Jump to content

9/23/2021 - New Game & Community Rules Released


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Alex said:

At this time I have only brought on two highly trusted game moderators who had extensive experience with existing moderation teams.

Time to play detective 🕵️‍♂️

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

TCM3_1_281x175.png.d5f909d45f36d3dcb3722580e7b7ecc2.png
Coal Duke (Imperator Emeritus) of The Coal Mines
Diety Emeritus of The Immortals, Patres Conscripti (President Emeritus) of the Independent Republic of Orange Nations, Lieutenant Emeritus of Black Skies, Imperator Emeritus of the Valyrian Freehold, Imperator Emeritus of the Divine Phoenix, Prefect Emeritus of Carthago, Regent Emeritus of the New Polar Order

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice.

Can't wait for the public application for mods. I've haven't been here too long and I'm straight up addicted to this game (I login daily lol).

  • Like 3

Signed, Mega, the kindest person ever! ♥️

Proud Member of Event Horizon

DISCLAIMER: Any post that I make or my response to one is NOT in any way representative of the alliance I'm in, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems like the next GW strat is to go into your enemies discord servers and find them saying things that will get them striked

 

theres no way every case will be moderated i assume, else itd be incredibly easy to target people with this

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never really paid to much attention to the rules, but has "Treasure Transfer Co-ordination" always been an offense? 

Seems kinda dumb to prevent alliances/players from trading relics between each other, especially when it would create more content for players in game and give the feature a bit more love.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sri Lanka 001 said:

Hi, I'd like to apply for mod mhm, I'm gonna be a good mod mhm, totally won't ban @mcm the first thing I become a mod mhm

I'm gonna say it, Sri for PnW Moderator 2021.

  • Haha 2

Downloads.jpg.f8cec0ed86ab61876072ab7847b52f92.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
18 hours ago, Emperor Adam said:

Making moderator names public would go a long way to dissuade this. Faceless moderation inherently fosters a "us vs them" when there's disagreements, whereas each party knowing the other adds that level of humanity to it and makes things a lot less confrontational in the long run.

You and I had a nice DM discussion about this on Discord, and I appreciate the feedback. At this time, my primary concern is biasing the moderators. It might sound counterintuitive, but having public moderators means that if they make a decision against another player they could get flak, either from opposing alliances or their own depending on who's receiving moderation points. I think the threat of being kicked out of your alliance, or having your alliance attacked by another alliance, etc. would weigh in on player's decisions. Anonymous moderating allows us to prevent that from occurring, and in theory with the right level-headed moderators lead to fairer and better moderation.

That said, if things don't go well I will certainly reconsider this position based on the feedback you gave me.

17 hours ago, YangMoment said:

seems like the next GW strat is to go into your enemies discord servers and find them saying things that will get them striked

 

theres no way every case will be moderated i assume, else itd be incredibly easy to target people with this

Yeah, I tried to be clear in the rules that we're not moderating everything that happens outside of our official channels. Only specific things (see screenshot below). But if we did not take any evidence from outside official channels, some things like coerced city deletion (imagine an alliance makes peace terms like you can only get peace if you delete all your cities) would be impossible to enforce. They could just only communicate that through other Discord servers, or Discord DMs, for example, and in-game their official stance could be that those aren't the real peace terms. It would be kind of silly to just look the other way and let them force a whole alliance to delete all their cities or w/e. There are other similar situations like with account buying/selling, etc. that are all explicitly listed below.

image.png

10 hours ago, Zevari said:

I've never really paid to much attention to the rules, but has "Treasure Transfer Co-ordination" always been an offense? 

Seems kinda dumb to prevent alliances/players from trading relics between each other, especially when it would create more content for players in game and give the feature a bit more love.

No, it hasn't always been against the rules. I think about a year ago we codified that. The purpose of the treasures was to get people to war over them, and the coordinated treasure transfers (i.e. buying treasures) was creating some war slot filling issues.

We're actually in the process of building out a new treasure trading interface where you will be able to buy/sell treasures directly (under certain conditions, like neither party is at war.) That should be ready to go by the end of the year, and will more-or-less eliminate the need for this rule.

  • Upvote 2

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mods and admins were banning people without evidence, valid reason, or good cause too often. Hopefully this helps.

 

Rules 6. Bounty Coordination and 7. Treasure Transfer Coordination are anti-emergent-gameplay and a band-aid fix for poor game design.

"we may expand the scope of our Community Rules to what we consider the entire Politics and War Community, including, but not limited to, private Discord servers" is a gross overreach of moderation that can and will result in the extortion of players: "Act how we deem acceptable, even when not playing PnW, or else."

Edited by Malleator
  • Upvote 1

Love you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alex why would city deletion forcing have half the severity of forcing someone to quit the game.... Just reading through the list seems off, you took a 3 strike ban, to what could be a 1-2 strike ban on issues that are based on undeterminable intentions, I see alot of glaring holes in the logic of some of the point values or length of time, alot of people 2 years is permanent. Dunno just feel like some of the point values were achieved by throwing a dart at a board almost

Edited by Dusty
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
49 minutes ago, Malleator said:

Mods and admins were banning people without evidence, valid reason, or good cause too often. Hopefully this helps.

 

Rules 6. Bounty Coordination and 7. Treasure Transfer Coordination are anti-emergent-gameplay and a band-aid fix for poor game design.

"we may expand the scope of our Community Rules to what we consider the entire Politics and War Community, including, but not limited to, private Discord servers" is a gross overreach of moderation that can and will result in the extortion of players: "Act how we deem acceptable, even when not playing PnW, or else."

As I stated above, we're actually working on a whole treasure buying/selling mechanic built into the game. As for preventing bounty coordination, I'd be happy to hear your game design solution for that problem.

To your second point, there are some rules that would just not be enforceable if we only looked at in-game actions. If someone was blatantly buying and selling accounts on Discord, and everyone knew about it, would you want me to refuse to take action just because it didn't happen in-game?

To reiterate an earlier point, the actual enforcement of the rules isn't really changing. I'm just being more clear and transparent about when I'm going outside the bounds of official game channels to moderate things.

2 minutes ago, Dusty said:

@Alex why would city deletion forcing half the severity of forcing someone to quit the game.... Just reading through the list seems off, you took a 3 strike ban, to what could be a 1-2 strike ban on issues that are based on undeterminable intentions, I see alot of glaring holes in the logic of some of the point values or length of time, alot of people 2 years is permanent. Dunno just feel like some of the point values were achieved by throwing a dart at a board almost

I know they're not perfect, which is why I had it open for public discussion and feedback for over a month. I never really got any feedback on point values, to be honest, I don't know why. I just assumed people were happy with what I came up with, but you're right I was just kind of going with my best estimate for what was appropriate based on experience.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex said:

 

I know they're not perfect, which is why I had it open for public discussion and feedback for over a month. I never really got any feedback on point values, to be honest, I don't know why. I just assumed people were happy with what I came up with, but you're right I was just kind of going with my best estimate for what was appropriate based on experience.

Cool glad to know ya recognize that, that's the biggest issue I see😬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Arthur Wellington said:

Why not payed non players as moderators? 

Because volunteer players are cheaper. 

Also, though this is a smaller factor, because players (especially veterans ones in other PW mod teams already) better understand the games mechanics and politics, knowledge which may be necessary in some cases dealing with, well, mechanics and politics. 

A payed non player could learn these with time of course, but obviously this is just easier and cheaper.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 9/23/2021 at 2:23 PM, Emperor Adam said:

Making moderator names public would go a long way to dissuade this. Faceless moderation inherently fosters a "us vs them" when there's disagreements, whereas each party knowing the other adds that level of humanity to it and makes things a lot less confrontational in the long run.

Then people will know my true identity as Les Paul Supreme. . . Oh wait. . . 

On a more serious note, I didn't have the chance to read over the whole change of rules, but for players to have the chance to know what mod gave them a warning and so on would be a plus even if it's an alias. It allows for players to see if they're constantly being targeted by a certain mod, and compare said mod actions with other players with the similar offense. It would give the chance to single out issues like this of bias as the community, and make mods more identifiable even if it's just an alias. Just like me currently as a Forum Mod. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.