Just a quick note!

After private deliberations, the Staff is ready to unveil a new set of rules -- http://www.covenwars.com/help.php?page=Rules . The design has been changed, and some of the content has been slightly reworked.

If there are any questions or concerns regarding the new rules, please post here and only here, and I'll be more than happy to try to help!

ƒ(x), Game Moderator.

Is there a changelog, for new/changed rules?

There is not.

---

(GM) ƒ(x) (3815) said
There is not.

---

Any large changes we should be aware of specifically, then?

Cease Contact Orders are completely new. They've been around for a long time, but this is the first time they're actually included in the rules.

I honestly can't remember any other major changes. Most of it is simply restructuring and rewording; I invite anyone else to mention notable changes.

---

(GM) ƒ(x) (3815) said
Cease Contact Orders are completely new. They've been around for a long time, but this is the first time they're actually included in the rules.

I honestly can't remember any other major changes. Most of it is simply restructuring and rewording; I invite anyone else to mention notable changes.

---

Okay, I notcied that, but I've known they were in use already .
I didn't see any other big changes either

that off topic thread rule...does that mean i have to delete my thread that rickrolled everyone?

Some of the rules have been removed to prevent misuse of power as well, that had been added in the past.

---

Sephiroth (56) said
that off topic thread rule...does that mean i have to delete my thread that rickrolled everyone?

---

I think that means posting off topic IN a thread. Thats the way I took it, anyway.


Edited at 01/11 21:21:37

@ Seph: Probably not. It's in non-game.

Recall that that was once not allowed, however (the rick-rolling).


Edited at 01/11 21:22:19

hmm

These rules have been reviewed by all current staff members and have been approved of by Scot. As such the Moderators will be enforcing them, so be sure to familiarize yourself with the changes.

Not to worry though, no major alterations have been made. The rules have merely been streamlined and brought up to date.

Most notably are the addition of CCOs to the rules, which we have already been enforcing, as well as some minor wording changes, and the condensing of extraneous rules.

General Game Rules

5) BY PLAYING THE GAME, YOU RELEASE THE SITE AND ITS STAFF FROM ANY LIABILITY OF IN-GAME ACTIONS. YOU ALSO WHOLLY AGREE TO THE GAME'S TERMS AND CONDITIONS, ACCESSIBLE HERE.

--As I mentioned to Lillith via Skype a couple weeks ago; this needs some rewording and possible clarification. Reasoning can be mentioned among staff with the example I gave for such a change as it's not meant to be public knowledge.

- - i) Listing an item that requires premium to purchase from the Dungeon Armory with more than a 25% mark-up.

This seems limiting. If the game economy is taken into account and it's marked up more than 25% and worth more, it seems we should be allowed to ask for more. If people do not want to pay that price, within a week it'd be off the market anyways. Premium purchased stuff shouldn't be limited in my opinion.

- 6c) In the event of a new item being released which costs some alternate form of currency, rule one will be relaxed until an average and fair cost can be determined.

Rule on is about discrimination. You may need to reword to say that 6a or whichever you are actually referring to is relaxed. Unless you mean to say we can be racist until an average fair cost is found for a new weapon...

- 9b) Players may not cause their headers to exceed a limit of 200 pixels.

Scot was contacted on this matter by Lillith, via a question by myself. When Scot and I placed this rule in, it was because there was the 100px CW header as well. When asked if we removed the header if we could make it 300px for a maximum, he gave the okay. Clarification would be nice.

Communication Rules

3) Players may not post in 'all-caps'.

Will we actually see this enforced now since it's bolded and not just a suggestion in the rules? It's always been a tough call but now it's black and white.

4) Players may make lotteries with a staff member's permission; see this post for details.

No link.



As for major changes it seems much that a former mod added are gone, and it places the staff back on a level where they are not held accountable for what they do, and also returns the game back to a more relaxed place. There are slight changes in wording, but nothing that is over bearingly different. No one will be ambushed with major changes.


Edited at 01/11 21:31:52

Point I: I will contact you privately to discuss this.

Point II: 25% is was a guestimate for us. If we notice that nothing is selling, then the figure is definitely up for a change. Our aim is not to limit the game's economy, but to promote equitable trading.

Point III: As entertaining as the ramifications of that typo are.. no! Fixed.

Point IV: The rule should indeed state that the limit is 200px with the header, 300px without. Will clarify that in the rules posthaste.

Point V: It's a matter of enforcement. If it becomes a major problem, then yes, all caps posts will be an offense that warrants an immediate ban. My personal opinion is that if it does not spiral into a problem, the occassional all caps post is just peachy.

Point VI: Derp. Another oversight! Fixed.

In general: I want the game to be more relaxed. I want users to be informed of the rules, and know what they can and cannot do. If that's clearly established, then any action the staff has to take should be clear-cut and have minimal consequences. In that situation, everyone can breathe easier and focus on actually communicating, rather than the consequences of their communication.

I also want to say that the staff as a whole is not shunning a standard of accountability, we're simply internalizing the process. As it stands now, each staff member (with the likely exception of myself) is quite aware of the day-to-day happenings of the site, which lessens the ease at which they can 'abuse' their privileges. We're also all (again, with the likely exception of myself) fairly keen on the rules, and will be universally enforcing them, rather than haphazardly as we have in months past.

I know this isn't a very lengthy post, but I hope I've managed to explain our choice to overhaul the rules. If not, I'll take another stab at it later, when I'm a little better rested.

Edit: I like italics.


Edited at 01/11 22:11:46

hmm

---

Warden (21) said
hmm

---

This is the kind of post I'm not looking for here. It contributes nothing to the subject of the thread.

If you have an opinion or a concern, please, post it!

Thanks for those fixes, tweaks and clarifications! It is great to see these changes about and well overdue! The layout is so much cleaner and neat now.

I was going to before, but overlooked it in hoping another would point it out..

What happened to all of section III? It was used for the players to be able to ask another moderator if their ban was unjust or whatever. A way for us to contact another mod about anothers actions. Sure you may "work as a team" but there are and always will be biased bans from mods. Sure it shouldn't happen and doesn't as often as we've seen before, but it still happens. The entire grievance was condensed into "Message another mod once and wait" It seems short changed and like nothing will get done now if you feel wrongly accused of a ban or such.

if you want my honest opinion, then I just believe that this rule is good and bad at the same time, I say Hmm, just so people know I am listening. I really don't mind rule changes, however you asked me for my opinion and I am giving it to you, this change has both the potential backfire, or increase the amount of people on the site. I really don't speak much, because my opinion can get me in trouble sometimes, I was merely making sure you knew I was paying any attention to your thread


Edited at 01/11 22:22:47

That is a very good point. Section III was removed because it did, in essence, boil down to the user waiting for another moderator to get back to them after they've sent their message.

I do want to try to get some system up and running that's a little more user friendly, but that requires a bit more talking and a lot more work. Right now, our main focus was to get the largest portion of the rules overhauled and out-- after a bit of time, we'll hopefully have a better, more intuitive system up and running for this problem.

In the interim, however, all I can say is that messaging another moderator is still your best bet. We do all talk with one another, and this sort of issue is brought up promptly with everyone.

@ Warden

In regard to the "potential backfire" please do clarify, if you see a potential shortfall in these rules, it would be most beneficial for you to share rather than stay silent.

Alright. I like the idea of another sort of "system" or "procedure" as the entity of section III had holes and was a lot of words for little to be done. Something in place in the future sounds good thanks once again for a quick response on the matter.

---

(GM) ƒ(x) (3815) said
@ Seph: Probably not. It's in non-game.

Recall that that was once not allowed, however (the rick-rolling).


Edited at 01/11 21:22:19

---

I do remember that.

---

Sephiroth (56) said


I do remember that.

---

I believe that rule was just in reference to chat only, if I recall correctly.

yay, new things!