Rule Suggestion (New Rule)

AceAbo · 2025-05-14T00:24:41+0100

Suggestion Topic: New Rule
Suggestion Description: Basically a rule to protect players from out of character scams,

Why should this be added?:
- as a protective measure for players doing services out of character for example me making skins for money I want a rule to protect me in case the other player tries to scam me.
Or the other way around I pay for a skin then I get ghosted.

What negatives could this have?:
- For me would be useful for skin making but other players may try to exploit this rule for other OOC stuff.

rat · 2025-05-14T00:39:03+0100

Apply the same protections to this as trading for holiday items and it'll be all good

Baba Won · 2025-05-14T06:31:48+0100

rat said:
Apply the same protections to this as trading for holiday items and it'll be all good

Alreasy exists

Casey Heller · 2025-05-14T06:55:03+0100

Baba Won said:
Alreasy exists

I mean, it's enforced yes but written in rules, no??

2.4 (Exchanging Items/Funds) does the best job it can saying that nothing in-game is exchangeable for cash (and vice-versa). Interestingly enough, it's wording (to me at least) makes it seem like the typical VIP-for-100k transactions would be against the rules; if you read slowly enough.

Meanwhile, 3.8 (Selling Items) only covers literal in-game transactions and how to go about selling them.

If 100kVIP (or holiday items, or OOC services) are null and void and are considered protected ~~under this rule~~, then "In-game benefits" needs to be defined or the rule reworded all together.

Baba Won · 2025-05-14T07:00:59+0100

Casey Heller said:
I mean, it's enforced yes but written in rules, no??

2.4 (Exchanging Items/Funds) does the best job it can saying that nothing in-game is exchangeable for cash (and vice-versa). Interestingly enough, it's wording (to me at least) makes it seem like the typical VIP-for-100k transactions would be against the rules; if you read slowly enough.

Meanwhile, 3.8 (Selling Items) only covers literal in-game transactions and how to go about selling them.

If 100kVIP (or holiday items, or OOC services) are null and void and are considered protected under this rule, then "In-game benefits" needs to be defined or the rule reworded all together.

2.5

Scam/deceive others to dishonestly gain their premium tokens, rare/seasonal items or their monetary value

Casey Heller · 2025-05-14T07:19:58+0100

Casey Heller said:
I mean, it's enforced yes but written in rules, no??

Baba Won said:
2.5

Scam/deceive others to dishonestly gain their premium tokens, rare/seasonal items or their monetary value

wow I'm a Class-A example of what using Ctrl+F can do to a mf. Major league oversight, I'll eat this crow.

But seeing even a long-standing member like myself be able to make this oversight, I believe the rest of my first message stands. This just feels out of place for what 2.5 is 99% of the time, and 2.4 can house it so much better. If this suggestion is accepted, these particular transactions deserve their own recognition and protections in their own rule, or to be integrated into 2.4.

Baba Won · 2025-05-14T07:44:58+0100

Casey Heller said:
wow I'm a Class-A example of what using Ctrl+F can do to a mf. Major league oversight, I'll eat this crow.

But seeing even a long-standing member like myself be able to make this oversight, I believe the rest of my first message stands. This just feels out of place for what 2.5 is 99% of the time, and 2.4 can house it so much better. If this suggestion is accepted, these particular transactions deserve their own recognition and protections in their own rule, or to be integrated into 2.4.

Ofcourse! I agree, but I think they added it there is due to the fact that 2.5 is a bit more "harsher" punishment than 2.4 (iirc). And the people that do so with intent are to be more punished than if they did it via 2.4.

maeen · 2025-05-14T07:47:06+0100

This rule already exists and I don't believe adding a new rule to the already massive rules list is going to do any good.

People can read rule 2.4, and use a bit of common sense, and its a non existent issue.

AceAbo · 2025-05-14T07:56:48+0100

maeen said:
This rule already exists and I don't believe adding a new rule to the already massive rules list is going to do any good.

People can read rule 2.4, and use a bit of common sense, and its a non existent issue.

Nah I want to be written or at least updated an already existing rule.

Rule Suggestion (New Rule)

Similar threads