Jump to content
osmarks

Terms and Conditions Questions and Feedback Thread

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Kaini said:

You have to trust TJ to be reasonable with the terms, about what is malicious vs what isn't. That's what this comes down to... distrust of the admin. And I can't stay if that's valid or not, I'm not going to argue if that's the way you feel. But a lot of sites have 'umbrella' terms like this - I ran over to another adoptable site and one point was 'Exploitation of glitches or loopholes is not permitted.' boom, done.

 

And I do, actually. Unlike so many !

 

15 minutes ago, olympe said:

Well, there are reasons for not trusting TJ with being "reasonable" all the time. Unfortunately. Didn't the creator of EATW have their scroll burnt for reverse engineering, too - because they made up their own formulas on how many views an egg/hatchling needed to develop, and applied that formula to their fansite? Or did I get that wrong?

 

8 minutes ago, Imzadi said:

Actually I think it was for using a script.  There were several people caught at the same time. (Including one person who was actually hunting at the time and ran into DC chat  screaming for help.  Hers was restored.) The thing you mentioned is what caused EATW to be removed from the fansite listing.  And he was warned to stop.  At least that is what I remember.

 

I remember that too. It got very nasty; the owner did say they didn't have to abide by any rules set here as they didn't live in the US and US law did not apply.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

I remember that too. It got very nasty; the owner did say they didn't have to abide by any rules set here as they didn't live in the US and US law did not apply.

Being openly defiant when the site owner asks you not to do something is not wise.

And as I recall it had nothing to do with scroll-burning, the site was just banned from listing in the forum fansite section.

Share this post


Link to post

I stand corrected. Gotta go edit the other post to reflect that.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be great for it at least to say:

"Reverse engineering includes but is not limited to

- x

- y

- z"

in addition to the current rules, so it's at least possible to know what's allowed.

 

In any case, how would knowing the formula behind something somehow lead to exploitability (unless said formula is horribly broken)?

Share this post


Link to post

It could lead to someone copying dragcave or its mechanics, which is not something TJ would like, I suppose. Intellectual property and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, olympe said:

It could lead to someone copying dragcave or its mechanics, which is not something TJ would like, I suppose. Intellectual property and all that.

It would probably come under intellectual property anyway, and they'd need new sprites.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, osmarks said:

It would be great for it at least to say:

"Reverse engineering includes but is not limited to

- x

- y

- z"

in addition to the current rules, so it's at least possible to know what's allowed.

 

In any case, how would knowing the formula behind something somehow lead to exploitability (unless said formula is horribly broken)?

 

And how often and where golds drop, and how to make sure you get a tan ridgie, scripts to catch rares, and all sorts. Clever people can do this stuff. My GRANDSON can do this stuff. (but doesn't because he is a very good boy. Seriously - I am constantly amazed.)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaini said:

 

You have to trust TJ to be reasonable with the terms, about what is malicious vs what isn't. That's what this comes down to... distrust of the admin. And I can't stay if that's valid or not, I'm not going to argue if that's the way you feel. But a lot of sites have 'umbrella' terms like this - I ran over to another adoptable site and one point was 'Exploitation of glitches or loopholes is not permitted.' boom, done.

 

While I very much agree with this in principle, it can be a disservice to the users to have *too* much vagueness in rules. It's great to 'trust TJ', trust that he's reasonable and isn't going to maliciously burn scrolls, etc.... But when users aren't told *what* exactly the rules mean, *what* is considered 'reverse engineering' and might actually lead to their scroll being burned, that's a problem. That part of the T/C has absolutely *no* specifics at all, we aren't even told what 'reverse engineering' actually means in a game like this. And the wording is, frankly, fairly 'legalese' and not very understandable to 'normal' users: 

otherwise attempt to derive any processes or formulas used by the site’s internal calculations.

What the heck does that mean? It's completely accurate to say that we have no idea what that actually means, and it *could* mean something as simple as Lunar Herald color tracking is against the T/C. While I very much doubt TJ would burn a scroll for Lunar Herald tracking, that's an example of how little the rule actually says and how many different things it *could* apply to, and no one has any reason to believe it *doesn't* apply to those things. Honestly, when there is such a huge scope of what the rule *could* mean but apparently *doesn't*, it's pretty obvious some clarification is needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

And how often and where golds drop, and how to make sure you get a tan ridgie, scripts to catch rares, and all sorts. Clever people can do this stuff. My GRANDSON can do this stuff. (but doesn't because he is a very good boy. Seriously - I am constantly amazed.)

Is there something wrong with knowing where golds drop, or how many ridgewings are tan (because that's what I actually did)?

 

The script example is unrelated and does not require reverse engineering.

Share this post


Link to post

There is something wrong with working out when they are going to drop next using some algorithm or other (Don't ask me; I have no idea how). And how to tell in the biome which are tan before you pick them up - not how many are tan; that's just counting.) Any kind of script or algorithm that lets you get ahead of the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

There is something wrong with working out when they are going to drop next using some algorithm or other (Don't ask me; I have no idea how). And how to tell in the biome which are tan before you pick them up - not how many are tan; that's just counting.) Any kind of script or algorithm that lets you get ahead of the pack.

 

 

This is well stated - anything that gives you an unfair advantage over other users.

 

 

Maybe an 'including but not limited to' section would help with clarity. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there's anything wrong with counting how many ridgewings are tan, or how many dorsals are red. I know for a fact that we had a survey once GoN summoning came out to figure out how likely it was to actually summon something but failure, and it was right here on DCF without TJ reacting badly to it. I also remember mentioning an old mechanic (eg. the game checking first whether you had an open spot on your scroll, then rolling the dice for your breeding results, then either leaving the egg with you or auto-abandoning it), which has since been changed. (Just in case you're curious, I noticed said mechanic through an accident that resulted with me having 7 eggs on my scroll when 5 was the absolute maximum - all because I bred several pairs during lag.)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kaini said:

 

This is well stated - anything that gives you an unfair advantage over other users.

 

 

That itself is very very vague though. I mean, knowing that Dinos only drop in the Jungle gives an 'unfair advantage' over people who don't know that. Knowing that it's currently blue-Lunar time gives an 'unfair advantage' over people who don't know the Lunar color schedule. 'Unfair' is completely subjective.... I mean, I have an 'unfair advantage' simply by being able to sit there refreshing the biomes for hours on end. That's 'unfair', right, because lots of people are literally unable to do that. When a rule clarification includes a completely subjective word like 'unfair', that doesn't really help establish what the rule actually means. 

 

An 'including but not limited to' would definitely be very very helpful in this case, it could show that simple things like Lunar tracking and such are fine and help people understand what *kind* of things that rule is talking about.

 

Edited by HeatherMarie
typo

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

That itself is very very vague though. I mean, knowing that Dinos only drop in the Jungle gives an 'unfair advantage' over people who don't know that. Knowing that it's currently blue-Lunar time gives an 'unfair advantage' over people who don't know the Lunar color schedule. 'Unfair' is completely subjective.... I mean, I have an 'unfair advantage' simply by being able to sit there refreshing the biomes for hours on end. That's 'unfair', right, because lots of people are literally unable to do that. When a rule clarification includes a completely subjective word like 'unfair', that doesn't really help establish what the rule actually means.

 

It's not vague? All that is fair, because while not everyone has time to sit in the cave for hours, everyone has the option to, and thus have the same opportunity. Knowing where Dinos drop is NOT an unfair advantage. Everyone can find that out through normal gameplay. So is the lunar schedule, etc. There's nothing unfair about that.

 

What is unfair/cheating would be like... (and I'm making this up so I'm not even sure it's possible/ I hope not) making a script or something that counts all spawns in a given day and gives you exact stats on what spawned. That is not an advantage one can learn from normal gameplay and would obviously be very against the rules. No human can sit and manually log every egg that shows up in a 24 hr period. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Kaini said:

 

It's not vague? All that is fair, because while not everyone has time to sit in the cave for hours, everyone has the option to, and thus have the same opportunity. Knowing where Dinos drop is NOT an unfair advantage. Everyone can find that out through normal gameplay. So is the lunar schedule, etc. There's nothing unfair about that.

 

What is unfair/cheating would be like... (and I'm making this up so I'm not even sure it's possible/ I hope not) making a script or something that counts all spawns in a given day and gives you exact stats on what spawned. That is not an advantage one can learn from normal gameplay and would obviously be very against the rules. No human can sit and manually log every egg that shows up in a 24 hr period. 

1. It is possible to get those spawn stats, actually.

2. Someone HAS sat for ages noting down all the eggs and putting them in a spreadsheet manually - is that somehow bad? If there's some secret pattern, they are in a good position to get it.

In any case, if there are secret patterns not derivable from normal gameplay that is a failing of TJ09.

 

Fun fact: until recently you could easily check for tan ridgewings in the biomes by checking the eggs' lineage page.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, osmarks said:

1. It is possible to get those spawn stats, actually.

2. Someone HAS sat for ages noting down all the eggs and putting them in a spreadsheet manually - is that somehow bad? If there's some secret pattern, they are in a good position to get it.

In any case, if there are secret patterns not derivable from normal gameplay that is a failing of TJ09.

 

Fun fact: until recently you could easily check for tan ridgewings in the biomes by checking the eggs' lineage page.

 

Of course it isn't a failing. There are SUPPOSED to be. ANY on line game has parameters set by its owner. While we are all often frustrated by TJ's refusal to give information about ratios - they are a pattern that cannot be derived from normal game play. And yes you used to be able  to tell which were tans (and which were red dorsals.) I'm GLAD he has disabled that. The more level the playing field, the better.

 

I did wonder about that member who has been totting up spawn stats... I certainly wouldn't be co-operating. It feels tacky, to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, I meant "patterns derivable by automated measurement but not normal gameplay are an error".

 

Please explain what's wrong with manually measuring cave contents.

Share this post


Link to post

No idea, but what is anyone doing it FOR - motive/use of findings might make it wrong.

 

I would have thought the script being used was questionable, too. On the whole scripts are deeply frowned upon. But make of it what you will - TJ gets to decide and that is absolutely fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/28/2018 at 8:35 AM, Fuzzbucket said:

But names MAY still be removed if TJ chooses, so the warning is still valid.

this is probably written in a legal manner to allow for the possibility that if names suddenly do go, it should be of no surprise. Its not he won't remove them, just for now it seems its not. Hence the term may -  which indicates a sort of possibility.

 

There is a lot of reasons Eatw was removed. Most of them is covered under the NDA, so we can't tell you the exact reasons why -  but there were several. I can say Eatw lost their scroll for cheating -  which is how anyone would lose their scroll.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

No idea, but what is anyone doing it FOR - motive/use of findings might make it wrong.

 

I would have thought the script being used was questionable, too. On the whole scripts are deeply frowned upon. But make of it what you will - TJ gets to decide and that is absolutely fair enough.

I mean they're manually measuring...

Anyway, what would you use it for? It's probably a curiosity, unless there are secret patterns, and I see no issue with finding them.

 

Anyway, I think it would be great if it at least SAID WHAT WAS ALLOWED (and banned) instead of just hoping TJ09 will go along with it. The current wording could be kept too.

Edited by osmarks

Share this post


Link to post

Without saying how the game works, I don't see how he could detail everything he doesn't want players to do. And that person is using a script to do his measuring - which is the same kind of thing as people using them to catch....

 

I really can't see why you care so much. I think it's basically common sense. If you are trying to find a way round something to make the whole  thing easier fir yourself, or to make rares easier to find - it's probably not OK.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Without saying how the game works, I don't see how he could detail everything he doesn't want players to do. And that person is using a script to do his measuring - which is the same kind of thing as people using them to catch....

 

I really can't see why you care so much. I think it's basically common sense. If you are trying to find a way round something to make the whole  thing easier fir yourself, or to make rares easier to find - it's probably not OK.

 

What fuzz said. Just play normally and innocently and you're fine. 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry, I really don't agree with this attitude of secrecy being fine in rules and as long as you 'play normally' you'll be fine... Obviously that last part is *not* true because people have had their scrolls burned for things they had no idea was against the rules. I know there have been multiple instances of this, but the issue that immediately comes to mind is Snap-Links and similar add-ons, which I learned long ago (from here on the forum) is not allowed, although from looking at the T/C that is not clear. The only thing related in the T/C is the part under 'cheating' that says   'Using browser addons, scripts, or other tools that modify pages on the site in order to give users of said addons an advantage over other users.' but given that it specifies *modifying pages*, which Snap-Links does not do, it would seem logical that Snap-Links wouldn't fall under that rule. 

 

I'm not actually arguing anything related to Snap-Links, simply using it as an example of unclear wording in the T/C. And no, this is *not* 'common sense' for many many people, especially when the wording is so vague and formal/legal-ish. Again I will say, based on the actual text of the 'reverse engineering', it *sounds* like simple things like Lunar tracking and other information might be against the rules. Nowhere does it state that anything figured out through 'normal gameplay' is fine, whatever 'normal gameplay' actually means... It does however specify 'attempt to derive any processes or formulas used by the site’s internal calculations.' which definitely might *sound* like it includes everything that is a part of the 'site's internal calculations'. And of course the 'site's internal calculations' will include stuff like Lunar color dropping, or Fire Gem color variation times, or even stuff like the amount of views each individual dragon needs to hatch/mature, etc. Taking that rule at face-value, without *assuming* anything, makes it seem like tons of stuff is against the rules that apparently isn't. 

 

I won't keep arguing since apparently mods don't see an issue with vague rules, but it is *not* clear and simple to understand for everyone, regardless of what anyone else might think.

Share this post


Link to post

Although I doubt it, can I get a confirmation on whether my spreadsheet in the watching the market thread is against the 'reverse engineering' rule? Even though the spreadsheet merely tracks price data from week to week and doesn't attempt to make any calculated predictions based on previous data, I could see an argument that the data could be used for such purposes and thus breaking the rules.

 

Better safe than sorry, as folks say.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.