you are right, ingame are easier to "learn".... but things that bother me is:
the new rule does NOT define what is a cheat/mod or not... because the idiots who cheat/mod, they consider it legal
The threats, what is a threat? a mild joke like: "U can not ban me i hack u lol"??? or when you are dead serious and mean it?
The definitions is weak, thats why the old rules are better, and ESPECIALLY with 2.1
2.1 NEEDS to be thorough, because one mans definition of cheats are not yours. While i say anything that make you better in any way i cant with the normal game, is cheats. He thinks that is fine, because he is not damaging the server or others game when he silently powermines/trades, making 500m / hour due to some altered files.
2.1 must be detailed. Because only details can make you understand that your version of legal, IS stated to be illegal.
But if say, i got changed starspheres, the new rule make me a cheater, but does it affect others gameplay (unless i remove/move bases/JH/JG) nope. Does it affect others gameplay if i use the Unreal Tournament font instead of the normal FL font? no..
The new rule is not defining what is cheats, and what is not. And what is a threat, and what is not.
I love it. A change from the civil law system into a common law system. As stated above, uncertainty means you don't do it, or you look back in the cases to see if it has been sanctioned before.
You might like to add something like:
Examples include but are not exclusive to:
[some of the current list]
if you add things to include, your basically just making a dumb version of the old rule with just as many loopholes as the new one.... Just a definition of what you "name" your cheat/mod
' Wrote:What ambiguity is there? Is there a scale of ambiguity? Is this wording less or more ambiguous than the old one? If the wording can be made more clear by all means post a suggestion.
It is about as open-ended as 1.2, and 1.2 is open-ended because it is a last resort.
The wording is clear, in the current rules.
' Wrote:I love it. A change from the civil law system into a common law system. As stated above, uncertainty means you don't do it, or you look back in the cases to see if it has been sanctioned before.
You might like to add something like:
Examples include but are not exclusive to:
[some of the current list]
Adding the examples complicates the rule. Complicating the rule makes it pointless to change it to the "uncomplicated" rule in the first place. (Extra effort, no reward.)
' Wrote:No mention of running multiple accounts side by side will quickly result in convoys of a half dozen 5k trains flying the most profitable route available.
its not in the rules no one said i culdnt do it
That would fall under using accounts to change normal gameplay. But I suppose we could add the most popular exploits like that to inform people.
Our experience of cheating and hacking is that it arises whne people flagrantly abuse software or hardware to alter gameplay. Mine cheats, speed mods, all this stuff is very sepcific in nature when it does come to our attention, in short, we know what cheating is, but we don't have to list every single instance of it.
We've had people argue that editing .ini files wasn't a mod and therefore not covered under the rule as stated before. Fat lot of good that did that person.
Anyway, wait until you see my Section 5 rewrite...
'IS there anybody there?' said the Traveller
Knocking on the moonlit door
And his horse in the silence champed the grasses
Of the forest's ferny floor.
And a bird flew up out of the turret
Above the Traveller's head
And he smote upon the door again a second time
'Is there anybody there?' he said.
' Wrote:i have no need to use it for that myself,
....
discused in a sanction, maybe to recommend its use but otherwise no.
....
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves ...
Oops...
Well, you answered that yourself. The rules should only have to be relied on to determine wrongdoing and impose sanctions. By your own admission, using such a script would not actually have any impact whatsoever on gameplay, apart from making it difficult for people to call you names or for you to call other names. Although it would be odd if someone reported you for using it because they couldn't insult you properly. But then we enter the realms of the deranged....
Here's how bans for cheating work.
Someone does something that draws attention to his or herself.
Auto cheat usually kicks in, either that or peole notice stuff (too fast a ship, better guns, etc)
We ban someone. They see it on the forums.
Then we get the "my brother did it" stories or we discover the cheat was accidental (and there are ways to establish that). Then a punishment is imposed or amends are made (cf mine cheaters - only repeat offenders and unrepentant cheaters got the permanent ban there)
Nothing is ever final, rules wise. Apart from a permaban. And they are thankfully rare.
Thank you. i wasn't idly asking. i have been concidering an expansion to the /setmsg system too. basically to increase the number of messages that can be stored and sent. this would be totally independant of the Freelancer/Disco system and would not have #t etc capabilities, ie just plain text. it would allow some of the less nimble fingered of us to have a 'conversation' and/or those less skilled in use of the english laguage to have some 'word power'. im not sure if that would constitute a unfair advantage. but my plan was also to sell this for in-game credits rather than being totally free (i dont want any RL payment) as it would be nice to have some reward for the effort i would have to put into creating it.
i have realised that it could be used to spam but thats not something that would go unnoticed and i have worked out a method of including an expiry date to allow me to stop supplying it to 'offenders', and make it specific to a set Freelancer account or even a specific character/faction. (the upshot of that would be if admins renamed a ship it would stop working, after a reboot or death). it is easy for me to force a chat window so it could be stopped from sending key presses to fire weapons. and as it would be an increased load on the users PC resources, if anything it would be a disadvantage during PvP.
so i see it as doing nothing (new) to harm the game and having some potential to improve it. given carefull control of its release of course.
What do you think ?
I'd suggest you bring it up in the Development Forum. It falls outside the scope of the intent of this thread. Ideally all modules or scripts like this would have to be checked to ensure they don't fall foul of the anti-cheat.