Weiss von Toten Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 (edited) I was of the mind that due to the Clarification of Clause 2 of the ToS viceroys were are no longer allowed. Is this the case and does anyone have a link to a ruling by admin on this? Edited August 16, 2008 by Weiss von Toten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franziskaner Posted August 15, 2008 Report Share Posted August 15, 2008 Viceroys are allowed... they just cannot demand higher admin access or possession of anything outside of the game... as an alliance is part of the game and not a tangible RL object, a viceroy can be appointed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 they just cannot demand higher admin access or possession of anything outside of the game Isn't demanding forum access demanding something outside of the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 you dont need forum control to be a viceroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 you dont need forum control to be a viceroy. I didn't say anything about forum control. Simply demanding a forum account, by my reading, is against the ToS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin Trotsky Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 I believe that it means the Viceroy cannot be given ROOT Admin. The viceroy can be an admin but just not ROOT Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Guido Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Vetinari Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 This ruling is very simple. Any demand for admin-level access to offsite assets is in violation of the Terms of Service. This is tantamount to extortion. A donation deal is entirely voluntary, and as such is within the ToS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetinari Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 If it's messing with anyone's assets that are not a part of CyberNations itself, it is against ToS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Thank you for the clarification. Am I correct in thinking that viceroys would therefore be against the ToS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Sabioviejo Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetinari Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 Thank you for the clarification. You have answered my question perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 (edited) 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 August 16, 2008 by Guido Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weiss von Toten Posted August 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Stalin Trotsky Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 I doubt they'd make donation deals illegal. Cause that is probably a big portion of the income that keeps CN up and running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
KCToker Posted August 16, 2008 Report Share Posted August 16, 2008 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetinari Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Guido Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 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 More sharing options...
thedestro Posted August 17, 2008 Report Share Posted August 17, 2008 Extortion is extortion, regardless of where talks are. Stop playing e-lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts