Wikipedia Wrote:Gameplay includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does". Arising alongside game development in the 1980s, gameplay was used solely within the context of video or computer games, though now its popularity has begun to see use in the description of other, more traditional, game forms. Generally, the term gameplay in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding factors like challenges and movement. The term game mechanics refers to sets of rules in a game that are intended to produce an enjoyable gaming experience. Current academic discussions tend to favor terms like game mechanics specifically to avoid 'gameplay'.
Despite criticism, the term gameplay has gained acceptance in popular gaming nomenclature, being the only common phrase describing the quality of player engagement or how "fun" the game is. The primary aspects of gameplay are the challenges the game presents to players, and the actions that players may take in response to those challenges. Some gaming reviews give a specific score for gameplay, along with graphics, sound, and replay value. Many consider "gameplay" to be the most important indicator of the quality of a game.
I guess that the rule refers to stuff that damages the experience of playing.
It's a pretty broad term, arguably. Nieczk's ban is the only use of it I can personally recall.
I used it once to ban a guy that was sexually harassing players on the server.
Anyhoo, after 5 pages of this, all I can see is a complaint without any solutions offered.
If someone has a better idea on a way to cover every single rule violation senario that could ever happen, then by all means: go write those million pages & submit them for approval.
Yeah, as was said before, that part of the rule is the admins 'magic bullet'
So?
It's used only when no other rules apply, & there is a huge difference between 'use' & 'abuse'
Out of the thousands of sanctions handed out, I challenge anyone to go through them all & prove where this part of the rule is abused.
(Oh, & for the record, what does this mean?
' Wrote:Considering previous responses in other threads, mwerte, can you remove Marburg's post? (The one I quoted.)
Thank you.
This post is the only post I made in here so you didn't quote me at all...but I did notice that you misquoted Cannon by changing the color of his text from yellow to green...why?)
I'd like to ask a question, about a specific group cases that this rule has been called on:
When players (I fall in this group, and on a very large scale) 'exploit' mistakes in the game coding to come ahead with more money than they otherwise would get, (cases that I can rember: the routes in delta that were quickly nerfed, as they were 'too profitable' (which is above a 30 million an hour threshold, I believe) and the incedent when slaveliners were buyable for 2.9 million.)
How do such cases harm gameplay?
Now, my turn for a question: Why do you want a definitive explanation? If I know why you are asking I'll be better able to answer your question. Just curious and don't feel obliged to answer.
Because, quite simply, I was hit for such a thing, and do not understand why such behavior was wrong. I was told that I shouldn't have spread around such sensitive information, etc, but I did not consider myself doing anything wrong or against any rules. I've been told its unfair, but everone had the same chance, which is my idea of fairness.
Well, my own opinion here as a player is that abusing a game bug to knowingly gain more credits provides an unfair advantage - kind of like activating a cheat in a game. It's a question of scale too I suppose. Did someone mention Planet Harris?
' Wrote:
Hmm. Tricky. No, I don't think I could give a definitive explanation. A definitive explanation needs more legal training than I have (which is zero) and any attempt I make would be doomed.
I'll provide my perspective though; this is not a definitive explanation, just an explanation that covers some of the usage and my understanding of the policies:
First:
- I agree with Loawai's perspective.
- I agree with many of the other statements by people in this post, things like:
"Harming server gameplay? That could almost be anything...". Yes it could and this the point of such a rule.
"If you look like it as a loophole for the admins, I guess that's fine and partly true." Yes it is a loophole.
"I know it was used to sanction OoRP docking before." Yes it was until a OORP docking rule was created. (Remember Corsairs docking on manhattan and then undocking to kill all lawful ships before docking again)
As people have said, 1.2 is a catch-all rule that covers any situation not covered by the other rules.
In practice it requires a significant amount of discussion before being used as the situations requiring its use are rare and usually contentious.
There is no specific policy governing its use but in practice a large proportion of administrators will need to agree before using it. It is also a rule more likely to draw the attention of Igiss.
As this rule is vague it is possible that it could be used in inappropriate ways. In practice I can't see how this could happen given that things like this are discussed, usually at great length. As always though people can make mistakes.
What's the definition of inappropriate? The definition used is: if a majority of the administration team agree to use this rule, then its use is appropriate.
----
Now, my turn for a question: Why do you want a definitive explanation? If I know why you are asking I'll be better able to answer your question. Just curious and don't feel obliged to answer.
I've put this post in yellow because I like the colour.
EDIT: stupid colour! go yellow go yellow!
EDIT: finally yellowish.
I'll add one more thing to answer a subsequent statement: this isn't a superpower rule. Its use is ultimately governed by Igiss. If an administrator (or the whole team) abuses it, he can reverse the decision and/or ban/remove the people who abused it. This rule is used to cover situations that the other rules don't cover - just like what happened with the OORP docking.
Thank you Cannon,
The reason, or reasons that I personally wanted a definitive answer is because of the broad spectrum of the rule. Traditionally there has been a gap between player and admin in regards to the rules, and often questions have been left unanswered or simply forgotten because of other obligations or time. Anyone who has ever contributed to community upkeep knows how hard you all work.
But what it comes down to is the fact that the rules aren't written simply, and they aren't written with supporting information. No practical examples, no explanations of why and how, nothing that would relay an understanding easily.
In some parts even, the rules are written in such confusing English that I've had to look twice. So with that in mind an explanation of the rule is helpful to us because of its intentionally vague nature, it gives myself and others a better understanding why the rule is in place and how it will be used. And over all I think that enchancing community understanding of our rules, both forum and server is a good thing.
I don't want to derail the topic, but...Unfair advantage? Because I took advantage of a faster/easier way to earn money(which was open to all people, for at least a duration)?
Many people don't take advantage of the best traderoutes, and some do not even trade. Does trading(and I do follow the best traderotus, in a 5k transport) count as unfair? Does arms dealing, which I'm told makes even more money, if one does it right (I -cannot- do it right, apparently, so there are people who actually -do- have an unfair advantage.
Planet harris was never, to my attention, delt with by the admins, or out of RP...and the most recent trade glitches which were exploited were, I believe, a great deal less potent than Harris.
![[Image: malsig_alt1.png]](http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o108/Shamus_FL/malsig_alt1.png)
![[Image: LibreIISuper_Small.png]](http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y287/Adelphus/LibreIISuper_Small.png)