IMHO, breaking this point into two sentences is a problem because the first sentence can be interpreted as a generic and overreaching limitation and the second sentence is merely examples of the most agregious topics. Also, most players will read the first sentence and skim the second…
The point you are convey in that first sentence is borderline offensive (at least I found it so) as it is a massive and unqualified limitation on people’s free speech. It requires the second sentence to relay it’s true intention that’s only if you take interpret the “may include” differently. Using a single sentence with the qualification embedded will save a ton of heartache.
Also, as an example, Elara was founded by three of us. We, and those who have joined us, have conversations related to out of game topics all the time. Now that our group has grown to village size, and planetary rank 2 on Solum, are we expected to fundamentally change our interactions to abide by the charter? If one considers the two sentences separately, the message I hear is “yes”.
Again, OOC conversations are fine, as long as they are frequently limited to private channels. The edited guideline reads,
‘Please refrain from prolonged, public discussions or behavior that reference the world outside of Boundless. This may include any references to politics, religion, or other out-of-game topics that some may find controversial or distracting.’
The goal here is make broad statements. If people want to have OOC conversations they can do so. They can even do so publicly. But if someone complains and asks you to please stop, then it’s pretty easy to be reminded to use private channels to do so. The key words here are ‘Please refrain’ (asking nicely, there is no talk of a ban), and ‘prolonged public discussions’.
Your point regarding a second sentence is totally lost on me. If people can read one wordy, complex sentence then they can read two simpler sentences. Qualifying sentences exist in English for a reason. I am keeping this phrasing simple for two reasons - it’s easier to read, and not every one is a native English speaker.
PS. I’ll add that if there is going to be an OOC channel that can be turned off and on by players then this particular issue doesn’t exist and the guideline can be removed.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. My understanding is that there will be what we have now, private messages and guild chats. Also, I don’t think that this game is very focused on roleplaying… Just my opinion, so maybe OOC isn’t the right terminology?
How about fusing Guidelines #3 and #5 into the statement below -
‘If your gameplay or actions are not in the spirit of the game, or if you are asked by players to refrain from certain behavior or communication, it is strongly recommended that you stop immediately. This may include any references to politics, religion, or other out-of-game topics that some may find controversial or distracting. The Boundless community has long prided itself on being kind and friendly. Please do your part to contribute to that atmosphere.’
But my point is why should we have to refrain from talking about things which aren’t in-game? Also could you define “spirit of the game” because it’s a big ambiguous
Because several people have mentioned it being an issue they want addressed. It does not harm you to have to limit out of game conversations to private or guild chat.
Because the game is not intended as a chat program. Look at the intent of the game. If you’d like to chat about films, do it. Use private, guild, or third party chat. Subjecting others to it is essentially altering their game experience.
The only single limitation this is placing on anyone is prolonged public channel discussions that have nothing to do with the game when people ask you to please stop. I’m stumped as to how this is an issue. It seems like something we’d all want.
But it’s a social game. The point of the game is to interact with people you meet. Why shouldn’t I be able to speak freely with them in a public channel? What if I want a conversation with multiple people who aren’t in my guild. I just don’t think there should be restrictions like that.
Again, if no one minds, do it. This guideline is simply to set boundaries to protect the intent of the game.
Think of it this way. Going out to movie is an inherently social experience. Should you be able to talk to your friends during the film if someone asks you to please stop? The intent of the movie is to enjoy the film. Not to chat about other things. If people in the movie don’t mind, and everyone is chatting, great! If someone asks you to stop… stop,
Explain to me why others should have to listen to it if they’ve asked you nicely to stop?
There is nothing forcing them to. A film is in the real world, where we all have ears. We cannot block out sound from our ears selectively. However, we are perfectly able to not read the chat and just get on with playing the game when some people are having a conversation. I don’t see why people should be able to force you to stop.
Also, part of the enjoyment of the film is silence, so that you can focus. Part of the enjoyment of an online game is the interaction with other people. This is achieved by conversing with them. I cannot see how the chat would ruin anyone’s experience in the game
Clearly, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I completely disagree with everything you said. I will repeat it again - you can speak to a stranger or friends or the group privately, so you have an alternative. The only alternative someone has is to block you because you aren’t cooperative enough to stop when they ask nicely.
I’m personally on the the fence with this guideline. However, saying that part of the enjoyment of an online game is to publicly chat about out of game stuff is false. That is something you find enjoyment in. Others do not. Their only option will be to block you after asking you nicely and you not deciding to take it to a private channel.
My personal opinion in the matter is that I don’t mind brief out of game talks, but listening to people on some regional channel blather on for ages about sports or a movie is irritating.
Since I see no one else arguing that others should be forced to listen to public conversations when someone asks nicely to stop I’ll keep the guideline in place. I’ve offered my revision above.
That is not what I said/meant. I meant that social interaction is part of the enjoyment if the game. Therefore I do not believe that this should be limited in any way. That includes restricting topics of conversation.
I disagree at some level. Kindness and compassion are key values that we should be promoting. If people are being unkind then maybe they are not right for the community. People have many more freedoms than just harassment and you can still be a complete jerk to people and not fall within the harassment area.
I think this is fine… people have brought up valid comments about it making it sound like people cannot have chats on topics in game that do reference the real world. So why not just a simple adjustment and say “public chat” and if you wish to have the conversation take it to “private chat” since it might be distracting to others in game. That solves it all.
There are essentially three ways to look at something - your perspective, someone else’s perspective, or attempt to stand back and look at it objectively. Here is my objective take -
The purpose of in-game chat is to chat about things within the game. ‘Where’s the Titan?’, ‘Who’s selling X?’, ‘I’m buying Y’, etc. If there is only one public chat channel then the last thing people need to be doing is talking about football or quoting ‘The Big Lebowski’ (as lofty and honorable an activity as that might be).
I have deferred to what the intent of the game is in these guidelines. Someone should not have to read through out of game spam in order to get in game info. They also shouldn’t have to listen to players talk about movies, or religion, or politics if they do not want to… because what they want is more in line with the intent of the game than people who want to chat about random out of game stuff. Always defer to who has the right of way, so to speak. Don’t get involved with, ‘I like playing games like this so I have the right to do so.’ Like your above statement that you didn’t think roleplaying was a big part of Boundless. Once some backstory is presented, and a narrative to the game, then I’d venture to guess that you’d be in a vast minority in that opinion.
Honestly, if the Devs do implement essentially two chat channels… one for in game content and another for random chat then this won’t be an issue. If they don’t, and they stick to one channel, then I am most certainly going to defer to the intent of the game and it’s story over how I personally want to play the game.
I do think before we ratify we should have a discussion (maybe separate topic) about the temp and perm ban process and how that works. I think that will be helpful to maybe clarify things. Also while I don’t know if the charter should contain the process we should flush out that process so it can be ratified as well. The reason I say this is if we are actually going to try to make this charter live then we need the process behind enforcement completed as well. We can’t have one but not the other…
I’ve left that issue entirely up to the Devs. I know they’re reading this, and obviously some system for bans will be in place. I don’t think it’s something that we the players need to work out. Just have the boundary there so Devs know what we as the players feel we want moderated.
The charter is more about creating the gameplay and behavior boundaries and protecting a friendly environment. The Devs will handle bans and how and when to do so.
I understand the concerns in trying to keep the boundless environment pleasant for all players. I will have to agree with @willcrutchley I think if Boundless as more of a social game that a role playing game. Even with the introduction of lore, people will have multiple characters in order to have the skills they want (as described by the developers in other posts) or for any other reason. If I ma switching roles merely to perform a task, I am not sure that fits the role playing model. My point being if this is a social game and the developers do not offer an in game option for private group chat, then I think trying to limit conversations to in game matters is not appropriate. I do agree that topics that are offensive should not be tolerated.
I do have another question. What happens if a player that already owns the game does not want to ratify this charter?
