We’ll go round and round for another 100 replies because you redefine language so that words mean the opposite of their actual meanings. You call for more ‘concrete rules’ and when asked for an example suggest a less concrete version of the existing rules and then base the actual decision making on humans deciding about the grey areas. And we’ll end up right back here, because whether it is you or someone else, someone will decide to ignore all of the points explained in excruciating detail throughout this thread and claim the same nonsense yet again.
Examples of ‘concrete rules’ -
“Do not block any content ever under any circumstances” (meaning ban for a single stick blocked)
“No bigger than 10x10x10” (meaning ban if build beyond that space)
“No more than 1000 pieces” (meaning ban if build 1 piece over)
None of these will work. We have explained that to you over and over. We have explained why in more detail than anyone should ever need. And yet still you persist in calling for ‘concrete rules’.
You complain about ‘grey areas’ - yet claim that you want the rules to work on a ‘case by case’ basis. As I have already explained till I am sick of it - the grey area is what allows decisions to be taken on a case by case basis. If the rule is concrete then there is no judgement, it is simply a question of did it breach the rule (block 1 stick, go 1 block over the limit etc) or did it not. Whereas the current system allows room for a person to judge on a case by case basis whether this case breaches the rules or not. That is what a ‘case by case’ basis means.
[quote=“DanQuixote, post:483, topic:180741”]
The current rule states:
No, it goes on to list EXAMPLES of what Funcom calls ‘content’. Nowhere does it call this an exhaustive list, or a fixed definition. Dungeons and obelisks are straightforward - if you block them, you will receive a ban. Resources and ‘other areas of the game’ are grey areas that will require a human to judge whether you are breaching the spirit of the rules or not - that is the whole point, as I have explained to you over and over again. It is not a negative thing, it is the thing that allows the rules to have a ‘spirit’ to be adhered to and that allows each situation to be judged on its own merits (case by case) and not just based purely on the ‘letter of the law’ (as a ‘concrete rule’ would be).
Yes, very easily defined - absolutely anything in the game. That is the meaning of ‘content’. If you claim that is a concrete rule, then you are saying ban for blocking literally anything at all, even a single stick.
This is already an attempt, by you, to add further definition. Now you are saying ‘Don’t block content, so long as that content is necessary to play the game’ - that is already extending the rule beyond the little vague bit you claim it needs. And yet you need to extend it further. As @CodeMage tried to show you, you need to also answer in every individual situation.
Two different situations from the same rule under different circumstances. Exactly the sort of grey area that requires a human to judge. Exactly the opposite of a ‘concrete rule’. So now your concrete rule has to say 'Don’t block content, so long as that content is necessary to play the game. You can block rocks, but you can’t block a rock if it’s the only rock on the map". But what if there are only two rocks left - is it still ok to block one of them? A human could judge that grey area, but a concrete rule has to define it. What if there are three rocks left? What if there are 20 rocks left? Your rule has to have a concrete definition that answers these questions (and every single other number - you have to put an absolute number on the minimum number of rocks that have to be left on the map - otherwise it is not a concrete rule and does not answer this situation). You also have to have the same answers for every other resource in the game.
Again, you answer both yes and no - again you rely on human judgement deciding the individual case by resolving the grey area. Again the exact opposite of a concrete rule. The way you have written your answer, it would appear that blocking Nunu is a violation if the person reporting can’t afford 50 feat points, but not a violation if they can. That’s ridiculously subjective.
Silver Mine and Obelisks you actually managed to give only a single answer for each of, rather than hedging in both directions (and later denying that you did it). But for your rule to be ‘concrete’ it needs to actually explain and list those points specifically, otherwise it is reliant yet again on human judgement (which you claim not to want). @CodeMage even tried to explain this to you:
Yet you ignore this and pretend that ‘it’s a simple yes and no’. But you need to have a yes and no for every single situation that could possibly come up. For rules to be ‘concrete’ you need to define every possible situation that could arise and provide the answer for that situation. Anything else is a grey area, requiring human judgement. And the FACT that two of your four examples depend on circumstances and can’t even be defined as simple yes/no answers even by you in the context of the rules version you’re making up, shows how far away from ‘concrete’ your ‘don’t block content’ rules is.
As the question to you pointed out - ‘others will answer them differently’ - you might decide that 100 rocks is the cut-off point, but maybe I am happy with there only being 20 rocks left on the map, but maybe CodeMage would not be happy with fewer than 200 rocks left on the map. Your grey and fuzzy rule has no way to deal with this. It requires a human admin to judge the situation on that server and decide that actually all three of us are wrong and deserve bans for blocking all the rocks apart from a tiny remnant. So once again your rule has proved no different from the existing rule.
This is the ultimate grey area within your rule. ‘Content’ means content - it means anything that is contained in the game. Everything that goes to make up the game is a part of its content. So either there is no way to avoid blocking content, and every build is automatically illegal, or you have to redefine the word ‘content’ as you have attempted to. And then you have to define every possible situation under that or there is room for disagreement - grey area - and the rules have to develop into a complex tome that covers every situation that could possibly come up.
No - this is why it needs to be judged by a human being, on a case by case basis, as it currently is. Otherwise you have to define an answer to that question. And you have to put an exact quantity on how much brimstone can be blocked. And then you have to define exact quantities for every other resource. Anything else is not a ‘concrete rule’. Or rather, it’s not a concrete rule that functions - you can say ‘Don’t block content’ is a concrete rule, without bothering to define situations, but then you have made
it illegal to build anything anywhere in the game. Otherwise, you have to define answers to all these situations.
The simple fact is that your proposed ‘concrete rule’ is no different to the existing rule, except to remove a few examples and make it more vague. Vague is fine by me - I’ve made that clear, but you are claiming you want it ‘concrete’ - yet your proposed rule does not achieve that by any definition.