Jump to content

Viceroy Question


Weiss von Toten

Recommended Posts

I believe that it means the Viceroy cannot be given ROOT Admin. The viceroy can be an admin but just not ROOT Admin.

From the ToS

Real-life possessions include, but are not limited to, offsite forums, domain names, offsite forum accounts

Can we get a moderator ruling on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very easy way around this. If you agree to a Viceroy, then couldn't you just give him admin access and an account as a separate deal? It would be very hard to link someone getting admin access and surrender terms as long as the admin access/account was not listed as a part of the official terms.

But if you want to be stringent about it, aren't donation deals against the TOS now? Trading someone's $20s for in game aid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what your definition of viceroy is. Yes, vicroys are perfectly legal as long as they do not demand or extort RL assets (including forum access of any sort). It's really very simple.

This is the part I was trying to clarify. I obviously assumed this was the case. Others had said it was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ToS clearly states extortion, so if the viceroy just ask for admin access and they give it to the viceroy, its perfectly legal imho as long as there are no threats involved.

Incorrect. The only way allowing access within ToS is if access is volunteered to the potential Viceroy without it being mentioned as a part of terms. Just because there is no threat does not mean it is not extortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect. The only way allowing access within ToS is if access is volunteered to the potential Viceroy without it being mentioned as a part of terms. Just because there is no threat does not mean it is not extortion.

It seems to be very vague and unclear. You just stated

If it's messing with anyone's assets that are not a part of CyberNations itself, it is against ToS.

So donation deals are therefore against the TOS as money is an asset that is not a part of CN. But even if we go with your last statement, determining whether there has been a "threat" or extortion is completely based on personal perspective of people that aren't actually involved in the surrender agreement...which to me seems to be a little odd. And the opinion of people involved can be changed based on whether it works to their advantage or not. ie In the beginning it wasn't extortion but now that they want the forums back, it is...

It seems to me that the only way to enforce it is to make sure that it is not apart of the surrender terms officially, and therefore anything else given has to be assumed to be volluntary.

Edited by Guido
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the only way to enforce it is to make sure that it is not apart of the surrender terms officially, and therefore anything else given has to be assumed to be volluntary.

Not at all. They have made it very clear that any form of agreement dictating off site property is against the ToS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. They have made it very clear that any form of agreement dictating off site property is against the ToS.

That's my point...

If it isn't in the official surrender terms, then it isn't a part of the agreement dictating what is needed for peace. Therefore if two leaders speak on IRC and agree that the viceroy will get admin access as a part of the viceroy process, then admin can't say this is against the TOS...because it wasn't officially a part of the in game agreement and therefore doesn't have anything to do with the game. But what the mod was stating above was that even though it's not an "official part of the agreement", that it still could be extortion...which would therefore be against the TOS. And my whole point is that the only people that can decide whether this is the case are the mods and admin, who most likely would not have been present for any talks that took place outside of the game between the 2 parties and therefore would not be able to make a sound judgement on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about demanding a non admin level account? Is it not largely the same thing due to the offsite and offsite accounts being the property of the owner sites?

You don't need to demand a forum account to get one. 99% of the time you just register yourself :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point...

If it isn't in the official surrender terms, then it isn't a part of the agreement dictating what is needed for peace. Therefore if two leaders speak on IRC and agree that the viceroy will get admin access as a part of the viceroy process, then admin can't say this is against the TOS...because it wasn't officially a part of the in game agreement and therefore doesn't have anything to do with the game. But what the mod was stating above was that even though it's not an "official part of the agreement", that it still could be extortion...which would therefore be against the TOS. And my whole point is that the only people that can decide whether this is the case are the mods and admin, who most likely would not have been present for any talks that took place outside of the game between the 2 parties and therefore would not be able to make a sound judgement on it.

Are you insinuating that the extortion should take place offsite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you insinuating that the extortion should take place offsite?

Well there are two answeres to that question.

1. Let's assume there is still extortion. If it did take place offsite, it should not matter anyway because it is outside of admin's and mod's jurisdiction. If it isn't in the official CyberNations surrender terms, then it effectively does not exist in character...as we are not allowed to refer to Real Life or OOC things in an In Character forum...which is where the surrender terms would be posted...correct?

2. Let's assume that no extortion happened but it was an agreement between the two parties. Then this is up to the interpretation of admin and his mod's..which seems silly considering they are not involved in the actually agreement and therefore can not possibly know whether the losing side willingly went along with this or was extorted anyway...

So enforcing this would seem to be very difficult unless the surrender terms specifically stated it, which would be stupid to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...