PkHonor

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:55 am**

R3v k1ller wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:47 am
Fungamer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:23 am
R3v k1ller wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:06 am
I mean.. rules and punishments are all open to quite a bit of discretion. Its seen time and time again, which is why this discussion has to happen again. The rules need to at least have a clear outline that isn't open to interpretation depending on the staff member.

idk why these rules are so open to interpretation..
That is a staff guideline or consistency issue. These complaints have nothing to do with the rules themselves. Post another thread if you think this is an issue that needs to be (publicly) discussed.
Other rules will eventually be brought up here. But what I said is accurate about these two rules. Why is a pk cc giving kills for extra pkp, streaks, and emblems allowed, while two people fighting in karils in an attempt to get comp requirements is boosting? The rule should be clear and enforced fairly.

Ryan wrote:Please understand this discussion is not about "how mods interpret rules" or "how they should be enforced". We first need to come up with an agreed upon set of rules to punish, before we start punishing for it.

All you ask for in your post is for it to be enforced more frequently.

Try to view this thread as four questions which we have to answer, so we can all engage in a better discussion that actually helps Ryan:

How would you define boosting?
What are some examples of what you consider boosting?
How would you define scamming?
What are some examples of what you consider scamming?

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:05 am**

My suggestion for the scamming rules from the previous thread on the subject were:

No scamming. Although we cannot account for all possible situations attempting to use deceit or abuse/exploit game mechanics at the detriment of others or the server for any reason, including but not limited to: personal gain, fun, or distaste for the server) may result in staff using best judgement in punishments and refunds.

I know some people will dislike the idea of baking in staff interpretation into the rules but it's an unavoidable fact that the sheer number of situations and unique circumstances require human interpretation and cannot be solved by 2 sentence long rules. You could write an entire book explaining in detail every situation and then staff response you could think of for a year, and the next day someone will find a new one.

As for the boosting one, I think fungamers is probably fine.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 8:19 am**

Fungamer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:35 am
Spoiler: show
My proposal for scamming:

You may not trick or deceive another player in order to steal their items or cause losses to them.

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.
- 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

Agreements between players can be eligible for refunds if the staff team is able to recover the lost items and/or money. We will however 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 still 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
My proposal for boosting:

You may not gain or otherwise facilitate another persons gaining of PK Points, achievements or kills in an unfair or otherwise "rigged" manner.

Examples of this include, but are not limited to:

- Killing your friend who has no items on them so you can gain PK Points
- Paying your clan members to die for you so you can unlock wilderness achievements

We understand that there are too many ways to boost to sum up. Keep in mind that loopholing is also against the rules and that the staff team has extensive logs to determine whether or not you were breaking this rule. We advise all players to engage in PvP in a fair manner and to use common sense and to not try to circumvent this rule with technicalities. When in doubt, please check with a staff member first.

We do not consider a PKer killing someone who was legitimately PvMing or skilling in the wilderness as boosting. This is a normal part of the PvP aspect of the wilderness.
Just a rough draft, although my sleep-deprived mind thinks it's pretty thorough.

What do you guys think of this, with the (new) implications these two rewrites would have?

Phenomenal take on a revision of both rules, especially as a rough draft. Maybe at tad bit more emphasis or elaboration on the loopholing aspect and use of in-game screenshos/videos for proof.
Nonetheless, I'm all in for anything similar to this. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:34 am**

Fungamer wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:35 am
Spoiler: show
My proposal for scamming:

You may not trick or deceive another player in order to steal their items or cause losses to them.

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.
- 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

Agreements between players can be eligible for refunds if the staff team is able to recover the lost items and/or money. We will however 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 still 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
My proposal for boosting:

You may not gain or otherwise facilitate another persons gaining of PK Points, achievements or kills in an unfair or otherwise "rigged" manner.

Examples of this include, but are not limited to:

- Killing your friend who has no items on them so you can gain PK Points
- Paying your clan members to die for you so you can unlock wilderness achievements

We understand that there are too many ways to boost to sum up. Keep in mind that loopholing is also against the rules and that the staff team has extensive logs to determine whether or not you were breaking this rule. We advise all players to engage in PvP in a fair manner and to use common sense and to not try to circumvent this rule with technicalities. When in doubt, please check with a staff member first.

We do not consider a PKer killing someone who was legitimately PvMing or skilling in the wilderness as boosting. This is a normal part of the PvP aspect of the wilderness.
Just a rough draft, although my sleep-deprived mind thinks it's pretty thorough.

What do you guys think of this, with the (new) implications these two rewrites would have?

This is pretty good, no point in writing something new, I'd rather just tack on some edits:

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.
- Omitting useful information in order to convince a player that an agreement is being honored or situation is safe, when it isn't.
- 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

Not all forms of deception are necessarily disallowed/harmful. I.e.

- Using an unknown alt account in the wilderness
- Tricks that don't cause players to lose anything.

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 however 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 still 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

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:46 pm**

The issue I have with a broad scamming rule like this is that it precludes a specific definition of scamming. After all the goal is not to narrow it down but rather to keep the definition as broad and vague as possible, so that it can be applied to any situation we deem unfair (which is a purely subjective assessment).

In the end this makes it impossible for players to know what will be considered a scam because the bottom line is: we'll use our infallible "common sense" to decide which violations of this rule we will treat as scamming and which we won't.

This is particularly alarming now that omission of information is being shoehorned into the definition of deceit. Let's say I sell you a grain, and I neglect to inform you that I have 10 more that I'll also be selling. Now my "deception" causes you financial loss. This rule technically makes many forms of merching illegal.

But that's the idea, right? To make the rule so all-encompassing that it covers all possible forms of scamming (plus a bunch of things that aren't scamming). There's two forms of error here: having forms of scamming that aren't covered by the rule (i.e. loopholes) and having activities that are covered by the rule but which aren't scamming (i.e. false positives). Public opinion seems to be that the possibility of a scam slipping through the net is so egregious that we should try to minimize this error at the expense of maximizing the other. In order to make sure we cover every possible scam we must make the rule so broad that it also covers things that aren't scams.

For the record, personally I think that the possibility of 1 innocent player being punished for scamming is worse than 100 guilty scammers going unpunished. But let's go with this approach for the sake of argument.

It's an honorable goal, but there's still a problem. We're avoiding the conundrum of having to define scamming specifically, so that there can be no loopholes. But what we're actually doing is putting the onus of defining it on the staff team. With every case they will have to decide if this vague rule applies to this specific situation relying on nothing but their gut feeling. If you sold someone an item when you knew the price would go down, some mod might very well consider that a scam. A broad rule like this won't solve all your scamming woes. It will simply move the heated debate to the decision phase, after a staff member has done the necessary tea leaf reading and billy goat sacrifices making them enlightened enough to judge what is fair. Not by any objective application of rules or guidelines. Just by asking themselves the most subjective question of all: how do I feel about this? Do I personally think this was enough of a dick move to warrant intervention? The answer to that question will vary based on the individual making the decision, which I'm sure won't cause any issues whatsoever. (throwback to the days when the community was begging for consistency)

tl;dr: vague rule = bad, and if you want any consistency you will need to make specific guidelines (in which case you might as well make the rule specific)

In my opinion it would be better to make a list that covers only the specific forms of scamming that we know of, allowing for the possibility that we've overlooked something. Then when a new form of scamming is discovered we don't go on a pitchfork parade about how the server supports scamming but instead patch the loophole by adding it to the rule. Perhaps there will always be new creative forms of scamming being discovered but it's still better to have a clear and solid (but imperfect) rule than to have a super vague rule that boils down to "staff will decide what's fair".

Can't we just do moderation like EvE online?

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:34 pm**

Spoiler: show

Rapsey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:46 pm The issue I have with a broad scamming rule like this is that it precludes a specific definition of scamming. After all the goal is not to narrow it down but rather to keep the definition as broad and vague as possible, so that it can be applied to any situation we deem unfair (which is a purely subjective assessment).

In the end this makes it impossible for players to know what will be considered a scam because the bottom line is: we'll use our infallible "common sense" to decide which violations of this rule we will treat as scamming and which we won't.

This is particularly alarming now that omission of information is being shoehorned into the definition of deceit. Let's say I sell you a grain, and I neglect to inform you that I have 10 more that I'll also be selling. Now my "deception" causes you financial loss. This rule technically makes many forms of merching illegal.

But that's the idea, right? To make the rule so all-encompassing that it covers all possible forms of scamming (plus a bunch of things that aren't scamming). There's two forms of error here: having forms of scamming that aren't covered by the rule (i.e. loopholes) and having activities that are covered by the rule but which aren't scamming (i.e. false positives). Public opinion seems to be that the possibility of a scam slipping through the net is so egregious that we should try to minimize this error at the expense of maximizing the other. In order to make sure we cover every possible scam we must make the rule so broad that it also covers things that aren't scams.

For the record, personally I think that the possibility of 1 innocent player being punished for scamming is worse than 100 guilty scammers going unpunished. But let's go with this approach for the sake of argument.

It's an honorable goal, but there's still a problem. We're avoiding the conundrum of having to define scamming specifically, so that there can be no loopholes. But what we're actually doing is putting the onus of defining it on the staff team. With every case they will have to decide if this vague rule applies to this specific situation relying on nothing but their gut feeling. If you sold someone an item when you knew the price would go down, some mod might very well consider that a scam. A broad rule like this won't solve all your scamming woes. It will simply move the heated debate to the decision phase, after a staff member has done the necessary tea leaf reading and billy goat sacrifices making them enlightened enough to judge what is fair. Not by any objective application of rules or guidelines. Just by asking themselves the most subjective question of all: how do I feel about this? Do I personally think this was enough of a dick move to warrant intervention? The answer to that question will vary based on the individual making the decision, which I'm sure won't cause any issues whatsoever. (throwback to the days when the community was begging for consistency)

tl;dr: vague rule = bad, and if you want any consistency you will need to make specific guidelines (in which case you might as well make the rule specific)

In my opinion it would be better to make a list that covers only the specific forms of scamming that we know of, allowing for the possibility that we've overlooked something. Then when a new form of scamming is discovered we don't go on a pitchfork parade about how the server supports scamming but instead patch the loophole by adding it to the rule. Perhaps there will always be new creative forms of scamming being discovered but it's still better to have a clear and solid (but imperfect) rule than to have a super vague rule that boils down to "staff will decide what's fair".

Can't we just do moderation like EvE online?

Church wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:05 am My suggestion for the scamming rules from the previous thread on the subject were:

No scamming. Although we cannot account for all possible situations attempting to use deceit or abuse/exploit game mechanics at the detriment of others or the server for any reason, including but not limited to: personal gain, fun, or distaste for the server) may result in staff using best judgement in punishments and refunds.
I know some people will dislike the idea of baking in staff interpretation into the rules but it's an unavoidable fact that the sheer number of situations and unique circumstances require human interpretation and cannot be solved by 2 sentence long rules. You could write an entire book explaining in detail every situation and then staff response you could think of for a year, and the next day someone will find a new one.

As for the boosting one, I think fungamers is probably fine.

I think the concern of the rule being to vague isn't as big of an issue as you think it could be Rapsey. I think Church's view could work for the currect ecosystem we're in, I'd like to note that any player found scamming, or being deceptive, via loop holes that aren't clearly laid out can be punished. I think it typically isn't too hard to determine if someone is merching or scamming. When in doubt, ask a staff member, or other members of the community, that would go for the buyer, and seller in the merching hypothetical that Rapsey listed.

I also like Fungamers and Patels take on these rules, my only addition is for specific situations where it could be left to interpretation is that the staff team as a collective would have to decide what to do for these cases, maybe a minimum of 3 to 4 members since it isn't always viable to have all their input at once, and if there is tangible items or gp that it would be confiscated until a decision is made.

As far as the boosting part of this goes, I personally think that if 2 players agree to gear up and fight each other for achievement diaries, but aren't willingly letting themselves die (putting up a fight to win basically), then it shouldn't be considered boosting. Our player base is small and the wilderness is even smaller, if 2 players decide to do their achievement diaries but don't blatently let themselves die then this should be allowed imo. Of course we might have a few cases of 'smart asses' pretending to put up a fight and still rigging the fight, but this can be left to staff interpretation.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:39 pm**

Rapsey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:46 pm Just by asking themselves the most subjective question of all: how do I feel about this? Do I personally think this was enough of a dick move to warrant intervention? The answer to that question will vary based on the individual making the decision,

This is exactly how things are handled for flaming/baiting.

In my opinion it would be better to make a list that covers only the specific forms of scamming that we know of, allowing for the possibility that we've overlooked something. Then when a new form of scamming is discovered we don't go on a pitchfork parade about how the server supports scamming but instead patch the loophole by adding it to the rule.

There's no list that covers what exactly is counted as an insult or bait either. Yet I do think that the staff team is doing good in terms of consistency with mutes? Why would this not be the same with scamming?

Leaving it more up to staff interpretation and having a broader rule will not make innocent players get banned. The person accusing the other would still require proof of whatever deal they made. The 'mod thinks merching = scam' will never happen. Unless the person selling an item lied about the items function or rarity (Which is against the rules right now), every single mod can agree that merching isn't a scam. If theres a mod that thinks merching is scamming then.... Again, it's a 'hiring competent staff'-problem rather than a rule problem.

Mods can still consult with eachother and higher ups if they're not sure but have to make a decision on a case. If a mod is 100% convinced something is scamming and punishes a player while everyone else in the team thinks it's not then it's just something that needs to be sorted out internally. Sure, an innocent player might've gotten punished, but there's appeals and staff reports for that. Obviously the mod wouldn't be instantly demoted but they'd be talked to, better themselves, and also apologize to the person and own up to their mistakes. Keep in mind we're still a pretty tight knit community with community members doing the moderating rather than a faceless government with perfect political sciences unlocked.

Patel wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:34 am
This is pretty good, no point in writing something new, I'd rather just tack on some edits:

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.
- Omitting useful information in order to convince a player that an agreement is being honored or situation is safe, when it isn't.
- 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

Not all forms of deception are necessarily harmful. I.e.

- Using an unknown alt account in the wilderness
- Tricks that don't cause players to lose anything.

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 however 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 still 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

I like your additions and rewording. Support!

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:04 pm**

The big issue here is, as much as I hate centrism, that Rapsey is right and so is everyone else. Making these kind of rules is complicated and impossible to get right. The way the rules are set up right now just happen to be the best way they could think of at the time to account for these situations. Overly specific means constant debate and argument and attempts at loopholing. Overly vague rules will upset the community either just cause, or the second the staff team looks at a situation and says "this isn't scamming."

I believe that the biggest issue would be in the disagreements of the words within the rule itself. If you use the right wording in a deal that you can cheat someone in an agreement but still put on your favorite lawyer fashionscape and argue "technically" we run into the same problem as before.

I really do want to punish scammers in some way and it would require a rule to do that, but I honestly think this might be a task beyond us.

@Rapsey what does EvE do?

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:10 pm**

Rapsey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:46 pm In my opinion it would be better to make a list that covers only the specific forms of scamming that we know of, allowing for the possibility that we've overlooked something. Then when a new form of scamming is discovered we don't go on a pitchfork parade about how the server supports scamming but instead patch the loophole by adding it to the rule.

On this note I think that even if we find a new form of scamming, at the end of the day we know the player was scamming, which took effort to attempt to begin with, in that case I think we should add to the rule that once a player scams and loop holes it through it being not clearly listed in the rules, punishment can still be handed out with interpretation being left to the staff team. This would insure that players will still be punished for scamming, or being deseptive, after the fact even if it wasn't clearly listed in the rules.

If you want to avoid the pitchfork's from the mob then do right and punish players who deserve punishment when they try to loop hole around situations.

Posted: **Mon Oct 18, 2021 5:31 pm**

Fungamer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:39 pm
Rapsey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:46 pm Just by asking themselves the most subjective question of all: how do I feel about this? Do I personally think this was enough of a dick move to warrant intervention? The answer to that question will vary based on the individual making the decision,
This is exactly how things are handled for flaming/baiting.

It isn't.

Fungamer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:39 pm There's no list that covers what exactly is counted as an insult or bait either. Yet I do think that the staff team is doing good in terms of consistency with mutes? Why would this not be the same with scamming?

It's not all or nothing. Sure there is no complete list of offensive terms but there are guidelines to help staff decide what (not) to punish and how severe the punishment should be. It's also worth noting that the arbitrary decisions staff makes in the realm of borderline offensive language are extremely minor and inconsequential. On the other hand, when these gray zone choices end up deciding who is right in a dispute, having significant wealth consequences for both players, and possibly branding one of them as a hardened criminal... Then people will care a lot more about staff's judgement calls going their way. Nobody really cares if some noob gets a short mute for calling someone a mofo.

Fungamer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:39 pm If theres a mod that thinks merching is scamming then.... Again, it's a 'hiring competent staff'-problem rather than a rule problem.

Um no, that's a "define your rules properly" problem. Rules are supposed to make it clear to both players and staff what isn't allowed. If you want to be negligent by not defining things clearly at all but instead you snap your fingers and POOF suddenly all staff knows how to apply this vague rule specifically, even though you won't even attempt to do that yourself because you think it's impossible to define... Yeah... Not a "competent staff" problem but an "incompetent manager" problem.

Church wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:04 pm The big issue here is, as much as I hate centrism, that Rapsey is right and so is everyone else. Making these kind of rules is complicated and impossible to get right. The way the rules are set up right now just happen to be the best way they could think of at the time to account for these situations. Overly specific means constant debate and argument and attempts at loopholing. Overly vague rules will upset the community either just cause, or the second the staff team looks at a situation and says "this isn't scamming."

That's exactly right. Both approaches have their problems.

Church wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:04 pm @Rapsey what does EvE do?

Well, from their own website:

A scam is what happens when someone takes advantage of a players misplaced trust, temporary confusion or ignorance of game rules, and robs players via legal in-game means. When this occurs, there is nothing the Support Team can do for the victim. Although low and despicable, scams do not violate any game mechanics and can not be compensated for by the GMs, nor can the scammers generally be punished for their actions.

However, scams that affect areas outside of the game may not be tolerated in the same manner, such as, but not limited to:

Scams involving Character Transfers, mainly via the Character Bazaar where scamming is explicitly forbidden
Scams mimicking services provided by CCP while providing modified data via third party websites
Scams using exploits (fake or existing)
Scams involving the "PLEX for Good" campaigns
Scams that encourage the mark to purchase PLEX in order to acquire the ISK/Items

So, a few things are explicitly forbidden but for the most part (attempts at) scamming are considered a normal part of the social structure. The idea (and result) is that the community polices itself, rather than expecting the devs to do it for them. Of course there is still drama from time to time when an epic scam does occur but for the most part the system works well. More and more games are taking this stance of non-interference towards what happens inside the game. Take Amazon's MMO New World for example. It's only been out for about 2 weeks and already there is no shortage of stories about guild leaders collecting money from their members to buy an unclaimed zone, only to transfer all the money to an alt and disappear.

As immoral as it is, some developers believe that dick moves should be possible in their games. Considering how people flock to drama and how scandals always result in activity spikes they may be onto something. In fact, knowing that it is allowed and the scammers get away with it makes it even more sensational. It gives the EVE community more social depth than pretty much any other community, more sense of freedom and adventure, and on the rare occasions when someone does manage to trick rich players out of their wealth they go down into the history books as legends.

Thearlygamer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 4:10 pm On this note I think that even if we find a new form of scamming, at the end of the day we know the player was scamming, which took effort to attempt to begin with, in that case I think we should add to the rule that once a player scams and loop holes it through it being not clearly listed in the rules, punishment can still be handed out with interpretation being left to the staff team. This would insure that players will still be punished for scamming, or being deseptive, after the fact even if it wasn't clearly listed in the rules.

If you want to avoid the pitchfork's from the mob then do right and punish players who deserve punishment when they try to loop hole around situations.

Which is how we end up with our 2 options:

Have a clear and specific rule so there is no confusion or disagreement (but occasionally someone might find a loophole)
Have a meaningless "scamming is whatever staff decides" rule (because even 1 scammer getting away with it is unacceptable)

How many loopholes do you think will be discovered? Maybe 3? If the price for having solid unambiguous rules is that the first 3 people to discover these loopholes get to walk free, I'd call that a bargain. With the other system there would be way more drama than this from disputes about staff decisions.

I'd also like to point out that you can make things more specific while still being vague. E.g. instead of having "omission of useful information" as a crime in general, you could make that apply only in the context of risk fights and services (if those are the only places where it is needed). Instead of trying to make this as broad as possible I implore you to attempt doing the opposite: how can we make these rules more specific while still covering all the scam cases we have in mind?

PkHonor

Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.

Re: Rule Discussion Thread.