Change the terms of use to be less ambiguous

[octav3k]

Here's a suggestion - since the terms of use state that "scamming" and "COD scamming", as well as "impersonating someone from the Nostalrius staff", are bannable offenses, but this does not get enforced and, instead, players are told that "what happens between players is between them, we don't interfere", maybe you should remove this part from the rules altogether.

Alternative suggestion - specify more clearly where it applies and where it doesn't, so that players don't end up feeling like the part on the front page about "Stability & SECURITY" is only half true.

[AverageJoe]

Not sure what you're getting at or what's ambiguous. Scamming and staff impersonation result in a temporary interruption of the account, not a ban; though you could think of it as a form of a ban, but only temporary. Players have indeed been banned for scamming and permabanned for repeated scamming or impersonation offenses.

https://forum.nostalrius.org/viewtopic. ... ion#p87355
https://forum.nostalrius.org/viewtopic. ... ion#p72753
https://forum.nostalrius.org/viewtopic. ... ion#p71604
https://forum.nostalrius.org/viewtopic. ... ion#p57453
https://forum.nostalrius.org/viewtopic. ... ing#p56043
https://forum.nostalrius.org/viewtopic. ... ing#p50643

[Bioness]

I fail to see how their rules are ambiguous. You don't want to get banned? Don't tiptoe on whatever "grey" area they may have.

[octav3k]

All I'm seeing is "staff impersonation" over and over. What about the other 2 conditions?

And, Bioness, you need to learn to read or maybe take a logic class if you think I'm outraged at the fact that I was presumably banned and not at the fact that the GM reply to being scammed was "not our problem".

[AverageJoe]

All I'm seeing is "staff impersonation" over and over. What about the other 2 conditions?

Bottom couple of links. I just gave recent examples; there's many others not documented here that were handled by PMs.

[Bioness]

And, Bioness, you need to learn to read or maybe take a logic class if you think I'm outraged at the fact that I was presumably banned and not at the fact that the GM reply to being scammed was "not our problem".

Then add context, state what happened then explain how you think it should be improved or changed.

[Xylon666Darkstar]

How about OP just learns to read?

[octav3k]

Then add context, state what happened then explain how you think it should be improved or changed.

Ok, let me spell it out to you, since it seems to be necessary:

Someone I know got scammed -> she talked to a GM to report it -> GM said they don't handle player interactions

Easy enough for you, m8?

Bottom couple of links. I just gave recent examples; there's many others not documented here that were handled by PMs.

Those have "staff impersonation" as their reason as well - "CoD scamming pretending to be Nostalrius staff." & "Your account was permanently suspended for staff impersonation and C.O.D scamming.".
Granted, that last one seems to have "CoD scamming" as a separate reason, but what I'm seeing so far is that the GMs don't give 2 shits about what happens to players if the person scamming them doesn't pretend to be a staff member.

[Bioness]

Ohhh now I see what happened.

You got scammed and are upset about it? I think it falls in the same realm as ninja looting, basically you have to be careful when dealing with certain people.

[octav3k]

You don't say, Bioness; but if they don't give two shits about players being scammed, why do the rules say players get banned for that reason? They should change the rules to reflect reality and to avoid that false advertisement they're currently doing with "Stability and security".