Rule Misunderstanding/Enforcement Soljan Claims he Doesn't Need to Reveal Who's Next

[yuchant]

UPDATE: I read the rules wrong. The /Camp_Rules page seems authoritative but is a past GM ruling. It is not. I just want to play fair and by the rules, and they aren't there! It's good for all to know. Soljan is a gentleman who's been super nice in tells. I apologize for putting his name on the post title.

Soljan on Green says, quote: "the camp holder does not need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is"

The rules specifically say the opposite: the camp holder *does* need to reveal to you who the next intended camp holder is. otherwise the camp is yours next. And he just says "ok have fun waiting' - "go read the rules"
http://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rules

Petitioned. I duno.. I've been assaulted on the ancient croc camp (not AC OOT) from every angle every time. I feel like I've appeased each angle. Those who don't have the camp.. do have the camp.. were definitely in line to have the camp but were forgotten by the main camp holder. I can't really handle it.

I know the staff is not paid... I love this game. I wish there's something I could do about it. Can we have a paid staff to donate towards to enforce rules? I dunno.

It feels almost to me, that we have players who are willing to play by the rules but misunderstand them. Is there a solution?

I know I'll come across as whiny and shit but why have rules if you're just gonna be told "read them rules" when you try to abide by them?

Can you guys tell me these kinds of peeps are normal, or just misunderstanding of the rules? Because if it's normal and I just "need t a thicker skin" I need to get out. Despite the amazing EQ only times I've had on here. Thank you

[Baler]

Read the Play Nice Policy and Server Rules
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=325349

I wouldn't take advice from 'retired GM' Derubael.

[yuchant]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Read the Play Nice Policy and Server Rules
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=325349

I wouldn't take advice from 'retired GM' Derubael.

OH MY GOD. You mean I've been reading fake rules this whole time? Now I see that warning... that page should be deleted 100% if something so important looking as /Camp_Rules is .. bogus info. IMO.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by yuchant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OH MY GOD. You mean I've been reading fake rules this whole time? Now I see that warning... that page should be deleted 100% if something so important looking as /Camp_Rules is .. bogus info. IMO.

It's not bogus info at all.

What it is is simple: a record of past GM rulings. Since GMs for the most part rule consistently with each other, you can for the most part expect current GMs to do the same things as past GMs, and expect what's on that page to hold true in game when you petition.

BUT, the simple fact is that the staff doesn't want a "big book of rules" to exist. The camp rules page was 100% a player effort: they do not endorse it. If I hadn't compiled it, we'd only have the PnP, and you'd have to guess about everything that it doesn't cover (or do the forum research to find past rulings yourself).

Would it be nice to just have clear rules for everything? Yes. But that would make it harder for the volunteers to do their volunteer "job" (of dealing with those who ruin the fun for the rest of us), and that job is important so ... we don't.

[Baler]

In defense of that wiki article I believe it's purpose is to document ruling decisions of the past to better clarify pnp/rules.

Unfortunately for that wiki article the current "Management" does not necessarily discern as past management.

[yuchant]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not bogus info at all.

What it is is simple: a record of past GM rulings. Since GMs for the most part rule consistently with each other, you can for the most part expect current GMs to do the same things as past GMs, and expect what's on that page to hold true in game when you petition.

BUT, the simple fact is that the staff doesn't want a "big book of rules" to exist. The camp rules page was 100% a player effort: they do not endorse it. If I hadn't compiled it, we'd only have the PnP, and you'd have to guess about everything that it doesn't cover (or do the forum research to find past rulings yourself).

Would it be nice to just have clear rules for everything? Yes. But that would make it harder for the volunteers to do their volunteer "job" (of dealing with those who ruin the fun for the rest of us), and that job is important so ... we don't.

Loramin I'm starting to understand the ecosystem we have here.. thank you for your attention and efforts. Seriously. It all makes sense.

Maybe one suggestion then is to make it blisteringly obvious the past GM rulings are not definitive rules. Newbies like me can't tell what are defined as hard EQ1999 rules, and I've seen tons of arguments on ooc about "go read th rules" that might have been spawned by the same issues. I think in general, everyone wants to play fair. And not be murderers in our society [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

Originally Posted by yuchant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Loramin I'm starting to understand the ecosystem we have here.. thank you for your attention and efforts. Seriously. It all makes sense.

Maybe one suggestion then is to make it blisteringly obvious the past GM rulings are not definitive rules. Newbies like me can't tell what are defined as hard EQ1999 rules, and I've seen tons of arguments on ooc about "go read th rules" that might have been spawned by the same issues. I think in general, everyone wants to play fair. And not be murderers in our society [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That page is on lockdown (so no one can make up fake rulings), but I'm more than happy to edit the warning text if you can suggest better [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's a delicate balancing act, because again that page is nothing but a compilation of what the staff themselves have said, so I think there is real value and truth there ... but, again, it's not a "big book of rules" ... so the question is how to best say both things at once.

[loramin]

P.S. And of course, people change. So just as we have to allow for the possibility that what the staff said before isn't true today (and that's frustrating), it also means that other decisions they've made in the past ... like the desire to (as much as possible) not have explicit rules ... could also change.

I see it like this: the status quo (PnP-only) gives the staff what they need, so if we want change it's on us to do better. If we can come up with a good idea and sell the staff on it ... maybe we could have clearer and more explicit rules someday. In a small way, the camp rules page was my way of trying to do that.

But there's a good reason it hasn't happened yet: this is a big game that has lots of similar but different cases, which all could require GM involvement.

P.P.S. And of course "automated GMing" (stuff like /list and FTE announcements) makes it so no one can ever not know the rules, and personally I'm a big fan of that sort of thing as a solution too.

[yuchant]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.S. And of course, people change. So just as we have to allow for the possibility that what the staff said before isn't true today (and that's frustrating), it also means that other decisions they've made in the past ... like the desire to (as much as possible) not have explicit rules ... could also change.

I see it like this: if we want more explicit rules, the burden is on us as a community to come up with a way to have them, that keeps everything the staff wants. The status quo (PnP-only) does that, so if we want change it's on us to do better. But if we can come up with a good idea and sell the staff on it ... maybe we could have clearer and more explicit rules someday (in a small way, the camp rules page was meant to push in that direction).

It just would take some effort, because this is a big game that has lots of similar but different cases, which all could require GM involvement.

P.P.S. And of course "automated GMing" (stuff like /list and FTE announcements) makes it so no one can ever not know the rules, and personally I'm a big fan of that sort of thing as a solution too.

I think we honestly need a full width red banner that is completely impossible to miss that says instead of:

WARNING: Although this page is:
admin-locked (to prevent vandalism), and
references every ruling it includes (with links to the forum where the staff made the ruling)
... it is still a volunteer effort. It is not in any way official or endorsed by Project 1999 staff, and comes with no guarantees.

Short and sweet and legible:

- Please reference the EQ1999 Rules for Current Rules
- Visit EQ1999/rules for Current Rules
- EQ1999/PnP for current Rules. This page is not indicative of current ruels.

I'm not sure. It's hard. But I think a visual aid could help - maybe even the URL

I don't know about others, but I look at the URL for authority:

http://wiki.project1999.com/Camp_Rules

vs the thread I was told to read:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=325349

I think something could be done here -- a link in the navbar to the left?

There's 10 years of information here.. so consistent reminder that old rulings and such are archived info, and today's rules are X, would likely go a long way! Coming from a noob.

[Baler]

To be fair to Loramin that wiki page is pretty sweet compared to digging through the forums.

You, Yuchant just made a simple mistake
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]