Shattered Kingdoms

My only idea is this, and I think it would be healthy for the entire game.

I would prefer that if you as the Rules Manager can look at an action that you view as an exploit and think "If a new player or a 'clean' player did this thing, I would warn them instead of punishing them and make a public post," then you should do that with even a player who is an repeat offender like Layth's player was.

If the exploit is inexcusably obvious as bug abuse, then even a new player or "good" player should be punished.
If the exploit is legitimately unclear as to whether it's cheating, either because it's a well-known tactic that's been used by the playerbase as a whole, if it potentially makes sense from an IC perspective or if the rewards given are minor, then even a player who has cheated in the past should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I really feel like this specific circumstance falls under the second category: For one, given that you can only hold items in your inventory based on your dex now, it doesn't require any mental gymnastics to assume that the take command would allow you to "search" an ungeared non-aggro undead zombie for something you thought they had. Secondly, unless the exploit grants over an entire level for turning it in, which I doubt, a veteran player probably wouldn't even bat an eye at the gains given by it, because even an entire level's worth of experience is not all that much of a "reward" to a veteran player who's leveling a character. Lastly, I witnessed this action as a player and didn't personally find it a problem at the time, although I acknowledge that you hadn't seen it before so you didn't have that perspective coming in.

I agree, Thuban, with the helpfile that you cited, but I disagree on a fundamental application of that helpfile, which I think is at the heart of the issue here.The point is that this is in the "help punishments" file, not the "help rules" file: Whether someone is a repeat offender should only matter -after- it's determined that they were abusing an exploit, not in order to determine their guilt -and- their punishment. Yes, if a offender starts multiplaying or crashing the game on purpose, they should potentially be perma-banned: But if a repeat offender gets "caught" doing something that's not a clear-cut case of cheating, their -guilt- should be determined by the action taken then, and only -after- they're proven guilty should the harsher punishments for a repeat offender come into play.

TL;DR: The -guilt- of a player should not be proven based on their history: Only the facts should do that. The -punishment- of a player should take into account repeat violations. A situation that would not result in a punishment for one player should never result in a punishment for another. That was one of the goals for establishing the position of the Rules Manager in the first place: Even-handed application of what was cheating and what wasn't.

if even a handful of players had considered this a bug before yesterday then i would agree this player got what was coming to him - that he should have reasonably concluded it was a bug or at best shady. however, i can state with authority based on comments elsewhere that there is not a single player on sk that considered using the "take" command as a bug or bug abuse before yesterday. as such, it's not reasonable to conclude this player should have known better.

the standard ur applying to this player presumes he was knowingly abusing a bug and therefore repeating behavior that had gotten him in trouble before. but given the fact that no other players considered this a bug before yesterday - it seems ur applying an unfair standard to him. a standard that wasn't applied when following NPCs was classified as a bug.

Yeah, fubar on an edit. Let me see if I can undo that.

Cannot undo. Please repost if you want for posterity, or we can just carry on.

*raises his hand*

Don't forget my post on the previous page!

Ideally, this would work. In practice, I'm not sure if I can apply that in a way that is fair to the vast majority of our players who never exploit things. I will address you and finney together on this one:



The main problem here is I can't ask the guy, "Did you know you were abusing a bug?" I can't because he has lied to me repeatedly in the past, and had been as unhelpful as possible in resolving previous violations. His response to my warning him against using proxies was, after complaining to me, to go out that day and run a bot on a proxy. If I asked either of you two, "Were you aware this is a bug," I could at least give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no way to do that in the case of a player who repeatedly violates the rules and lies to me on a regular basis. He left me with no choice but to assume the worst.

Other players are generally unaware of bugs that get abused. I had never seen anyone else abusing the bugs Makatiel or Layth abused. I thought what Layth was doing looked suspicious, confirmed with Dulrik that it was a bug and not a feature (which, he has made his position on the matter clear here), and acted accordingly. If you guys are right, and there's really a "vast majority" of players out there that knew about this and didn't think of it as a bug, then I didn't see it happening. We have a lot of players who rarely or never post in forums here or otherwise, and I'm not prepared to assume they agree or disagree with you.

If you can convince Dulrik that I should poll the player base every time an exploit comes up to ask the consensus on whether something is a bug or not, I'm willing to do that (though that has never been the method of administering this game and probably never will be). Until then, I have to just act based on what the rules say and what Dulrik and other immortals tell me is or is not a bug. In the case of code, I turn to Dulrik. In the case of scripts and areas, I turn to the KD's to get their opinions. I take those opinions and what the rules say and make a decision about whether punishment is needed and, if so, how much.

I will be the first to admit that getting a site ban off of using this take exploit seems ridiculous. In a vacuum it would be outrageous. In the context of a player who has been a persistent rule violator, who has been told not to violate the rules again or face a site ban, I had to follow through. I would like the player to someday make a case to play here again, because I don't see him as a fundamentally destructive player, but that's on him.


The guilt in this case was clear. It was ruled a bug and he was doing it. Now, if it had been almost anyone else, I could assume they didn't know they were doing something wrong. I cannot do that in the case of a guy who has demonstrated that he will not play by the rules. Also, I would much rather hand out warnings to people who I think could accidentally be using an exploit than always go straight to the punishment called for by the letter of the law. What you're asking for is more punishments, and I don't agree that's for the best.

no big deal either way. was able to respond by just reversing our names.



it's not even a vast majority of players - it's every single player so far. there is not a single player that has posted here or elsewhere that they considered this a bug before yesterday. that is because there was coded output for both the positive and false result for the "take" command when used with an npc. that gave us as players the impression it was designed that way.

i'm sure u and dulrik are not trying to offend us, but when you say things like "common sense" should have led players to know this was a bug - it's almost like ur implying that we are drooling imbeciles because as i've stated several times - there were no players before yesterday that considered this a bug. i encourage any players that thought this was a bug before yesterday to post here - cuz i don't want to speak out of turn.

thanks for the taking the time to share ur perspective tho - i just happen to disagree with it this time.

I seem to be one of the few veterans who did not know about the take command. I understand why it would be considered a bug. I also understand why most (all?) players did not consider this to be bug abuse.

Thuban, Dulrik: it appears that this is not such a clear cut "common sense" issue that you previously thought. Since Thuban admits that "common sense" is the only way to tell if something is a bug or a feature, I have to ask: do you plan on reconsidering the punishment levied against this player?

(A)


(B)


(C)If both of these quotes are true statements, then it is highly likely that the player in question did not know he was exploiting a bug.

(D)Players should not be punished for exploiting bugs when it is highly likely they thought they were merely using a game feature.

(E)Wrongful punishments should be reversed.

Thuban, if you do not intend to reverse your decision, I would appreciate it if you told met which statement(s) from (A)-(E) is incorrect.

If there was some minority of players who felt this wasn't a bug, then you're argument about past offenses may hold water, but as it is, it appears it is YOUR intuition on the matter that is in the minority. Common sense was not what you assumed it was on this one.

Afaik, all punishments are final, right? Is there an appeals process?