Yes. I made that point to you (repeatedly - it’s almost as if you ignore everything that is said to you). You have not changed anything meaningful about the rule. Yet you claim that your rule is ‘concrete’ and Funcom’s is not. If it is ‘concrete’ then it can be applied without interpretation. If it is not concrete then it is the exact same as the current rule and relies on human judgment and is not concrete. I asked you to provide a viable example of a concrete rule. You have not.
[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]
Which is how it already works. People read a report and judge whether it is an infraction or not. That doesn’t make the rule concrete, it makes it subjective and requiring human judgement. Otherwise a computer could do it. You are literally arguing for the current rule set, while claiming to be arguing against it. I’ve pointed this out to you before and you continue to ignore it and claim that your version of the rules is magically more ‘concrete’ while being exactly the same as Funcom’s version.
[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]
As I have already explained - Funcom says ‘resources’ as an EXAMPLE OF CONTENT, NOT A DEFINITION. Removing the examples does not change the meaning of the word. Content still means content, still means content, still means content. If you do not define content (in your case redefining it to mean ‘only necessary content’) then it means all things contained within the subject. The content of a game is all things that game contains - you may wish to limit that list, but then you need to define those limits. Which is the problem that has been explained to you over and over, yet you still pretend does not exist. For a concrete rule, you need to define each of those limits, precisely, so there can be no argument over them. Either someone has breached the rule or they haven’t breached the rule. If you cannot do that, then it is not a concrete rule, no matter how you attempt to twist the language. And anyone judging the evidence from a report should be able to see ‘yes they clocked a’ or ‘no the did not block a’. But that means that you have to define whether or not blocking ‘a’ is against the rules - and if you don’t explicitly define that then the rule remains vague and in need of human interpretation.
[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]
You literally present two different answers. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. They are opposing answers and you claim both can be true depending on the circumstances of the specific situation. That is exactly what a grey area is.
And again, the judgement call is exactly what the current rules already do with regard to these situations. It is your ‘concrete rules’ that would need to define an actual answer and can’t.
So already (as I have had to point out multiple times and you still don’t appear to understand) - you have had to change your rule from ‘Don’t block content’ to ‘don’t block content that is necessary for playing the game’ - showing that your rule is fluid, constantly changing and the polar opposite of concrete. And now you have to define ‘necessary for playing the game’. Everyone plays Conan for different reasons and has different requirements for the game - different things that are necessary for their enjoyment. So you now need a ‘concrete rule’ that takes account of all these different necessities, and protects all of them. And you have to define each of those situations.
Except that Funcom (and seemingly a majority of players) consider it to be banworthy. So you have another area of interpretation poking a big hole in your so-called concrete rule. So now you need a rule that states either it is or it isn’t ok to block Shattered Springs. (And no, before you try to take this out of context and pretend it means the opposite of what it does - Funcom does not have the same problem with its current rules because they have grey areas and human judgement built in - as I keep having to explain to you, that’s the point - that’s the difference between a subjective rule (Funcom’s rule, which can work, because it uses human judgment) vs a concrete rule (what you claim to have come up with but haven’t come even close to providing).
[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]
No. And it is unbelievable at this stage of the discussion that you can claim this. I can only view this as dishonesty at this point. ‘Concrete rules’ cannot be open to interpretation and argument over whether or not something breaches that rule - it is a black or white situation where, given direct evidence, there is only either guilt or innocence. Subjective rules utilize grey areas and human judgment to interpret whether or not something breaches the spirit of the rules. You are the one calling for concrete rules. Therefore the examples you need to provide need to actually be concrete rules. There could be argument over whether a rule is a good rule or not, but under your system it would have to be clear to everyone how the rule applies in every given situation - there cannot be any guesswork or judgment calls. Yet you judge the Brimstone Lake to be fine to block under your rules, whereas most players would consider it not fine - and your rules fail to set in concrete which is the correct answer. And that’s on one of the biggest most obvious. You need to define the answers to every possible question where players might have different opinions - not necessarily to agree with all of those opinions, but to tell them which answer is the rule.
Funcom’s rules are subjective - they do not fall into the same trap as yours, because they state it is about following the spirit (‘don’t be a douche’) rather than specific details.
You are completely ignoring the point being made. Under subjective rules (current system) the situation can be looked at server wide and judged on ‘is there enough rock left’ - but a concrete rule system would need to define an exact amount of rock that needs to be left - otherwise it is not a concrete rule system, it is a subjective rule system. And the example I gave was illustrating the point that different players will disagree on where exactly that line should be drawn - you may consider it possible to still harvest rock if there is only a single rock left - after all, it’s still harvestable, but a different player might not consider that acceptable. You claim to be removing ‘opinion’ as a measure of what is or isn’t acceptable - then you need to define the fixed answer in every one of these potential situations - otherwise your ‘concrete rule’ isn’t concrete.
[quote=“Nemisis, post:532, topic:180741”]
By you deliberately taking it out of context and ignoring the pages and pages of preceding argument. It is the ultimate grey area in your rule, because you either have to redefine ‘content’ as not meaning everything that is contained in the game, or you have created a rule that says ‘blocking anything at all even slightly is illegal’. So, as I have explained before, the only way your rule can be considered concrete is if you are saying all building is illegal. Since you claim not to be saying that, but your rule fails to provide concrete answers to any of a myriad of situations without having to be further defined and have additional rules added, then your rule is not a concrete rule.
I didn’t claim Funcom’s rule was ‘so clear’ - and you can obviously see that, since you quoted the text in which I didn’t say it was clear. I said you made it less clear - which is a statement of fact. Taking a rule that states something and then provides a couple of examples, keeping the same rule and then removing those examples is removing detail - that makes it less clear. The fact that you keep pretending ‘don’t block content, here’s a couple of examples of content’ is less clear than ‘don’t block content - this is absolute, but we won’t give any examples’ frankly shows that you are either dishonest or don’t understand the words you are writing.
And now even you admit that your ‘concrete rule’ changes nothing - except for your final claim that removing examples removes the grey area - it doesn’t, it merely broadens the grey area to encompass exactly how each person reading it might interpret the word ‘content’. Without defining what content is, and exactly which parts of the game fall into that category and which don’t, you have provided no clarity at all.
Nice little strawman at the end, suggesting that I am somehow impossible to persuade of anything. In fact, if you go back and read other exchanges, such as with @Dogoegma, you’ll find that I can be persuaded by reasoned argument. However, I am not persuaded by attempts to redefine the meaning of words so that they mean the opposite of their actual meanings. A concrete set of rules would need to be a concrete set of rules. You have offered no such thing, only the same subjective rules as already exist and an attempt to redefine the meaning of concrete as completely subjective.
As for why I continue arguing - that too has already been explained to you in detail - Funcom has a history of seeing bad arguments spammed on the forums and only skimming them before acting on it. It is entirely possible that they will see people like you arguing for ‘concrete rules’ and decide to enact some actual concrete rules and wreck the game for everybody. And it’s only if there are enough comments pointing out that your example of a ‘concrete rule’ is in fact the same subjective rule and you are merely redefining what ‘concrete rule’ means, that they might be persuaded to keep their existing rules and allow players to continue playing the game.