PMDs and how they are handled.

[Ryan]

Hello,

So I'm sure this is an eagerly awaited topic that people have been waiting for me to make. So here it is. I'd like to start by saying, this thread is NOT intended to discuss specific cases, especially ones that have occurred recently, but more to discuss how things are handled moving forward. If there are any posts about recent events on this thread, they will simply be deleted. No questions asked.

So, let's start of by explaining the last 12 months of this catastrophe in the making. Did we make a thread 12 months+ ago regarding changing the ruling for PMDs, yes. Was it officially changed? No. Why? We couldn't come to a definitive agreement on how things should be. So I'm sure you're wondering why we're here now then? For change. For doing the right thing. Something I should have pushed harder for 12 months ago. I'd also like to say, I'm not going to drag anyone's name through the mud, and this is not anyone in particular's fault. Communication broke down and the change didn't end up happening. It happens sometimes. Instead of dwelling on that and getting angry about something that should have happened 12 months ago, I think we need to focus on doing the right thing now. I'd also like to explicitly state, I'm making this post on my own accord, and I can not guarantee that this will become the official PKHonor rule, as I don't have the power as an owner of the server to make rule changes, but it is how I will be enforcing it and how my team will be enforcing it, until we're either told otherwise. Now that's all out of the way, let's get on to the change.

You may not trick or deceive another player in order to steal their items or cause losses to them (ingame statuses, stats, weath, etc.).

Examples of scamming include, but are not limited to:

- Spreading false information about how the game works or abusing game mechanics to orchestrate a player to be deceived and lose money or items.
- Not honoring (the specifics of) an agreement i.e during services or risk fights.*
- Letting someone else log onto your account to do a risk fight without the other party knowing this will happen.
- Luring a player into an unsafe area by telling them it is safe and/or falsely claiming there is something valuable to be found there.
- Falsely telling a player they will receive a special reward if they alch a valuable item or press alt-F4 in a dangerous area.
- Not giving items or money back when having agreed to it being a trust trade or loan


* If (one of the) specifics for a risk fight were not agreed upon beforehand, these things will default to being "allowed" to do. For example, if you and your opponent didn't agree on whether or not it was a death match, both you and your opponent are free to tab out when you feel like it.
In the context of a service, both players are always held to the baseline agreements for services made here


Not all forms of deception are considered scamming. I.e.

- Using an unknown alt account in the wilderness.
- Tricks that don't cause players to lose anything.
- Not splitting loot while PvMing.
- Selling an item at a higher than usual price, while not lying about its rarity or function.

Agreements between players can be eligible for refunds if the staff team is able to recover the lost items and/or money. However, they will not spawn new items into the economy in order to refund you.

While we can punish a player for scamming if they do not hold up their part of the agreement (provided there is clear proof from in-game screenshots and/or videos), we encourage all players to use the Player Made Deal section when engaging in these agreements to ensure things go as smoothly as possible: viewforum.php?f=138


Be sure to ask a staff member if you are unsure your actions will get you in trouble for scamming.

This is what the community agreed upon last time, and if this is still the way the majority want to go, I'm happy to proceed with this. But can I please make myself very very very clear. If you want your case to be handled by the staff team, you will need SUFFICIENT PROOF. Especially for things like risk fights. I will not accept half arsed screenshots that tell little to no story, and I will not accept "but my friends saw it happen". If you want the staff team's assistance on a scam case or a risk fight, you will need to have overwhelming evidence to support your claim, and it will NOT be left up to guess work. There will be none of this "well it's obvious he did it isnt it?". You need Proof. Period.

So you may ask, what sort of proof do we want? The simple answer, as much as you can get. If you're risk fighting, Record it. Agree upon a set of rules, the rewards and even better, have a staff member middle man it. But make sure you screenshot or video record everything. And I mean everything. If there is any doubt as to whether the proof provided is not sufficient, do not expect us to get involved. Do your part and make sure you get EVERYTHING saved.

Things I consider as adequate proof include, but are not limited to;

Video recordings of the whole process - Uneditted
Screenshots that outline clear, concise and fair rules for both parties to abide by.
Staff members middlemanning the fight, and being present for the pre-agreed terms and conditions of the fight.
A player made deal thread, of course if you want that extra layer of protection with services, make a thread. That's the most concrete form of evidence you can provide.

Do I think it's necessary to make a forum post? No. Because several points were raised on another thread that show us exactly why the PMD idea has failed us so many times. But that doesn't mean I think we should get rid of it completely. I see no issue keeping around for players that want to utilize it in order to provide an extra layer of protection, especially for things like services. It is also next to impossible for us to write an exhaustive list of everything we consider as against the rules, so of course as to be expected, staff discretion will play a part in handling these cases. There are a few good examples provided in the quote above as to what we may consider as scamming.

Last but not least, please remember this is the change YOU voted for as a community. I don't want to get 6 months down the track and have someone make another bs drama thread about how flawed the system is and how someone should have been banned and wasn't blah blah blah. If you simply do as I've asked and gather sufficient proof of every transaction or agreement put in place, I promise you, you will not have an issue getting my assistance.

Like I said, this post is entirely off my own back, I accept this may upset people, community members, staff members, owners, etc. But this is the right thing to do. I don't believe in a system built for pushing blame back onto victims, especially if there is sufficient proof of wrong doing. I may end up editting this quite a few times, as I've just word-vomitted this on my lunch break at work.

Please, if you have any questions or ways we could potentially improve this change, post below.

Thanks,

Ryan.

[Fungamer]

Completely agree with the rule & how it'll be handled as well as the reminder that proof needs to be a lot clearer.
I have nothing to say except for praise that you took the initiative for this positive change.

[Mike]

For clarification, I would also like to add the following: although scammers will be held accountable if there is sufficient proof of their wrongdoing, we cannot guarantee that items will be returned to the victim. In the case of risk fights, where one party scams the other (for example by not risking the agreed upon amount), the items that would have been risked may be confiscated but not given to the other player.

[Fungamer]

For clarification, I would also like to add the following: although scammers will be held accountable if there is sufficient proof of their wrongdoing, we cannot guarantee that items will be returned to the victim. In the case of risk fights, where one party scams the other (for example by not risking the agreed upon amount), the items that would have been risked may be confiscated but not given to the other player.

The rule as it's proposed\gone in action right now has this in it:

Agreements between players can be eligible for refunds if the staff team is able to recover the lost items and/or money. However, they will not spawn new items into the economy in order to refund you.

Staff would easily be able to recover the lost items\money if the scammer was banned with enough wealth. Should this be altered\removed from the rule?

[Purehybrid9]

I agree with all stated above. The wording on the rules sets a clear baseline with no miscommunication.

I still strongly suggest a risk arena (not duel arena) for risk fighting.

Clan wars is a good spot for it

Enter the portal, once you cross the ditch you are automatically redskulled and your risk amount is displayed in public chat. There is no dropping or trading items inside the wilderness zone. PJ timer in this zone needs to be set much higher than edgeville aswell, I would suggest 30 seconds.

Other than that it still acts the same as wilderness level 1.

[Iron adam]

I agree with all stated above. The wording on the rules sets a clear baseline with no miscommunication.

I still strongly suggest a risk arena (not duel arena) for risk fighting.

Clan wars is a good spot for it

Enter the portal, once you cross the ditch you are automatically redskulled and your risk amount is displayed in public chat. There is no dropping or trading items inside the wilderness zone. PJ timer in this zone needs to be set much higher than edgeville aswell, I would suggest 30 seconds.

Other than that it still acts the same as wilderness level 1.

We could use the portal area that will be coming with The Ferox Enclave update.

[Patel]

I should note that these are changes to the overall scamming rule, not just PMDs.
Otherwise a thumbs up from me.

Related to topic:

There are two scenarios here, one of them sounds like it's not a scam while the other does sound like a scam. Wanted to see people's thoughts:

1) (inspired by Rapsey)

Player A sells Player B 1 sack of grain at fair market price, despite owning 10 more. They intend to sell the next 10 - is it scamming to omit this piece of information?

Conclusion: no. It can be seen as deception, but we don't protect future price action, only scams from the current price. The price will evolve organically because to sell 10 grains, you need 10 buyers (even if it's the same person).

2)

Player A buys 100 BGSes from Player B in 2014 at fair market price. Player A knows that BGSes will no longer be sold by the donator store, and though it was announced, Player B hasn't caught on/been informed. Is it scamming to do this?

Conclusion: even though we don't protect speculations on future price action, we do protect players during changes that will happen as a result of server policy or code. This isn't the fault of the economy evolving organically between players, it's the fault of changes to the supply of an item on the server. Most servers at that point didn't sell godswords all willy nilly either, so there's an additional layer of expectation.

My conclusion: these results follow from the rules just fine, it's just not clear how to articulate that to me. In one case, there's a definite action that will decrease supply and lead to higher prices, and it's a guaranteed action that was initially kept a secret and then announced to the server. Abusing differences in knowledge about game specifics and updates for personal gain is different than keeping one's bank contents a secret. To me, a hard change like this is something that gets protected by the staff members, since the price change wasn't the result of fair player-player interaction. It'd be clear cut if Player A knew beforehand (i.e. staff informant) and had a distinct advantage. But it's not clear cut if the announcement was recently made.