, or take this incident to forum@novaquark.com as advised in section V.
 
This project is a joint effort which started with a Kickstarter campaign and there are many members in this community who are really awesome in helping this project along by being constructive and even if they disagree they raise their voices in a polite and courteous manner, either here on the forums or they approach our Community Managers directly. Sadly none of this I stumbled upon on your history so far, which I presume will get you removed from the member roster eventually. As said above my "threats" aren't that subtle at all - I've addressed you two times in threads as well as sent you a private message. You're right in one regard - I'm here to uphold and enforce the rules of this forum, which are publicly available and linked by me quite often. If something about moderation is unclear everyone is welcome to approach me directly to inquire about it - for example if a thread vanishes and they don't know why. I don't see it as censorship since I don't have any reason to hide something because of opposition. I hide individual threads based on the initial post's conformity with the forum rules. Same goes for individual comments in the stream and sometimes some comments that refer to a hidden comment vanish too - and if there are too many violations on a thread that's still valuable or counts towards contemporary history, I lock the thread if I feel everything has been said and/or the rule violations outweigh its constructive value.
 
Please take note that this is my final statement on this thread. I've let myself be dragged into this off-topic dispute based on a gut call since you don't seem to respond to the direct approach. In my opinion I've just laid the situation out exhaustively and don't intend to let this excursion proceed to further carry this thread off-topic. You're welcome to continue this in private or report me directly if you like, but I will hide any further deviation from this thread's original topic.
 
@dumpeet your comment just came in - please consider yourself addressed by this as well.
 
To everyone who came here to pursue the original topic and has been annoyed by this excursion: my apologies.
I'll do my best to make sure that there won't be any further distractions from the topic at hand  
 
Sincerely
Mondlicht
 
ps
In case anyone wonders why I didn't address the "PPS" made by carijay766: that's because it wasn't there by the time of my reply. While you're editing there should be a notification when others reply to a thread - please don't make significant changes to your posting's contents after other members already replied, as this will make the following comments appear in a different context.

Let's say you owned a convenience store.   And someone walked in and bought a pack of gum, and then proceeded to stand there telling every customer who came in how they think your store sucks, and the selection sucks, and the floors are dirty, and the staff is lazy.
 
Do you think you might ask them to leave?
 
Maybe put up one of those signs you see in literally every store that says, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time".
 
Why would NQ want to continue to provide a service to someone who is actively trying to harm their company?
 
If you think they're doing something wrong, let them know.  I do it all the time.  But if you can't do it constructively then do you really expect them to let you hang out in their store, while you try to tare it down from the inside? 

Let's say you owned a convenience store.   And someone walked in and bought a pack of gum, and then proceeded to stand there telling every customer who came in how they think your store sucks, and the selection sucks, and the floors are dirty, and the staff is lazy.
 
Do you think you might ask them to leave?
 
Maybe put up one of those signs you see in literally every store that says, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time".
 
Why would NQ want to continue to provide a service to someone who is actively trying to harm their company?
 
If you think they're doing something wrong, let them know.  I do it all the time.  But if you can't do it constructively then do you really expect them to let you hang out in their store, while you try to tare it down from the inside? 

Hey @carijay766
 
Locking threads is a moderator's decision and in most cases not made by NQ. We do this when members fail to keep it civil, friendly and constructive. Example: if this thread would be locked, your comment would be on the list of reasons for that lock - it's completely off-topic and can be considered trolling and flaming. Please respect the original author's intent for the thread, which is to help improve things - not to spit at your host's feet.
 
Furthermore please refrain from proclaiming about our, the moderators team's, or NQ's preferences. I for one love pizza, moonlight and friendly discussions. Not only is your comment in violation with our Forum Rules, the statements it contains are wrong too.
 
Since I just @mentioned you in one of the other two recently locked threads, where your comments were one of the many reasons I locked those, I begin to wonder about your motivation to partake in this community. If it's merely to troll and flame I'd strongly suggest you to reconsider. Respect the rules, turn the aggression down and politeness and constructivity up. Thanks.
 
In case you want to dispute how moderation is done: take a look at the forum rules as they contain a paragraph at the end about where to send such reports.
 
 
@Guest Dubble
As there has been enough off-topic I want to add something of value:
Reading this I'd think that Starfire maybe meant that you could send a private message to one of our Community Managers like @NQ-Naerais. Since forum members can't really solve this here (and I can't send private messages to guests) in fact yes, I considered to just give this statement and lock right away, since the path this would take given current situation was rather obvious - but I thought it could just as well become a topic where members get constructive and come up with suggestions on how to improve the paragraphs you address or add more observations about where documents are lacking in a positive and constructive way. Maybe a bit optimistic, I admit, but you know they say hope dies last  
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht
 
ps
@blazemonger your post came in while I was still typing. Thanks for taking it back on topic - my words above clearly didn't take your comment into account. Hope paid off  

Let's say you owned a convenience store.   And someone walked in and bought a pack of gum, and then proceeded to stand there telling every customer who came in how they think your store sucks, and the selection sucks, and the floors are dirty, and the staff is lazy.
 
Do you think you might ask them to leave?
 
Maybe put up one of those signs you see in literally every store that says, "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time".
 
Why would NQ want to continue to provide a service to someone who is actively trying to harm their company?
 
If you think they're doing something wrong, let them know.  I do it all the time.  But if you can't do it constructively then do you really expect them to let you hang out in their store, while you try to tare it down from the inside? 

Hey folks,
 
thank you all for your input. There's nothing wrong with having a debate, but the fronts have hardened and I don't think the opposing sides will come to an agreement any time soon.
 
To not let it be lost in the stream I'll link the follow-up statement by @NQ-Naerais one more time for others to find and after that I'm going to lock this thread.
 
As I see it this settles the matter. There have been complaints in the past that the rules are not being enforced properly and I've seen many fights about rule interpretation too. I even entered those discussions on occasion and shared my personal point of view - especially regarding the advice to take a "better safe than sorry" stance - and those comments of mine have been on top of official clarifications and announcements. That we have two strongly opposing sides in this argument is not new and didn't come with the Market 15 incident. I hope that as things become clearer and more streamlined, most of you will find a way to get comfortable with the rules in place.
 
Let's move on, continue to enjoy the game and build Dual Universe.
 
Mellow greetings
Mondlicht

After listening to the video... I can't stand Scoopys voice, sounds like the typical kid that goes out and causes trouble and then wonders why he gets in trouble for it.
 
 

This argument is just silly.  Since about 1999 i've known that in a persistent online game, if you find an exploitable bug, you report it, or you risk getting banned.  And if you share the knowledge publicly, you get banned.
 
This is common knowledge.  Everyone knows this.  It was in the TOS.  It's been in every TOS for 20 years.
 
The idea that NQ should have specified that they aren't players and aren't included in PVP is hilarious.  
 
This sounds like a bunch of children trying to talk their way out of bedtime by pointing out that their parents get to stay up late.
 
 

What were you waiting for?  Once you filed the report you should have just walked away.  Did you think NQ was going to contact you and say 'Hey go for it, help yourself, the markets all yours!" 
 
You file a bug report because you found something wrong in the game.  It's a report, not a customer service ticket.  They don't respond to them.
 
If you filed a report then you knew something was broken.  It doesn't matter how long it takes for NQ to come around and fix it.  there's no amount of time that suddenly justifies you doing whatever you want.
 
I also don't understand why you keep mentioning Minecraft in space, like that's a bad thing.  Minecraft is insanely successful, and also, that's exactly what this is.
 
 

What were you waiting for?  Once you filed the report you should have just walked away.  Did you think NQ was going to contact you and say 'Hey go for it, help yourself, the markets all yours!" 
 
You file a bug report because you found something wrong in the game.  It's a report, not a customer service ticket.  They don't respond to them.
 
If you filed a report then you knew something was broken.  It doesn't matter how long it takes for NQ to come around and fix it.  there's no amount of time that suddenly justifies you doing whatever you want.
 
I also don't understand why you keep mentioning Minecraft in space, like that's a bad thing.  Minecraft is insanely successful, and also, that's exactly what this is.
 
 

You guys are so stuck on this idea that the ban was some sort of punishment for a theft.
 
When NQ makes a mistake that creates an exploit.  And a player discovers that mistake and exploits it, then posts publicly about it.  That hurts the game and makes NQ look bad.  That's why it's in the TOS.  Because NQ doesn't want you to do it.
 
The ban is to remind people not to do stuff that NQ specifically asked us not to do.

You consider utterly destroying a market building and putting up a childish "pls no ban" letters as a "wholly reasonable action" to being able to Build Mode on a market - a construct that clearly no one should be able to build on? 
 
The wholly reasonable action would have been to submit a bug report via the ticket system and walk away without mentioning it to anyone.

You can't honestly believe that?   A player having access to something that they absolutely were never intended to have access to, by the developers of the game.
 
It's not that the player USED an exploit to access the market.  It's the fact that they were able to, that IS an exploit, to anyone who knows about it.
 
For all we know, at one point all the markets had open RDMS, and NQ managed to fix them all except market 15.  I think you can see how it's important to keep something like that quiet.
 
NQ specifically put wording in the TOS, so when they screw up like this, players don't go post about it on Reddit.
 
I agree 100% that the entire concept of RDMS theft, with a flawed RDMS system and no pvp,  is a mess, and is doing nothing but reflect badly on the game right now.
 
That doesn't change the fact that intentionally violating the TOS gets you banned.

You guys are so stuck on this idea that the ban was some sort of punishment for a theft.
 
When NQ makes a mistake that creates an exploit.  And a player discovers that mistake and exploits it, then posts publicly about it.  That hurts the game and makes NQ look bad.  That's why it's in the TOS.  Because NQ doesn't want you to do it.
 
The ban is to remind people not to do stuff that NQ specifically asked us not to do.

This argument is just silly.  Since about 1999 i've known that in a persistent online game, if you find an exploitable bug, you report it, or you risk getting banned.  And if you share the knowledge publicly, you get banned.
 
This is common knowledge.  Everyone knows this.  It was in the TOS.  It's been in every TOS for 20 years.
 
The idea that NQ should have specified that they aren't players and aren't included in PVP is hilarious.  
 
This sounds like a bunch of children trying to talk their way out of bedtime by pointing out that their parents get to stay up late.
 
 

This argument is just silly.  Since about 1999 i've known that in a persistent online game, if you find an exploitable bug, you report it, or you risk getting banned.  And if you share the knowledge publicly, you get banned.
 
This is common knowledge.  Everyone knows this.  It was in the TOS.  It's been in every TOS for 20 years.
 
The idea that NQ should have specified that they aren't players and aren't included in PVP is hilarious.  
 
This sounds like a bunch of children trying to talk their way out of bedtime by pointing out that their parents get to stay up late.
 
 

This argument is just silly.  Since about 1999 i've known that in a persistent online game, if you find an exploitable bug, you report it, or you risk getting banned.  And if you share the knowledge publicly, you get banned.
 
This is common knowledge.  Everyone knows this.  It was in the TOS.  It's been in every TOS for 20 years.
 
The idea that NQ should have specified that they aren't players and aren't included in PVP is hilarious.  
 
This sounds like a bunch of children trying to talk their way out of bedtime by pointing out that their parents get to stay up late.
 
 

Sometimes it seems to me that half of the people in this discussion live in some kind of unreal world where there are unicorns and they fart like a rainbow.
1. NQ is the owner of this game. And it is this company that sets the rules of the game. And can change them by the way. I'm not making excuses for them, it's just a fact.
2. The guys were not banned because they pressed the B button. They were banned for what was done later. Namely, the ruin of the market. But that's half the trouble. They were smart enough to brag about it! That's for giving themselves up and getting banned! Even in real life, people are judged for 2 things. a) They got caught. b) They confessed. And then there's the aggravating factor. They trumpeted it on Reddit. Naturally, the developers had to react to this. And they reacted harshly. If there was no reaction, then everyone decided that they can do this and continue without any consequences. Perhaps, if there was no publicity in Reddit, the guys would have gotten off easier. This will be a lesson for everyone.

You guys act like The devs are "players you can fucked with". They are not.  If it was a bug or intended mechanics, Dev constructs should NEVER be targeted. if you wanna send a msg, rip off the top of the roof and make a face in the landing pad. when you start fucking with in game systems you deserve the ban. 

Is there any confirmation that this was possible due to RDMS misconfiguration? I haven't seen any.
 
Even if so, to all you people who compare this to previous RDMS theft, there's a significant difference that can't just be tagged with "hypocrisy" and be called done: this "heist" didn't just target NQ - above all it was an attack against all of us and I have a hard time reading your postings defending that.
 
The most important difference between a construct owned by a player versus Aphelia is not a question of customer versus provider. The difference is in the number of players that rely on it and would be affected negatively. As said above, this was an attack against all of us - not just because "some of us" lost market orders, but because "all of us" now can expect a delay on the next update and other issues because NQ needs to tend to this issue now. In addition it impacts trust and cooperation between the player base and the provider.
 
Even if you are right and this theft is technically the same as other RDMS theft, it's still a vastly different thing to sabotage "our game and NQ's development" versus "a player's construct" - to me that's not hypocrisy but apples versus oranges. On the note of real world examples: this is like going to a building site and steal the copper pipes because there was no door. Just that this is the building we all want to live in, not just the shed of some hermit.
 
 
Many people, including me, think NQ should be more transparent and communicate openly - but by solely reading this thread I almost wouldn't want to talk to you anymore in their stead... but that doesn't take into account that I also think we're in this situation because they didn't communicate properly in the first place. Now people are jumping to conclusions again, calling them out based on made-up hypotheses alone, not really knowing anything? First paragraph of this answer: RDMS misconfiguration? Give me the link to that NQ confirmation first, on which your bad "reaction" vibes are based please - otherwise you're not reacting but just acting based on an imagined reality. I'm sorry if I just missed that piece of information about RDMS misconfiguration if there was anything official - even tho it still wouldn't change my general opinion.
 
 
The critics regarding "Why is Aphelia's market build and stored dynamically?" is easy to answer: player markets are planned. So setting up hard coded markets and then create another system with redundant functionality would be a waste of time. Aphelia owned markets are ground work for player owned markets and lets all of us test and harden it before we put our own terminals down. Once that happens markets will be spilled all over the game world and it would be a lot harder to maintain/fix/develop the system with an ever changing number of markets and different market configurations than working with a fixed set of Aphelia owned markets now.
 
Btw: it's been said here that Aphelia "is a player" - but that's not true. At best it's an NPC character that doesn't even have an avatar standing around in game. Aphelia doesn't set up RDMS policies either - again just presuming that it was "owners fault".
 
 
Ok, it may look like "Done to you? Haha! Done to us? Nono!" but to me that's way too simple and feels like a reaction of someone holding a grudge because of his personal situation or hurt feelings regarding prior injustice (for which we don't know why what decision made on which grounds). Some thought NQ only posted those announcements because "people whined" and refused to listen before their very special exploit was directly listed, even tho NQ clearly stated it as general rules - well, now at least you know, eh?  
 
To those who say it's not clearly stated in the rules that you can't dismantle a market if it's in jeopardy because of "RDMS misconfiguration" (unconfirmed afaict) and the issue therefore should be treated exactly like any other player base RDMS scam, here's an excerpt from the EULA that Naerais referred to in the original post:
Source https://www.dualuniverse.game/legal/eula
 
^ If destroying a market ain't "detrimental to the proper functioning" I don't know what else could be. Permanent ban? Correct decision. This wasn't an accident - this was a deliberate act. And Naerais said explicitly that there was no report made by the people in question. Hence they put their lust for publicity and their ego above the well-being of everyone else in this community and even above the spirit of the beta, where we're supposed to help test and report issues to aid development. It's a 180° deviation from this ship's course and if they failed to see that they should not be part of this.
 
Even tho yesterday I told some friends I think "if NQ got balls" they could remove the stolen elements that players normally don't have access to and otherwise just say "gg" - meaning I would've be fine with that too - but when I said that I didn't know the magnitude or that players' orders would be affected.
 
To those who say that they don't want to test anymore because they don't know if that test could lead to them being banned: I agree, if you can't tell the difference between a) testing if you can remove unimportant elements from a market that you know you shouldn't have access to and then report and refrain from doing more harm, versus b) ripping a market apart, utterly destroying it... then yes, I agree that you should stop testing. But I'm pretty sure that distinction should be rather easy for everyone, so I'd suggest and prefer if you'd just rethink that over exaggerating stance  
 
tl;dr
Seeing them finally taking action is highly welcome. I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" - but this case is without any doubt. I hope future decisions will be just as strict when there's sufficient evidence to act without risk of hitting the wrong target. And I hope that they'll soon be up to date with reports again and act faster - right now we don't even know if the past exploit thefts (not RDMS mistakes) will remain without action or if they're still investigating. Tracing an issue and distinguishing it from normal/legit behaviour can be pretty difficult and take time. Just because we haven't seen action for that yet doesn't mean it's not gonna come at some point - even if they could act quickly on the "market heist" issue, which just means that the facts were clear and it was easy to trace and act.

Hello Noveans, 
 
By now, some of you may be aware that unlucky number Market 15 has been stripped bare and left to create ugly memes for generations to come. We’re trying to look at this in good humour as, from the front, it appears to be an issue that was created when we moved the markets, making it editable by players. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (though we know there are a few of you out there) to understand that the markets are not a community construction, and as such not intended to be handled by players on this level. The destruction of the build isn’t a quick fix, and was clearly done knowing it shouldn't be. 
 
An important aspect we are considering in all cases and investigations is intention. The intention behind this destruction is very clear to us. The players involved did not report this bug to us, but instead simply filled their pockets. Had this stopped with a single voxel removed it would be a different story.  This is, at its core, a violation of the EULA and against the intentions of beta. We have been as understanding as we can until this point, but there must be a line.
 
Let us be clear, we will not tolerate this kind of behaviour during any phase of the development of Dual Universe.
 
The players responsible for the destruction of the market have been permanently banned from Dual Universe, and all salvaged materials and assets gained will be removed without compensation.
 
Sincerely,
The Novaquark Team
 
Follow up statement: 
 

The devs are not players, their mistakes are just bugs. There was fair and broad warning before this: 
 

Man guys, be real. They didnt expose a bug. They broke down a market including its link to the market system which was never intended to be deleted. They never reported, they only intended to break and remove. 

Hilarious would've been leave it intact but add something funny to it like a meme.

Discovering or knowing an issue, bug, or exploit and benefiting from it instead of reporting it to Novaquark is forbidden.
  seems to fall under this rule... Ban? wondering if maybe there are some from other games trying to purposely cause problems here