Post 11–20 di 27
di
Kamikaze Justice7 mesi fa
Hate doesn't go away by ignoring it. Hitler was ignored by the world in the beginning, and we can see what happened.
di
(GM) Witful Loki7 mesi fa
Okay I might be a little late in giving my options but here it is. Stealing someone’s account should definitely not be taken lightly I would normally say permanently ban! But this does not leave a good taste of what AD and it’s community stands for, so I think we should take a few things into consideration 1 his or hers age, 2 what is there player history are they good or bad, and 3 how does the player who’s account got high jacked feels, using this to determine either they get banned or just off with a strong warning and I would hope they already apologized to the player they did wrong to. For the player or the victim who gave out their password it is never a good idea to share your password especially online, but hearing that they where pressured to give it, and we do not know the variables for example if they where really tired that can have clouded their judgement. For the players who demolished the Easter build before the event and during the event, they should be given a warning and maybe at the very worst loose their build permission until they can pro they are worthy of having it back. And for the egg with the symbol in question, I do not think this was the player’s intention to make anything wrong I think they were just making a cool pattern and do not know it has different meanings to it. This is just my view on it I could be wrong but thought I would still share it, I just want the best for AD and its community.
di
Firefly7 mesi fa
@Kamikaze Justice: My legal council (me) advises me to not post any substantial reply to your posts #10 and #12 in this forum topic, because any reply could potentially be misconstrued as a violation of parts of the Bill to re-implement European criminal law that forces the country where my company is incorporated and where I live—the Netherlands—to enact a law that would punish me with a prison sentence of up to one year for any reply I post about the topics you raise. You've likely made discussion of your aforementioned posts impossible and illegal for me and anyone else living in the European Union and potentially other parts of the world, so be advised everyone. I'm also not a lawyer, so do your own research into the laws like I did and get proper legal representation if necessary. I had done a lot of research and wrote a factual case about my point of view on the egg design. But I am not risking prison time over this dispute. So: no further comment and the egg stays as-is as far as I am concerned. The Terms of Use page on this website contains pointers on how to force a judge in the Netherlands to arbitrate any case about this that you might want to raise against my company. I hope this is a satisfactory conclusion to this line of conversation, and let's move on. I will add that I do not like that you posted/linked actual 'bad' imagery on my forums. I will condone it in the spirit of conversational context, but I'd really like to remove your links if you allow me to, because I don't want to associate my forum and game with these images. I also dislike that you imply my company and/or me are part of a larger movement, collective or group with a certain implied agenda. Can you please either A.) publicly elaborate on that part of your post so I can defend my company and myself from actual accusations; or B.) publicly state that you acknowledge that my company is an independent business and that I am an independent person without any political or other agenda? This would help keep our relationship healthy.
di
Kamikaze Justice7 mesi fa
FF, first, you say, "let's move on", and then you continue the conversation. The pics are evidence that shows you the difference between a Nazi swastika and a swastika that is used by Hindus, etc. If you are offended by the pics showing what Nazi swastikas actually look like, why aren't you offended by the Nazi swastika that was on the egg? Doesn't the request of removal go both ways? BTW... I appreciate Amir for removing the Nazi symbol from the egg, but the video is still on YouTube with the image. How about removing all of my comments on the subject, and remove the Nazi swastika in the YouTube video? Wouldn't that make everything right, and prove that you're not promoting Nazism? As for what your agenda is, how would I know what that is? All I know is... you had no problem with it. You still haven't acknowledged the symbol on the egg as being a Nazi symbol. How can I put this behind me if the video is still on YouTube with the Nazi imagery on the egg? I don't care if you remove the links that show what a Nazi swastika looks like, but how do you feel about removing the video, too? Or, removing the part of the video that shows the Nazi swastika?
di
Firefly7 mesi fa
@Loki The Witful: I think your take largely overlaps with my approach, so I don't have a lot of commentary to add. Thanks for sharing though! @Kamikaze Justice: I had and have no further comment on the egg design because of the reasons I stated in post #16. That discussion closed, I moved on from the egg design to other topics, in this case your conduct. I'm sorry my previous post's structure confused you linguistically. Regarding your confusion about my political agenda statement, this referred to this direct quote from your post #10 (I have not edited your post as of the time of writing): (Kamikaze Justice writes:) "With the hate against Jews on the rise, I'm not surprised that this Swastika is being accepted into your game. Let's spread the hate against the Jews... right?" This implies that my company and/or I are directly involved with [the hate against [the] Jews]. Please retract this statement as it fits the legal definition of slander ('laster' in Dutch) in the Netherlands and I take this unsubstantiated claim as an act of hostility against my company and/or me personally. @"everyone": This topic is still open for all kinds of moderation issues, so grab the podium and voice your concerns or feedback. It's already led to somewhat of a new insight into claim griefing for me, but I'm unsure yet what final form that will take on.
di
(GM) SodaMeow7 mesi fa
@Kamikaze Justice I tried to think how to tread on this lightly, but at the moment, no matter which way I look at it I am unable to. Apologize if you think this is harsh. Just want to say that if the egg design has a problem, please could you have just sent a private message to me and I would have been happy to look into it. Posting the weblinks to prove a point is not really to MY taste, and remember there are lots of kids playing this game and they most likely have not even had a history lesson on world war 2 yet, they are still not mature enough to understand what this is about. Additionally, since the egg design was in BTT, made by a player whom I granted perms make me responsible. When I looked at the design I didn't actually click there was an issue and I think most players did not even know either. (except the ones who know will know- but no one raise any complaints directly to me). I even asked the player in question and they have no clue about the pattern, it was just a copy from something they saw in another game. I would definitely be offended if someone deliberately posted offensive images anywhere in the game. In this instance it looks like it was innocently done, and if it was a wrong pattern or closely resembled that as what you mentioned, sorry that me or the player in question had no clue. If we can leave it at that please. @Firefly! Regards to the original theme to this post about "Moderation". To make a decision on player A,B,C D, I think they have all been said. Its all about intention and knowledge of that particular player. In regards to player A - agree what they did was totally wrong and most games do ban these players without taking any explanation. Since Angeldust has such a unique community I feel its great to see that the developer (you) would even spend time to review the handling of the situation. Player A 1. What was the true intention and their relationship to the other player. (I would question if this was just a case of pushing their luck, and the other player being friends, just gave in. Pushing boundaries got easier, and the other player giving in seems to make it ok). Do they even know it was wrong in the first place. Player A & B 2. How much of the TOS do they both know about the game. We need to put alerts in the game to players about not sharing passwords or trade accounts on the "log in screen". Maybe when new players enter the game, on their plot of land this alert comes up. Or add a holo scroll next to assistana so player will step in it, this reminds again and again. Player C 3. For the player who tried to destroy the Easter builds, there was at least 5 builds with random holes in them, I would ban that player because if I accepted you to BTT, my only rule is never to destroy another players building without their permission. Player D 4. Evidence on stream showing destruction of the build so the same result as point 3. Because now I know the player would not care or they do not understand the implications. And the same thing would happen. I am not sure if I would go as far to want to disqualify the player for the event But I think we should move on and learn lessons from this.
di
Firefly7 mesi fa
@(GM) SodaMeow: As far as I'm concerned you did a great job at hosting a fun event for the community and what other players decide to build is not your responsibility. Same holds for what other players decide to demolish, also not your responsibility. Ultimately my company and I are responsible for in-game content and moderation decisions once they are brought to my attention. And I find that the egg can stay as-is. The discussion on players A–D had faded into the background a bit, it's good that you bring them up again. I think in all four cases you point out that intent is important, and that might just be one of the hardest things to prove or find out. I have no solution for this, just like there is no solution for this in real life cases. It's ultimately up to some arbiter to decide whether something was ill-intended or not. If I were to estimate if something is ill-intended I'd look at graveness and frequency of an infraction. The graver and more frequent the incident, the more likely I assume that it is malice. And a repeated infraction after a warning can only be interpreted as malice. Anyway, very good theoretical point, but in practice it's always a bit different :-)
Post 11–20 di 27
Zyber
