We can't let Empaths/Clerics use scripts to heal/raise us anymore, otherwise we're the ones who get in trouble?

__
~Leilond - Working up to Galren and Mazrian
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h307/ss1shadow/leicollagefinal.jpg
http://www.elanthipedia.com/wiki/Leilond
http://soundsoftime.bravehost.com/bard_planner_v2.xls

Save us all the trouble of acting surprised, this has been overdue.

>>They have to be At the Keyboard at the time of running said script.

That isn't what was posted but even assuming that it was, it's pretty stupid since GMs constantly tell us that players can't determine whether or not someone is ATK.

I am --- Navak

>>Any participation in the use of character "bots" witnessed by Staff, even if the unresponsive character is not connected to your account and you currently are not in violation of this policy, will be considered against policy and may result in a warning and/or other penalties.

That paragaph contradicts the rest of the post since it assumes bots are unreponsive whereas earlier the post defines bots as any character offering a service.

However, lets assume that being a bot means offering services while being unresponsive.

If the character providing services is unresponsive...why wouldn't they already be pulled by the staff?

If the staff is following their own public policy, this situation should never happen.

At a Dragonrealms level, since it seems a similar thing is in place on GSIV, Solomon, Ssra and others, have already proven that they can't catch hardcore scripters even when using extreme tactics.

This seems like another way to target those players that they can't catch even when they break their own public policy.

This doesn't add value to the game for me.

I am --- Navak

<< That paragaph contradicts the rest of the post since it assumes bots are unreponsive whereas earlier the post defines bots as any character offering a service.>>

one sentence earlier is the only reference to bots and it again says unresponsive

<< lets assume that being a bot means offering services while being unresponsive.>>

I'd go with that assumption.

If you set up a character "bot" to provide services (e.g., healing, lock picking, spell casting) to other players while being unresponsive, you will be issued a warning.

<< why wouldn't they already be pulled by the staff?>>

I'd assume they are, but the people who share a "bot" account with all their friends can now have themselves and their friends get in trouble. This new policy makes even being ATK and utilizing AFK characters a violation.

one problem would be afk scriptor stalking around NE gate and giving everyone perception ranks.


Yamcer

---

"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF

By separating bots from unresponsive the person writing this bit of policy clearly demonstrates that there are responsive bots even if it was done unintentionally.

Bots are thus defined as anyone providing a service.

Even ignoring the fact that I think this change is ridiculous, it isn't even internally consistent and at the very least should be changed to rectify this fact.

I am --- Navak

Navak is correct. A literal reading of the text of News 5 17 defines "bot" as any character providing some type of service. News 5 17 reads, "If you set up a character "bot" to provide services (e.g., healing, lock picking, spell casting) to other players while being unresponsive, you will be issued a warning." This clearly implies that only unresponsive bots will be issued warnings, and that therefore anybody "set up" to provide a service is a "bot".

The next section reads "Any participation in the use of character "bots" witnessed by Staff......" A literal meaning of this requires the conclusion that ANY usage of a bot, whether the bot is responsive or unresponsive, is against policy. Therefore, quite literally, using any empathic or clerical services is against policy as policy is currently written. (Although I am sure this is not how it is intended to be applied).

Juulmon

Gulphphunger,

I have no idea what the intent of the author of the text was, but the way you worded the sentence at the end of your post obviously isn't how it is written right now.

The way the sentence is written right now clearly indicates that being a "bot" has nothing to do with being responsive or unresponsive, or else the phrase "while being unresponsive" would not even need to be included, as it would be inherent in the definition of "bot". Obviously, if the author of the sentence consciously considered a "bot" to be an unresponsive service providing character, they would not have written anything at all about only unresponsive "bots" receiving warnings, they would have just written "bots will receive warnings", as "bots" would only include non-responsive service providing characters.

Combine this with the next section that reads, "Any participation in the use of character "bots" witnessed by Staff, even if the unresponsive character is not connected to your account and you currently are not in violation of this policy, will be considered against policy and may result in a warning and/or other penalties." The parts between the comma are just a qualifier, so the key portion of the sentence reads "Any participation in the use of character "bots" witnessed by Staff will be considered against policy and may result in a warning and/or other penalties." The end result is that any usage of a service providing character is against policy, and if that service providing character is non-responsive, they will also be issued a warning.

In my opinion, the new policy is just poorly drafted and I hope it does not represent the true intent of the author. Gulphphunger, it is naive for you to assume what the author of the policy meant, as policy GMs can and do twist the literal interpretation of policy text to suit ends far beyond the original intent of any particular policy.

Juulmon

>>In my opinion, the new policy is just poorly drafted and I hope it does not represent the true intent of the author. Gulphphunger, it is naive for you to assume what the author of the policy meant, as policy GMs can and do twist the literal interpretation of policy text to suit ends far beyond the original intent of any particular policy.

I'll give you that it needs to be rewritten, but I still stand by what I said. Furthermore, I was only referring to the one sentence that I quoted--not the policy as a whole. People have already done that quite clearly and succinctly. Nonetheless, I deleted my post so as not to cloud the issue with minutiae when the entire "bots" thing needs to be redone wholesale.

~player of Gulphphunger