Allow Neglected Discussion on the Forums

[DarkEternity]

Yes, but it is better to punish the people who are breaking the rules rather than silencing all discussion on a topic. After all, it seems that the issue seems to center about people seen to be advising rulebreaking. As long as it is made extremely clear that discussion is allowed and discussion of rulebreaking is permitted (with harsh penalties for breaking the rules) I think that's fine.

 

Besides, it might be extremely harsh that discussion of rulebreaking would land you a ban, but from what I interpret Sock's post to be about, these were people who had already broken the rules advising other people to do the same. If they were indeed breaking the rules, they'd be banned anyway, in the end. The difference is that you're making it extremely clear that if you discuss breaking the TOS you'll DEFINITELY land a ban rather than maybe you might, maybe you won't with a warn.

 

I don't think people should suffer for what might be and the actions of others, like others have said. And people are going to break the rules anyway, whether they're breaking the rules for golds, silvers, nds, hollies, halloweens or NDs. No matter what happens people are still going to want to break the rules and a discussion thread is not going to change that.

[KageSora]

You can punish somebody without jumping right to the harshest punishment, though.

 

Now, if these are people who know full-well that they're breaking the rules and are advising it anyway, yes, harsher action is needed.

 

But it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, rather than just saying "any discussion/encouragement of multi-scrolling nets you an insta-perma-ban".

 

Some people might pose the idea but be too chicken to try it themselves for fear of getting banned (with obviously good reason), and they could be much more discourage with a warn and a "next time, you're getting banned" instead of the insta-ban.

 

Others might actually not realize it's against the rules--hopefully making it clear in the first post that it IS against the rules would reduce that number, but let's be honest, here--there's no way that everybody will read the entirety of the first post. Again, I don't think that ignorance of the rules excuses the rulebreaking, but I'd rather see it met with a stern warning with the "if you do it again, you're banned" attitude rather than the insta-perma-ban.

[HeatherMarie]

My opinion may not hold much weight here either way, since I'm not interested in Neglecteds in the first place, but I COMPLETELY 100% AGREE.

 

I don't know the details from back then, if it was *just* the upswing in mutli-scrolling or if it was multiple things or what. But NOW is not "back then". And a lot has changed.

 

For one, there are a LOT more users in general, and a lot more users on the forum, and from what I've seen in the years I've been here, there has been a steady increase in the number of users *willing* and *comfortable* with reporting someone who's breaking the rules.

 

There are a LOT of people who genuinely just want to talk about Neglecteds, compare notes, I'm sure plenty of people don't even know the easiest ways to calculate the times. Why should ALL of those *innocent* people be punished just because BACK WHEN there were some rule-breakers?

 

If this forum, or a specific topic, is opened up for ND discussion, I have full faith in the members of this forum that if someone starts yapping about multi-scrolling or rule breaking, they *will* get reported.

[prpldrgnfr]

I would like to add my support to allowing discussion again, for all the reasons others have posted more eloquently then I.

[whitebaron]

I think its very hard to discuss nds without breaking this part of the tos:

Users of the site agree not to reverse engineer or otherwise attempt to derive any processes or formulas used by the site's internal calculations.

 

Thus, either change the tos (timings, views are discussed even by mods - thats reverse enginerred knowledge, too...) or keep nds out of the forum.

 

Theres not much to reverse engineer in dc, but the biggest part is nds.

[HeatherMarie]

I personally think that part of the TOS is too vague and confusing, anyways. How many kids (since there are SO many kids that play DC) actually know what actions are considered "reverse engineering" or "deriving formulas by using the site's internal calculations"? I mean seriously? That's just ASKING to be broken because what does it actually even MEAN?

 

Technically I could say that any talk about the ratios, what dragons are "rare", what dragons are too common, etc could be breaking that rule, since ratios are a part of the "site's internal calculations". Talking about how to get a sunrise/sunset means talking about the different times of day and what that means for them, which could also be included.

 

That part of the ToS needs to be changed and/or expanded *anyways*, so personally I don't see it as a reason to shoot down this suggestion.

[bluebell_rose]

I do wish the reasons stated for closing the thread be consistent. 1st we were told it was closed for reverse engineering, then we were told it was for multis.

[Syphoneira]

Lol, speaking as a puter illiterate, my automatic assumption was always that 'reverse engineering' and 'deriving formulas by using the site's internal calculations' were related to technical aspects.

 

As others have pointed out, expecting kids and puter illiterates on a family-type gamesite to figure out what's meant by these is not feasible - I still wouldn't be able to sort out a principle that defined exactly what was 'legal' to form a rule of thumb.

[Rhynn Collins]

I do wish the reasons stated for closing the thread be consistent. 1st we were told it was closed for reverse engineering, then we were told it was for multis.

As posted by SockPuppet Strangler in the Tiny Little Questions topic, current page 341:

 

If I am not mistaken Sock and perhaps even TJ himself have said that this was not the issue, but the multi-scrolling that was being encouraged in that thread.

 

 

Okay, so the original ND topic way back when devolved basically into chaos. Mods were trying to keep everything contained while not exactly having answers themselves. When Terri closed it, she did say it was due to the reverse engineering rule, but TJ came on later to say, no, it wasn't reverse engineering, but the thread did need closed because people were encouraging users to make multiple accounts. It was a really big mess and involved a lot of multis. I don't even think a lot really describes how big of a mess it became. People were outright telling other users to make multiple accounts and to make more than one, and it all happened in the thread. And, unfortunately, it wasn't just a few ruining it for the whole - nearly the whole thread was engaging in this breaking of the ToS. =\

 

So yeah, it's due to multi'ing, not reverse engineering, although that was the information originally given to users.

 

 

(Although I fail to see how that explains the general ban on how-to-make-an-ND explanations in-forum. It's not like you have to multiscroll or break any other rule to do it...)

 

 

Because people found it easier and more trustworthy to trust themselves with their experiments rather than having to find people on at the same time as them to help them. They were creating bunches and bunches of scrolls to have more chances, to be able to bounce dragons with themselves, to not have to interrupt the game on their real scroll, etc. As said, it was a giant mess and really, super uncool. It also kind of expanded really quickly so it was a lot of people multi'ing, not just a few. The thread was really bad by DC policies and probably isn't something mods are going to trust again for a long while. I wasn't here (just hunted down the story from mods and users), so it's easier for me to think about give the thread another chance one day, but there is worry that it would become a mess like that again.

 

I hope that at least answers the confusion

[MessengerDragon]

I think this thread is a good idea. This thread is asking for neglected discussion on how they're made to be allowed. It doesn't mean neglected discussion is allowed here.

Edited January 26, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler

[MysticTiger]

I would LOVE to have this post back up.

 

I never really got into creating Neglected because one, my first time was a complete failure and I ended up losing a pretty awesome egg and two, I have no idea what i'm doing. A while back my cousin decided to try and failed. Confused as to why the egg died, I had to ask in the Tiny Questions Post, only to find the time of death on eggs had changed. Something she and I both would have known if there was some sort of discussion somewhere about it... Other than on some random forum on some other random site. I would love to have a Neglected, but seem to fail constantly. Some help would be nice. And I don't see why not.

 

People admit to using cheat apps to get rare egg all the time on the forms and I don't see a ban on Rare Egg discussion. People are going to cheat regardless. It always has been and always will be a part of games. But saying that we can't discuss a part of the game simple on the fact that people are going to cheat... Well, I agree, it's like amputating an arm for paper cut.

[_Z_]

Closing topic for the reasons already listed. If TJ (Admin wishes to reopen it he will.)