Can we get an explanation of what the 3.5 section of the Game Rules mean?

  • I think it's time the players understand what the 3.5 section of the Game Rules mean, which states:


    Quote


    The Rail Nation team reserves the right to protect the healthy and fair state of gameplay for its players at all times, especially in situations where the evaluation and investigation of the potential harmful situation or action strongly indicates that harm is being incurred against gameplay and/or one or more players in the game. In such situations, the Rail Nation team has the full right to take necessary actions even if the specific situation as such is not covered in the current game rules.


    We joked around this to be subjective, asked on the forum if breaking a majority or sabotaging the end game is considered harmful, or even had players misinterpreting the rule and getting banned for. Can we please get an explanation of what Rail Nation considers to be harmful in the game? To me it's clear that this applies to in-game actions, ergo how a player plays the game.


    And please try to elaborate about and don't say something like: "players need to stop beeing jerks" because that really doesn't mean anything.


    Thank you.

  • Dear friend.

    This means that there is no clearly defined definition.

    Therefore, there will be no exact explanation.

    Thus, the rules give employees the right to act at their own discretion.


    I guess in some extreme manifestations of bad behavior.

    Employees will intervene and punish.


    In addition, they will punish at their discretion when there is no real problem. For example, excessive investment in the pursuit of prestige.


    And this rule opens the door for them to any such legal actions 8o


    But officially there is no way to talk publicly about real situations ... so we will never know where what is happening :)


    Personally, I believe that in most cases this will be fair and useful for the game!

    That's why I think it's worth it!

  • I don't think we're going to get an explanation and it's sad because I have never seen a game with such loose game rules or left to player's interpretation. To give you bad cases of game rules interpretation:


    - some multi accounts get banned, others do not;

    - some players that invest for prestige get warned/sanctioned, some do not;

    - some players that threaten other players get banned, some do not;

    - some players that insult other players get warned/sanctioned, some do not;

    - some players that deliberately disrupt the game of others do not get sanctioned.


    This really is my last post regarding game rules, the objectivity here is too low for my standards and I've gotten tired of trying to reason and provide feedback.

  • This is the sad reality. But it will get worse ...

  • This extra mention in the rules, 3.5, means the team can act in situations that aren't detailed in the rules but still require us to act.


    The general gameplay has not changed, rules stay the same. This 3.5 is for the team to act in toxic situations we could not list in the rules in full detail. Trolling for example - someone follows another player around the map, not to play the game but to smoke the other out of the game by canceling all the majorities in every city the other player tries to make their home, away from the trolling player. Now we can act, even if this behavior was not mentioned in the rules.


    It is unfortunate the rule change has led to more questions than answers, at least here on the forum. Healthy competition will always be part of the normal gameplay.


    The second topic, how some get sanctioned and some do not. This is not as simple as it sounds in the comment above. Players can have a different history of infractions, someone may be throwing insults often while the other threw insults for the first time and learned not to get into heated "discussions" like that again. The level and gravity of insults may need different actions. The same goes for threatening other players. Multi-accounts may need longer investigation. Good to keep in mind that sanctions are not public information, and may not be visible to other players in any way.

    Mihai - your comments and feedback around this topic have been forwarded, as have the comments of others from different threads. I cannot promise your comments will lead to changes or tell what those changes could be, but you've been heard. Or better said, all threads have been noticed on this forum as rules, multis etc. has been a burning topic for the past weeks for those who do use forum.

  • Samisu Thanks for your comment!

  • Well, first of all, let me say this: any company has all rights to set rules as they want. It is THEIR company, so they have the right to set up a rule, that at the end means that anything they consinder harmful ... at the end IS harmful and can (or even will) be punished (or not) according to THEIR decision. So, on first thoughts there is nothing wrong with a rule that allows them any interpretation using language that feels like dense fog.


    Well, they have those rights, but that doesn't mean, that I like rules like that one.


    Why?


    First:

    It's a one sided rule. And I hate one sided rules, because they destroy trust and confidence ... and cause discussions that at the end also make people who stand up to ask for an appeal, for support of the punished, ... to leave the game.


    Second:

    90% of all fights about rules are caused by misunderstandings. There ARE cases that cannot be misunderstood, like offers to trade illegal stuff, for example. All other fights almost never have one wrongdoer and one who can be 100% sure about his judgement. A little piece of "guilt" will always be on both sides.

    Means, if I (and I mean ME) start a PN fight with a moderator or CM (or boss) we are BOTH right, and we are BOTH wrong. I we cannot come to a conclusion, we EITHER have differend perceptions on that case, different background, different experiences in life, different views (there is no "truth [tm]")... so we could agree to think different, agree to disagree, but value the other one as a human being, worth to be listened to. OR ... we can carry on, telling our opinion, until the side with more might gives up (but who is the one with more might? The company whose rule allow to excluse customers from community, or the customer who stops plaing and thus creates less income for the company) ... OR we can discuss in a way with the intention, the objective, to find a solution, a compromise, a workaround ... OR we can call others to assist us by starting a mediation, by bringing in a third perception for example.

    There is only one of these many ways made possible with that rule: RN decides about "harmful" and punishes at there discretion and never continues discussion.


    Third:

    Well, I also think of how we do punishments in RL. There are courts and judges for that. And if real harm is done, bad enough to exclude a person from the communiy of the others for a long time, there's (at least in the US and Europe) never a judge deciding everything. Appeals are always possible in our countries. Judges in the US will have to follow the decision of a jury, a jury of normal people. In Europe the jury people sit beside the judges, count - though being normal people - as judges and can outvote the installed judges.

    Also, each wrongdoer may ask for an appeal and will be supported by ... well by an attorney, and they can bring up witnesses who support their perception of the harm done.

    And mediation procedures are more and more preferred instead of lawsuits ... and mediators should be neutral, not being bound to the company.

    How we deal with right or wrond or with harmful or not in RL, should at least tell us a little bit about how to deal with


    Well, these 3 points tell, why I somehow hate one sided rules. But I also accept that RN has the right to set up a rule like that.

    And I fully agree to that rule, if someone for example would start to sell porn ingame or in the forum.

    Also, there MUST be a rule that allows them to protect their company (and product) if they see it under harmful attacks that are not mentioned in other rules.


    Nevertheless I would love to see the willingless to offer appeals that do not only suggest a mail to "complaints", but also considers listening to witnesses, including mediators, giving the wrongdoer a chance to tell their perception ... yes, that will take some more time, some extra action, but will increase the trust in the decisions of the company. And make customers blamed for wrongdoing possibly change into long time customers.

    (I can only repeat my experience. When I was admin of the largest forum I ever supported, I once had to ban a user from it for a week, according to one of the rules. But I staid in contact with him, ask him to return and he became my successor, and did a great job. Means: wrongdoers are not always bad people, very often they would give anything for the game, product, forum ... but will be chased away by one sided rules)


    The forum software allows to quickly set up a part, where only the CM, the supporter, the wrongdoer, the witnesses, the mediators and a friend of the wrongdoer (their supporter, lawyer, attorney) and maybe a jury of experienced gamers are allowed to post and to find a good solution TOGETHER.


    That's a suggestion, not a claim. A suggestion to think about. I do not ask for appeals and mediations ... I just ask to think about to use one sided rules together with an explanation, that you consider to listen to the other side too, even if in your perception a lot of harm is done.


    - - - - -


    Edit:

    I wrote too long, Samisu was shorter, quicker, and ... better. Thank you so much for your answer, Samisu.

    But I think, I will leave my text here, as there might be tiny little diamond fragments in it, that RN might think about.

    Frei nach Führungscoach Sandra von Oehsen. Zwei Fragen, die sich Unternehmen stellen sollten:

    Was können unsere Kunden von uns lernen?

    Und was können unsere Kunden von uns lernen, was sie gar nicht lernen sollen?