Boundaries between real life and game in P&W

[Spite]

First of all, I've started this in Orbis Central not game reports, so please don't consider anything in this as an attempt to get anybody punished, banned, ads deleted or whatever. This is intended to be a sensible discussion by the player base.

 

I will try to keep this short, though brevity isn't in my nature. Most games like P&W have a large RL role play element. This means that there can be some "infringement" on real life people, companies, organisations, and so on. For example Mensa HQ is named after Mensa (ironically), an organisation for people with high IQ. Our deity is symbolised by a character from an anime/video game series, Dio Brando, whose name is itself a reference to Dio (God in Italian) and Marlon Brando. Japan huh.

 

However I think it's fair to say that Mensa HQ is not seeking any interaction between themselves and either Mensa (RL) or any Japanese game studios.

 

Now if an alliance was made that was called something like "Join Eve Online" (as an example), and the alliance was full of famous Eve players who didn't play P&W, but posted lots of ads encouraging people to join Eve, I guess Sheepy would have an objection- he likely wouldn't approve their ads and would probably ban the alliance based on the name.

 

We currently have a situation where there is an alliance called Trump 16, where the owner and "player" uses their account solely for the purpose of buying and producing ads for their alliance. Now the question is: "Is Trump 16 a humorous Donald Trump themed alliance, or is it something linked to an external factor- namely the actual Donald Trump campaign for President".

 

Firstly, let's look at the name. Now Trump is, for better or worse, a celebrity now. He is famous and his gaffes make him quite quotable. I can understand why someone would choose to role play as "the Donald" in the same way we have John Cena and various famous dictators kicking around the place. The only troubling bit is the 2016 bit. In politics, it's usual (as I'm sure you're aware) to express positive support for a candidate in this way. So for example, Obama 2012 would mean "elect Obama as POTUS in 2012"- it's shorthand for this. So in this case, we have an alliance name which advocates the election of an external RL politician. This is treacherous ground.

 

Looking at the alliance raises further concerns. The background of the alliance page is a picture of Donald Trump with "Vote Trump 2016" - an even clearer advocacy in favour of electing a RL politician. There is no "other option" to consider here. It doesn't say "Vote Trump for best alliance P&W" or "Join Trump 2016 we're the best". In fact the alliance does not recruit and exists only to exploit a loophole and allow Donald Trump's RL election to be advertised in a game. My conclusion is therefore that this alliance exists solely to promote an external political candidate for the position of POTUS and has nothing to do with P&W or role play.

 

This is further enforced when we read the alliance description. It opens with "Stand with Trump 2016 and Make America Great Again!". This is again a reference to the RL Trump's election campaign, and though it requests donations for further ads, it makes no reference to any sort of alliance or P&W related activity. 

 

The next section is perhaps the most damning- direct links to the RL Donald Trump website and twitter feed. In isolation, this would be bad. In combination with the above, it is clear that this page exists for one purpose- to support the position of a RL political candidate in a RL election.

 

 

Although this is the clearest example, the question is- to what extent do we allow ingame alliances and individuals to promote external causes, websites, products and individuals? Where is the line drawn? Should all external promotion be banned? Only those cases like above where there is a clear link? Or should it all be allowed? Open to discussion on this.

[Ekejen Luish]

#BestWallofText2015

[Conner Temple]

#BestWallofText2015

#BestHashTag2015

[Prefontaine]

Spite, the entirety of your problem stems from the fact that you are uninformed. Princess Bubblegum has been playing this game longer than anyone in your alliance I believe. They've intentionally kept their nation small for reasons. They've been making trollish alliances before. I doubt PBG actually supports trump and is more making a joke at the candidate. That being said it's actually irrelevant if they are. If someone is as weak willed to be swayed by adds in politics and !@#$ing war into voting for them, then they should be voting for the donald. The fact that you're actual concerned about this enough to write the wall of text is actually laughable. Please be less idiotic in the future.  

[Restius]

I think Spite's main concern has some weight regardless of whether it is Trump, or something else.

 

There are a lot of alliances that take from real world themes, and a lot of graphics that represent those companies, people, organizations, games, etc...I think this an attempt at a conversation to gauge just how directly linked do we allow alliances or nations to become to the real thing, despite a gag joke or a real concern?

[Crust]

Even if spite was saying princess bubblegum is hired by someone to promote Trump, that has no real bearing here. The discussion is how much a nation or an alliance can reference a rl issue or a rl person before it's too much.

 

And this is interesting to me because often people have used the argument that someone is trolling, but should it matter? If a friend of mine was reported for sweetheart trading with me, would it be okay if I said we were doing it to troll people? To what extent does the intention of breaking a rule or !@#$ing with the nature of the game matter? And where is the line drawn?

[Mike Haggar]

I look forward to the Doritos vs. Mountain Dew War of 2017.

 

Sheepy has already started handling this. It will always have to be a judgement call. I just wish PBG would take some of that energy and play the game.

[Jodo]

Flood the ad system with a counter then.

[Spite]

Spite, the entirety of your problem stems from the fact that you are uninformed. Princess Bubblegum has been playing this game longer than anyone in your alliance I believe. They've intentionally kept their nation small for reasons. They've been making trollish alliances before. I doubt PBG actually supports trump and is more making a joke at the candidate. That being said it's actually irrelevant if they are. If someone is as weak willed to be swayed by adds in politics and !@#$ war into voting for them, then they should be voting for the donald. The fact that you're actual concerned about this enough to write the wall of text is actually laughable. Please be less idiotic in the future.  

 

Thanks for your constructive comments Pre. Firstly to respond to your (small) points- as I said I used Princess Bubblegum's Trump campaign as a clear example of my concern. However if a player made a similar campaign promoting a brand, another political candidate or another game it would be the same issue.

 

Regarding your personal points: How long someone plays a game doesn't mean anything, you should judge someone based on their actual points. I don't have an issue with trolling (obviously) and this article isn't about that. Whether PB made one ad or one hundred it would be the same point. I also don't make an argument that this will necessarily change anyone's opinion. I'm not even eligible to vote in the US elections. My point is as above: at what point does ingame promotion of an outside organisation, brand or individual become "advertising" and have to be judged as such? For me this line has been crossed in this situation, as it would be if they promoted (as I explained above) Eve Online or similar.

 

Calling someone an idiot for making a polite discussion topic is just childish. I suggest that you read your post again and ask yourself if the language represents how you actually want to be viewed by other players.

 

Flood the ad system with a counter then.

 

If it was a "Mensa sucks" ad I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's external advertising and that's a different thing.

[Prefontaine]

Calling someone an idiot for making a polite discussion topic is just childish.

 

Okay then, dumb-dumb.

[Conner Temple]

Okay then, dumb-dumb.

Hello smart ass

[Buorhann]

Pretty sure the Trump 2016 stuff is trolling players.

 

Sheepy already made his stance on this.  Starting February, no more Trump ads.

[Kastor]

Trump 2016 is a joke and I can't believe people can't comprehend that.

[Mike Haggar]

Trump 2016 is a joke and I can't believe people can't comprehend that.

The question is if it has crossed the line over into an actual advertisement for an outside entity. What if, say, someone started a Ted Cruz 2016 themed alliance backed by a real life PAC? Viral marketing is all the rage. Sheepy wouldn't mind the money, but then he seems more unfair if he blocks other advertisers. What about my aforementioned Doritos alliance? Or any consumer product you care to dream up? When does the theme itself take away from the gameplay experience?

 

I think that a fair compromise would be removing references to Trump's campaign, while keeping Trump himself and any reference to his bigotry. AKA Trump rather than Trump 2016. Trump is a big enough personality that there is plenty to work with outside of the campaign, and PBG can keep irritating people to her heart's content.

[Dagon]

There once was a leader named Spite

he spoke a decree with delight:

that some ads should be shamed,

and their sponsors be blamed,

for causing him quite a great fright.

[Buorhann]

My issue about this; where were the folks complaining about this when PBG first started?

 

PBG has been doing Trump ads since back before the whole Rose/Mensa ad war.  That's several months ago and now it's a problem?

 

I get the point the OP is stating ( What is the line between advertising real life compared to in-game ), but this is way late beyond when the point would've been better considered.

[Crust]

My issue about this; where were the folks complaining about this when PBG first started?

 

PBG has been doing Trump ads since back before the whole Rose/Mensa ad war.  That's several months ago and now it's a problem?

 

I get the point the OP is stating ( What is the line between advertising real life compared to in-game ), but this is way late beyond when the point would've been better considered.

 

Couldn't that be said about most issues on PnW? I mean, didn't it take some time before the issues with people using bots to trade was addressed and fixed? Didn't it take months and several issues with people exploiting weaknesses in the game before Sheepy finally got an admin? Why does it matter when the issue is addressed, when it still hasn't been discussed and clear boundaries have been established?

[Rozalia]

My issue about this; where were the folks complaining about this when PBG first started?

 

PBG has been doing Trump ads since back before the whole Rose/Mensa ad war.  That's several months ago and now it's a problem?

 

I get the point the OP is stating ( What is the line between advertising real life compared to in-game ), but this is way late beyond when the point would've been better considered.

 

I assume it's because Trump's momentum is at the point that those against him can no longer dismiss it as harmless, and instead as a very real threat to what they believe to be correct (and Trump is against). Stopping Trump ads here won't do anything really, but it's the thought of doing something in the "fight" that counts.

[Alex]

Pretty sure the Trump 2016 stuff is trolling players.

 

Sheepy already made his stance on this.  Starting February, no more Trump ads.

 

You seem to be the only one who realizes this. Thanks for informing everyone.

 

The question is if it has crossed the line over into an actual advertisement for an outside entity. What if, say, someone started a Ted Cruz 2016 themed alliance backed by a real life PAC? Viral marketing is all the rage. Sheepy wouldn't mind the money, but then he seems more unfair if he blocks other advertisers. What about my aforementioned Doritos alliance? Or any consumer product you care to dream up? When does the theme itself take away from the gameplay experience?

 

I think that a fair compromise would be removing references to Trump's campaign, while keeping Trump himself and any reference to his bigotry. AKA Trump rather than Trump 2016. Trump is a big enough personality that there is plenty to work with outside of the campaign, and PBG can keep irritating people to her heart's content.

 

If you want to have Ted Cruz themed alliance, that's fine. In terms of player advertisements, as of February 1st the same rules will apply to your Ted Cruz alliance, your Bernie Sanders alliance, your Hillary Clinton alliance, or any other candidate in the Presidential race (at that time.) A ruling has already been made about this, where we draw the line between "roleplay" and "advertising."

 

Of course, in the future issues could possibly arise. In the Eve Online example that Spite gave, I would have no problem with an Eve Online themed community, one that referenced Eve Online in their ads or tried to get people to play Eve Online with them as well as play the game, but regular "Play Eve Online today!" ads that took you to the Eve Online website would definitely be rejected.

 

And if you want to compare that to the Trump ads, just remember that 9 months before the actual election the ads are all going to be pulled as I've ruled they'll breach our real advertisement rule.

[Spite]

I assume it's because Trump's momentum is at the point that those against him can no longer dismiss it as harmless, and instead as a very real threat to what they believe to be correct (and Trump is against). Stopping Trump ads here won't do anything really, but it's the thought of doing something in the "fight" that counts.

As I have said already, I don't really care about whether Trump wins and I did worry making this post if this would become "all about whether Trump is good or bad". Please don't make it about that. If this was about "Hilary 2016" or "Buy Coca Cola" I'd make the same points- when an alliance is focused on advertising an external body, candidate, campaign or whatever, and the person doing that advertising does not participate in the game other than to use money from raiding noobs to produce ads supporting that campaign- then has a line been crossed?

 

I'm not going to repeat the OP again, but please stay on topic. Although I used PB campaign as the most obvious example, that is what it was. Can ads advertise non-game products? The links on the page, the title of the alliance, the slogans used - these do not refer to anything ingame in a meaningful way. Again, if I made an alliance and called it something like "Donate money to Save the Children" and then ran ads with that same title and posted donation links on the alliance page- would this be ok? It is essentially what is happening here.

 

Again- PB personal views, the trolling aspect, whether Trump is good or bad are all irrelevant to the point I am making, so please stay on topic. There are plenty of troll threads and trump threads.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Ultimately its not your, or the playerbase's decision to make, its up the moderation staff and the Sheeps, and what they are willing to allow.  So if you, or another player what to try to walk the line of what you may or may not think is acceptable, go for it, but do it with the understanding that there can be consequences to your actions if you go too far.

[Mike Haggar]

I understand your irritation Spite, but Sheepy has already made a stand on this (see his post above). To be fair to PB, he is allowing the ads to expire, rather than simply deleting them. PB deserves that much for supporting the game, no matter how irritating you find her. Don't like the ad? Then support the game and buy a VIP.

 

There probably isn't a whole lot productive that can come from this conversation. Decision has been made. The Trump haters win. Expect PB to use the remaining ad time to push you for more threads like this one. I'm sure she enjoys it.

[Spite]

Ultimately its not your, or the playerbase's decision to make, its up the moderation staff and the Sheeps, and what they are willing to allow.  So if you, or another player what to try to walk the line of what you may or may not think is acceptable, go for it, but do it with the understanding that there can be consequences to your actions if you go too far.

 

I understand that, and I stated in the OP that this was intended as a discussion not a report, and whilst I'm happy Sheepy has weighed in on the debate that's what it is. In the past Sheepy has responded to community discussions, and I think it's healthy for us as a community to discuss what boundaries we would like to see in the game. I am aware that Sheepy as the game owner is the one who decides policy but this is something which has been exercised in a flexible manner in this particular case and I thought it would be helpful to extrapolate the possibilities when it comes to extra-game advertising (both using ads and the alliance/player name and messages) to prevent future problems arising.

 

In other words, you can respond to any discussion about the game by saying "Sheepy decides", but if we did that we'd have no discussions about the game and it's future direction. So it's a non-comment really.

[Spite]

I understand your irritation Spite, but Sheepy has already made a stand on this (see his post above). To be fair to PB, he is allowing the ads to expire, rather than simply deleting them. PB deserves that much for supporting the game, no matter how irritating you find her. Don't like the ad? Then support the game and buy a VIP.

 

There probably isn't a whole lot productive that can come from this conversation. Decision has been made. The Trump haters win. Expect PB to use the remaining ad time to push you for more threads like this one. I'm sure she enjoys it.

I don't think "raiding noobs and using the money to buy credits from the market" constitutes "supporting the game". 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Can't stump the trump.