Boundless Code of Conduct


#86

I think we are going a bit too far into abstract philosophy of what should be acceptable and tolerable.
Common sense means for me that no one should make a monument to Japan invasion of China nor to Nazi occupation of Poland, nor for islam suicide bombers.
But why can’t we use symbols for religions in “common” environments, like Christian church recreation can contain cross the same way hindu temple should contains creation symbol is beyond me.


#87

My rule would be any real world religious or political symbol is not for game. Just keep that out of game and nobody will have any issues. No abstract philosophy there at all. I really don’t have to say anything else on the topic :slight_smile:


#88

yeah who got time to solve that discussion this is what steggs is saying about agree to disagree lolz nice example actually rainbow flag is flag with a rainbow on it ask a child he will give you the answer :smile:
i replyd on this entire discussion just had to link one reply off these reply’s
lets just play the game if ya dont like stuff ya can report it and talk to the dev’s


#89

what does it mean lets invent a meaning then we can disagree :rofl:
ow question @Steggs101 this is two reply’s in a row on diferent reply’s
this allowed our where can i learn to do this in the samepost (doublequote)


#90

I think the church of gleam is very popular in the boundless universe!


#91

I feel like the rules of conduct besides the inappropriate / explicit content should be programmed into the game.

Digging holes under people’s property should NOT be considered griefing, or shouldn’t be allowed by the in-game dynamics, specially after the prohibition of plotting above or below others… I mean, they should be able to plot their own transportation channels to avoid falling off, it should constitute a necessary expense, not a priviledge per se, to be able to report it to an admin and get away with it. Also, walling someone should not be considered griefing since it’s counterproductive to cut traffic from the neighboring plots, it’s a self harm in some cases and in other cases it’s an exploit of the programmed dynamics, such as the ring around black light (I’m looking at you, <Name Removed - No Naming and Shaming>). If walling were to be considered griefing we should start by looking from that same perspective at the macrogriefing taking place in some of the major cities, where there’s a wall surrounding the entire city and the traffic is being funneled to the advantage of the road owners (<Name Removed - No Naming and Shaming>, most particularly, who refuses to finish up his roads but keeps plotting new unfinished roads massively to amass the footfall potential, but also, isn’t that the encouraged dynamic of the game if traffic is what generates income? I live in pheminorum, blacklight has had multiple issues with the restraining ring that instead of creating a pathway funnels and locks up the entire city to the benefit of a few. I’ve seen some of the wardens love to expand the roads and half-ass the construction to leave half constructed roads for the competition, leaving other regions unattended, and looking unattractive.
We’ve dealt with it politically, by placing signs pointing fingers to the responsible parties for cutting traffic off of strategic points int the city, and we know the developers will to some extent still favor those players, which in a lot of cases are outsourcing the ‘griefing’ to others in order to dodge the responsibility or the blame.
If we’re gonna favor either end, we can’t look the other way and say noobs are griefing at small scale but established players are immune to these policies.

Just think about it… we gotta be fair with the community, either rules apply to all or they shouldn’t at all… Cause this ‘being considerate’ is not quite working out with players that are expanding and building at massive scales and leaving a whole lot of abandoned plots affecting other players, as if short selling their businesses.

I know not many of you are financial analysts or anything of the sort, but some of you will understand what I’m talking about, if we’re gonna play dirty, we can play REAL DIRTY both ways. So we gotta be transparent and fair with all players, not benefit players who got in there before…

Meet me in blacklight, or just hop on to the tall building right in the middle of blacklight, and appreciate the massive ring around it where traffic is forcibly funneled through with walls to hog the access to the portal HUBs and the portal seekers shopping hubs. I don’t think this all considers how big of an advantage it is and how many policies are being overlooked under that scheme… I know this is true because we were the first to drive traffic outside the city and now they unclogged some of the other entrances, which we also reserved as they got abandoned, we’re making mad buck off of these dynamics, so I say we either deem them fair for all or we make justice happen.


#99

Multiple posts deleted. If you want to have a conversation about your Settlements, take it to PMs, it doesn’t belong in this thread.


#100

I appreciate participation when the time is due, my points have been broader and also pinpointing that some of these ‘guidelines’ overlook some favoritism when it comes to the size of the crime itself, I have a few plots in there that have part of skippy’s wall ring on the side, and we cannot really do anything about it, but when someone small walls the access it doesn’t seem to work the same way for overseers does it? It’s similar to the case when somebody plots the edge of a hill, you cannot demand that they bridge their settlement through the airspace to the adjacent plots, but it essentially is like having a wall, bridges fall off to regeneration, and it’s only blocking the direct access to the portals. In essence it’s the same even if one is a wall and the other is a specific plot reservation pattern to cut traffic from the sides.


#101

Steggs why do you decide to moderate a day after the original inquiry was made? We branched out because of a lack of participation, you cannot just opt in opportunistically to pick a moment to hop in if you had nothing to say earlier geez.


#102

There are a number of reasons this could happen, I don’t have eyes on the forum at all times.

Branching out / having an off-topic conversation - your posts were deleted. If you’d like to challenge this, feel free to PM me, instead of taking this off topic again.


#103

Well back into the real topic then, how is funneling an entire capital not considered griefing? It’s affecting a wide number of players to the selective benefit of a few, who hog the capital entry. If what’s wrong about blocking the access mostly has something to do with the traffic, why is it okay to upscale this to the size of a capital, please?


#104

Again, mods? I thought you were very active reading our actual concerns and deleting our ‘off topic’ posts but when a critical concern related with the code of conduct is hit y’all can’t come up with a simple answer… We don’t need agreeable, nor reasonable, we just want an answer so we can understand what is expected. Nobody is responsible for the impossible.


#105

I absolute agree with you @Godsicc. If it is possible in the game, then it should simply be accepted as a playstyle. The devs don’t like a specific playstyle because it hurts their income more than others. The bulk of the money is in the average player.

This Code of Conduct is very incomplete. Wonderstruck will need to develop extra criteria to be more precise about what is allowed and what isn’t. Because ‘intent’ is not measurable. Nor is who’s building up to who. Who’s griefing who with their beacon when technically they’re both placed next to each other. In that case (black and white), they’re both griefing.

These ‘least specific’ scenario’s are the ones that have most flaws.


#106

I think there’s a very simple rule missing in the CoC. Don’t be an ass.

Digging stuff out from under someone’s base so they can’t get in or out anymore, is being an ass, or probably more on point, a griefer.

You’re arguing that the game should limit you more while at the same time arguing you don’t want limits. That’s a bit… Weird.


#107

No it isn’t. Read the topic.


#108

… let’s quote it all please.


#111

this is subjetive too.
I’m an hinduist and I’ll build an hindi temple full of swastikas because it’s an ancient symbol of peace and prosperity.
I feel that representing my deeper beliefs in this game it’s very important to me despite of the evil misuses in the past.
Am I an ass too?


#112

There used to be lots of controversy as far as the CoC went even in the early MMORPGs like world of warcraft where users on the horde were used to a more mature language and aggressive tactical approach to communication and action that as usual would have granted free bans in the alliance. Let’s face it, there’s always parts that will appeal to either segment of a market (kids/adults). In comparison to Boundless, I think both ends represent part of the whole community which is not open to factioning. Expert players will without a doubt skip the comprehensive ethical guidelines and play by the viable exploits and tactics, such as setting up proxies as close as possible to the traffic or by mere competition spirit surrounding their rivals… Which sounds like a very unpopular choice yet it’s a very obvious path AKA a cookie cutter formula to expert players looking to catch an edge, and I feel it may be unwelcome or unpleasant to this community. All I’m saying is they should be more expressly specific BEFORE getting down to analysing tedious case by case scenarious.


#113

It’s a game. Perhaps bringing your religion in to it isn’t the best. What about those who are offended by religion? It seems the sensible thing is to treat it as a game and not find something to be contentious over.

Moreover, a country and movement took that symbol and made it an evil sign at the expense of thousands of lives. Perhaps taking that in to account is something as well.

This is a game. It’s entertainment. Pushing such a thing just seems nonsensical especially after the creators have already stated their stance on it. Perhaps you’re willing to push that. If that’s the case, yes it would make you what you ask.


#114

I don’t see how bringing politics and religion discussion will bring anything good to the game through means of a restrictive freedom of expression, just saying. Most particularly when we’re discussing idealism against postmodernism. It’s an absolute dead-end to try to draw or conclude consensually about a god or an ideal in this thread.