Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
Unwritten Rules
  <<First Page  |  <Previous  

Logan Creed
Logan Creed

Nov-12-2006 21:22

In light of the recent comments on the message boards, it seems like the first question that needs to be answered is:

“Should players abide by rules created by the community?”

My opinion: No.

I believe I may be in the minority here, but I personally think the only rules that should be followed are those set forth by Ben and Sunny. This is their game. Given that there are currently 14,654 active players in the game, I don’t think the wish of the Community can be determined from the relatively small number of players that post on the boards. Especially, whenever a competitive element is involved (whether it be high scores, treasure hunts or fame), it does not seem appropriate that those who are successful are to be governed by those that they are competing against.

What does everyone else think?


Replies

reda
reda
Well-Connected

Nov-12-2006 23:25

Well said Ranier!

Lady Ruby Caplan
Lady Ruby Caplan
Well-Connected

Nov-13-2006 01:50

I have always maintained that Sleuth is a game that is playable at all levels and you can play it how you want.

The Sleuth community started small, as with small communities, there is a general consensus with how things are done.. unwritten rules as such. As that community grows more and more people challenge the status quo which, for better or worse, results in change.

I do NOT think a set of rules or guidelines needs to change Sleuth. I still think that Sleuth can stay a game that is playable at all level and how you want if there are a set of clear rules or guidelines.

I think time and time again, big debates could have been prevented by a set of rules and guidelines.

Here is a quote from another game I started playing that gives and example of rules that still maintain a flexible playing game:


"4. Don't abuse multiple accounts.

This is a tricky one. It's not against the rules to have more than one character per household, or per computer, or even per person. What is against the rules, however, is to have a bunch of extra characters that act as item or Meat farmers for your main character.
Here's a yardstick: If your main character is advancing at a rate faster than would be possible without multis, then you're more than likely in violation of this rule.

If you're abusing multis, and your behavior is noticed, all accounts other than what appears to be your primary will be disabled. If you make a bunch more multis and start doing it again, or if the first abuse we notice is really annoying or egregious, your primary account will be disabled. "
Policies of Kingdom of Loathing. I don't know if this is against copyrights? I hope not!


Now a lot of games have very strict multi character rules.
I'm not saying that we need that particular rule in Sleuth.. but I do think the time has come where the community has gotten so large that it's wouldn't be a bad thing to have rules and guidelines.


Lady Ruby Caplan
Lady Ruby Caplan
Well-Connected

Nov-13-2006 01:54

They set clear boundaries so that everyone in the community knows where they are and what they can or can't do. It also means that there is a way for repeat offenders to be removed for equipement stealing which I think is an even bigger problem.

Some might think it's a little sad that a community would need rules/guidelines, or that we shouldn't need them or that people should all get along, but in what community does this work? Not many and those it does work in are usually small, constant, insular communities.

Like I stated in the previous post, there were a LOT of ideas on ALL sides that I agreed on. However, I think once again, a community destroying debate has occured because of a lack of rules and guidelines.

Delvin
Delvin
Well-Connected

Nov-13-2006 03:36

I am no longer loggin in daily, so I am not sure what had prompted this post. But just to offer my personal opinion. Sleuth used to be a free game. A lot of the gamers has been around since the beta stage. Their opinion and comments about this game did in fact shape the rules of this game. As time goes, we have more and more players. We had players with lots of money, established agencys and exp. points and we have players that have nothing. I, myself, had some "problem" with some of the old-time players when I came up with some suggestions. Read this post http://noir.playsleuth.com/map/cityhall/post.spy?id=2389. We tend to have different opinion about how this game should be played. A lots of gamers would post their opinion on the message board regarding changes of certain rules. I had to agree with Logan Creed that only rules stated by Ben and Sunny MUST be followed by all gamers. But we should also pratice some self discipline about certain "unwritten rule", such as not trying to poach gamers who are already in an agency. The message board is simply a place whereby we state our opinion, Ben still have the final say. Sleuth started out as a very friendly game. Gamers from different agencys became "cyber friends" with no conflict of interest. This administrator has came up with some side game which is very competitive among gamers and agencys but I hope that all of us do not forget that this a nothing but a game. I had solve numerous cases, favors, a few treasure hunts and villian hunts, but my greatest reward here is getting to know some great cyber friends, one of them actually paid for my 1-year subscriptions, else I won't even be logging in every few days. Happy Sleuthing! :)

Hawkeye Harris
Hawkeye Harris
Battered Shoe

Nov-13-2006 03:52

* Ben & Sunny set the rules
* Jroepel has printed said rules in question (regarding hot issues)
* Nuff said, let's embrace each other's differences and play the game
* Happy sleuthing to all, and to all a good (night)(day)

PS: If these rules seem vague to some, perhaps Ben (wisely) does not want to micro-manage the players. Let's get on with it

AraLives
AraLives
Battered Shoe

Nov-13-2006 06:32

Well said, Ranier :)

R Anstett
R Anstett

Nov-13-2006 07:25

I like the thoughts expressed here by everyone.

I also like the inference that LRC is making with her post. That only Ben can decide if there is an abuse of control with Password Sharing and the mulitple people per agency rule.

Unless an official announcement by administration says differently we all have to go with the previous statements made that JRopel posted the links to.

The relevant part here " Password sharing is OK. What I'm trying to avoid is having an agency that is entirely controlled by two or three people. "

In the end I believe I am more in line with Logan on this.

reda
reda
Well-Connected

Nov-13-2006 07:47

LRC - I like the example you gave. This is a good way of laying down the unwritten rule of ethics without twikking the game in a way that would be just really annoying! I like that! :)

  <<First Page  |  <Previous  

[ You must login to reply ]