Jump to content
Guest Dubble

Mistakes made in the Code of Conduct

Recommended Posts

Guest Dubble

Mistakes in the Code of Conduct (COC)

 

According to rule 15 in the COC, scamming is not allowed. There is however still a "Scammer" role on discord encouraging this behavour.

Quote

15. Participating in any fraudulent action against any other User of the Game, including by means of scamming or social engineering;

There are issues regarding rule 5 as well, the rule is extremely vague and makes you able to be banned for nearly any action performmed while other players are around.

Quote

5. Harassing or threatning other users and interfering in any way with their full use and enjoyment of the game

Here is a list of examples that would be "Interfering in any way with their full use and enjoyment of the game"

 

You are in space, see a player and decide to start attacking them. You begin shooting at them and eventually take them down, you go to their ship and steal their loot. You have now intefered with their full use and enjoyment of the game, seeing as you destroyed their ship.

 

(This has been clarified outside of the COC that, this is allowed, but it is still a very valid example) You come across a player's base and see that their RDMS is set to allow anyone to do anything to their base. You steal every single item they have, they are now left with nothing. You interfered with their full use and enjoyment of the game. Even worse actually, you could come across a ship with their RDMS set to public and steal that, leaving them stranded, possibly with no money forced to wait for daily bonuses or a good samaritan.

 

What I'm asking for are clarifications in the COC to make the rules clear, abideable and understandable to everyone.

 

(I have made a ticket regarding this, it has however not been responded to in roughly 3-4 weeks now, asked Starfire and they told me to try my luck here)

I will also be making a seperate post on crime in slight relation to rule 15, in this post I will be ranting about why Dual Universe should have crime. Didn't want to post it here due to there only be a slight relation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to DULAG. There won't be any clarifications because that would mean limiting their ability to ban people at will. Please understand 🙏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love when alts come to post.

 

Fact is you CAN scam in game you just have to do it within the confines of the games mechanics.  Not by exploiting or finding bugs to use.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the awnser is in the term used: you can't scam or threat a USER i.e. the human being, not the character : in the game, scam and threats are allowed, it's in real world that it is forbiden I think

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But since it is not specified, it is all guesswork.

And in the M15 case one of those vague rules was used to permban based on ingame character actions so.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that's bad, just wait until you see the "we can ban you if you make us look silly" clause in the EULA. 

"section 5.2 of the EULA: “You must refrain from engaging in any behaviour that could harm NOVAQUARK’s image and/or reputation" 

So basically "You can't make any of our mistakes public, that would make us look silly and we can't look silly now, can we?" 

Even though NQ look sillier than ever right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DavidDavidson said:

You think that's bad, just wait until you see the "we can ban you if you make us look silly" clause in the EULA. 

"section 5.2 of the EULA: “You must refrain from engaging in any behaviour that could harm NOVAQUARK’s image and/or reputation" 

So basically "You can't make any of our mistakes public, that would make us look silly and we can't look silly now, can we?" 

Even though NQ look sillier than ever right now. 

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atmosph3rik said:

Let's say you owned a convenience store.

Someone walked in and told you that there's something wrong with your price tags, picking up a few packs of gum and leaving after going through self-checkout. You notice that they got it for free because you fucked up and gum's price was set to $0.00. You ban them from your convenience store. They get understandably frustrated and go public with the news. You double down despite the "damages" being completely negligible and make it apparent to everyone that your policy is "the customer is always wrong unless proven otherwise".

Would anyone go to a convenience store with such publicity? Sure, but not because it's good and they would ditch it the moment something better came up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A convenience store is about to open and the guy installing the self-checkout did what he always does, but the management software of the terminal experiences an exception and didn't finish installing the routine that would trigger the alarm when someone takes stuff through the rfid scan field. Some of the workers notice this and start to take stuff out of the store. Some of these guys return and say "Look, I just took this and went out without issue - something wrong here?" while others take a hike and sell the stuff on eBay. The workers that returned, reported and helped the store owner to fix the issue were fine and continued to work the next day, while the guys who left without notice were fired.

 

In conclusion? There's no conclusion. This is all completely beside the point of this thread. There is room for improvement on the EULA and on the in-game rule set - that's it. Pretty pretty pleeeeaaase... don't hijack this thread to continue that fruitless M15 topic <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rip this thread, I can guarantee you this will be shut down aswell soon. NQ doesnt like meanie talk, especially if theyre the reason its happening and made themself look bad in so many occasion. They love to purge they love to censor. They love to shutdown bad press creating more bad press. Marketing geniuses right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The text is correct and refers to how USERS interact and not how CHARACTERS do.

 

So you can within events as they unfold in game prevent someone from leaving or entering their base but you can't go to their house and cut the power or call SWAT to their house so they can't defend their base. May sound silly but it has happened in the past and will in the future.

 

You can scam a character in game but you can't try and scam them as a person by using game assets or mechanics.

 

 

I'd absolutely agree the text as it is is written horribly bad but the context is clear enough for anyone who has some form of understanding of general MMO rules as there is very little there that is unique.

So yes, you have a point, but not in the way you may think ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

The text is correct and refers to how USERS interact and not how CHARACTERS do.

 

So you can within events as they unfold in game prevent someone from leaving or entering their base but you can't go to their house and cut the power or call SWAT to their house so they can't defend their base. May sound silly but it has happened in the past and will in the future.

 

You can scam a character in game but you can't try and scam them as a person by using game assets or mechanics.

 

 

I'd absolutely agree the text as it is is written horribly bad but the context is clear enough for anyone who has some form of understanding of general MMO rules as there is very little there that is unique.

So yes, you have a point, but not in the way you may think ;)

 

Really really ironic that you are defending this. I agree with you, but how you fail to see this exact logic applies similarly to an...overly talked about incident, is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

6 hours ago, Guest Dubble said:

asked Starfire and they told me to try my luck here

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 :) 

Edited by Mod-Mondlicht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ram said:

Really really ironic that you are defending this. I agree with you, but how you fail to see this exact logic applies similarly to an...overly talked about incident, is beyond me.

While you seem to miss it, my position is actually consistent as my main objection to NQ's actions in another situation is because their communication and the way they word their ruleset is so vague it can be interpreted different ways and as a result becomes non applicable. Also their lack of communicating what I woud agree after further clarification is indeed a bug and as such an exploit if made use of is why their actions do not have justification (you can't claim an exploit as reason for action if you have not declared it as such prior to an incident).

 

And that is the only and last thing I will say on this here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LouHodo said:

I love when alts come to post.

 

Fact is you CAN scam in game you just have to do it within the confines of the games mechanics.  Not by exploiting or finding bugs to use.  

 

 

Lol at anything "within the game mechanic" you were one of the guys whining about how it's bugusing when players act within the game mechanics but it's deemed illegal by NQ in hindsight. Cut your hypocritisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mod-Mondlicht said:

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 :) 

Clearly mods act as henchmen in every social platform may or be forums or discord so NQ doesn't look even worse than they made themself look already and they again escape responsibility. Mods are 100% representing the company or are you saying you were not officially put in place and you're acting against the companies guidelines, rules and intents? Please pick one. 

I dont see any trolling in calling out contradictions of people/arguments or stating my opinion/experience just because some disagree with it. I don't see where I went completely off topic either, but feel free to enlighten me and give some proof for your accusations. 

 

PS: your subtle threats and one sided blameshifting (I certainly wasn't the only one with a harsh or direct tone and there was even actual insults from other parties who did not agree with me) trying to make me responsible for something that NQ caused (very well known tactic by now) are of course very much appreciated at least you're making it obvious that censorship is based on terror not reason - complaints about certain moderation approaches go directly to NQ, do you really think they would objectively judge about them? Clearly silencing critical voices is in their utmost interest - not an actual discussion (which surprise surprise include contradicting opinions and also critical voices sometimes) 

 

PPS: Why, instead of blameshifting and threatening consumers, don't you try to give some constructive answers to the ongoing questions that many of us have regarding the CoC (as someone who is closer to the source than any of us and can also actually consult the devs for clarification)? This would certainly settle a lot of the ongoing confusion and show that NQ actually has some interest in working with the community. It would also flatten the waves which im sure is in everyone's interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, carijay766 said:

Lol at anything "within the game mechanic" you were one of the guys whining about how it's bugusing when players act within the game mechanics but it's deemed illegal by NQ in hindsight. Cut your hypocritisy. 

Don't get it twisted kid.  I am not saying that what those kids did to 15 was wrong.   I am saying how they went about doing it and "reporting" it was. 

 

Had they had just left the sign or a random xs fuel tank and reported it through the PROPER channels instead of posting a brag post on Reddit or a half hearted PM on discord which has n very been the correct way to report any bug.  

 

To quote CCP HTFU.  And don't try and come at me sideways again because I will verbally slap you back to your adolescence and make you think I am your long absent father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, carijay766 said:

Mods are 100% representing the company or are you saying you were not officially put in place and you're acting against the companies guidelines, rules and intents? Please pick one

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.

 

4 hours ago, carijay766 said:

I dont see any trolling in calling out contradictions of people/arguments or stating my opinion/experience just because some disagree with it. I don't see where I went completely off topic either, but feel free to enlighten me and give some proof for your accusations.

 

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.

 

4 hours ago, carijay766 said:

complaints about certain moderation approaches go directly to NQ, do you really think they would objectively judge about them?

 

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.

Edited by Mod-Mondlicht
1. added clarification regarding an addressed comment | 2. added ps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mod-Mondlicht By private message, do you mean a message through Discord? Thanks for the response.

And guys, let's keep the beef of the table and the topic on it. Made this to create awareness on the need of clarification about the COC/In the COC not anything else :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dubble welcome to the forums - glad to see the guest status vanish. By private message I refer to the private message system here on the forums. I'll send you one to discover it and ask any other non-thread related questions you might have on the forum software, moderation or other stuff aimed at me directly :) 

 

There have been some answers regarding EULA interpretation as regarding the out of game/character experience. Maybe you want to share your take on this - does it make sense to you or would a change to better reflect this improve the situation?

Edited by Mod-Mondlicht

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...