As long as I do not include the name of the GM, am I allowed to post a GM's reply to my inquiry concerning section 8. As per this: It is not permitted for an account to be played unattended or AFK. If you are going to be away from the computer for more than a few seconds... the rule specifically says AFK...and specifically says for a few seconds...so if DBG does not mean what they print, it should NOT be in the rules worded that way!! If they have a specific reason, or subject to limitation, which they do, which is: If a character, including any pets or mercs, is found performing actions while the user is away disciplinary action may be taken against the account. 100 percent of the characters in the GL or POK waiting for hours (not just seconds) are violating the first two sentences. DBG may not consider this as a violation, and this not suspend these characters, but IT DOES VIOLATE the first two sentences. AFK should be removed. The unattended player who has their merc up, or pet up, or themselves PERFORMING ACTIONS (as per line 3) is the important part of this equation. If someone is in the middle of a zone, not PERFORMING ACTIONS, that character is not violating line three! That is my rub, my character was not PERFORMING ACTIONS. IMO, even if my character was getting experience from others, the character was not performing any actions. If my character was in the middle of a zone and not getting aggro, and waiting for experience from a TA, the character is still not performing any actions, and not violating line three. If a character was in a middle of the zone, and another in the GL, and they both have a TA active, both are in VIOLATION of the first two sentences.
In comparison: "You may not use any sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive language." How simple is that. That does not require any clarification or research.
If the purple text is why they said, then I don't see the issue. I reinforces the point that its a broad policy that unattended game-play is not permitted. I want to make sure you understand that the "Play Nice Policies" section makes it crystal clear that what DBG writes is not all-inclusive. Meaning you shouldn't interpret it as such all-inclusive which you are trying to. 1.1 Play Nice Policies - Activity within EverQuest In addition to the Rules of Conduct listed in section 1.0, players are also subject to these supplementary guidelines while playing EverQuest. While by no means an all-inclusive list of the do's and don'ts in EverQuest, it provides a suitable foundation by which the player can determine what activities are appropriate: With that in mind, they are literally telling you to read this as guidance & examples. The second sentence you keep pointing to is literally an example of what they want you to do if you must leave you account unattended. The third sentence is another example but of a type of activity they do not condone and examples of how they might respond. The latter example having an example of a penalty and the former example not DOES NOT PRECLUDE DBG from penalizing you for leaving your toon unattended in a zone. They have literally asked you to move your toon if you aren't watching it, so its on you to follow that example. They have made the general point clear that your toon shouldn't be in left in play unattended. Please reread the policy, it's not an "AFK policy" it is actually an "unattended gameplay" policy. 8. Unattended Gameplay It is not permitted for an account to be played unattended or AFK. If you are going to be away from the computer for more than a few seconds please move your character to an empty corner of the zone or log out completely. If a character, including any pets or mercs, is found performing actions while the user is away disciplinary action may be taken against the account. Again, you need to read the entirety of the policy and understand those two sentences are not definitions of "unattended" or "AFK" but rather instead examples of what they deem to be such. The core & most important sentence in all of this is the first where they make it clear that unattended play isn't permitted. If there's no indication to a GM that you're paying attention to your logged in account while it's "in play", then it's fair to them to determine you left your account unattended. I struggle to understand why additional onus should be placed on DBG's staff if you're the inactive/unresponsive when they show up?
Just so everyone understands the reason I keep trying to stress that you cannot just define "unattended play" as your toon, pet, merc, etc. as doing actions while you're not at the keyboard is that doing so doesn't match how the rules ask you to interpret the examples/policy, and forum posts attempting to force that specific definition risk misleading new/returning players into gameplay habits that might get them suspended. Again, the GM's are suspending accounts just left idle in the middle of combat zones doing nothing, so its fairly safe to conclude they do not want you leaving your toon in the middle of no where even if the toon isn't doing anything. I feel like this was more open to debate/speculation when it was a couple people a few months ago. But since its been a few people a month for a few months, I think how the policy is interpreted by those enforcing it is pretty clear now.
As long as I do not include the name of the GM, am I allowed to post a GM's reply to my inquiry concerning section 8. That was a question, and I did not include what one gm said.
I just did a search "is power power leveled in everquest break afk rules. my first hit was this: title - AFK exp group question https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/afk-exp-groups-question.248190/ You would think it was fine if you read that thread
If you are asking a question you should use a question mark (?) punctuation to indicate such. Whether or not you can post it isn't something a normal forum participant can tell you. But to be frank, it's not worth your effort because from my perspective it would need to be DBG staff posting it directly for it to have any weight in my mind. You've already illustrated how you will go at great lengths to argue against what's actually in the policy and the examples they've actually provided, so I wouldn't believe you spontaneously saying "GM told me ____ and therefore I'm correct". This two year old thread actually reinforces my point that its dangerous to present interpretations that differ from what we're observing GM's doing. Beyond that, the linked thread is irrelevant because ultimately GM's interpret the rules relative to a specific scenario, not forum participants. Other forum participants opinions do not supersede how DBG is actually enforcing the rules. Often two GM's have differing interpretations of the policy or rule, differing tolerances for what a breach is. Likewise, a GM's decision is overturned, but even in that scenario its DBG's call, not the forum community's. The policies are intentionally broad and vague to give GM's flexibility in addressing issues because MMO's are dynamically changing games where a new exploit or nuanced scenario is constantly being found. With great tedium, I have walked through the fact the Rules explicitly state the Play Nice Policy is a foundation or general rules but the examples contained are not all-inclusive. If a player chooses to ignore that and misconstrue the policy to their own liking, said player is ultimately responsible for when they get suspended/banned at the discretion of a GM that disagrees. To sum it up, if you do not leave your character unattended in zones where actual game play occurs, and you pay attention to people trying to communicate with you, you shouldn't usually have a problem that cannot be rectified. If you think some action might be cheating, its best to refrain from said action until you have heard back from actual DBG staff. At this point I cannot say much more and whatever open issues you have need to be settled with DBG staff, not me.
QFT The ONLY opinions that carry any real weight in this area are those of the folks who make policy and/or enforce it. Until when, or if, DPG decides to clarify the issue at hand, this discussion and others like it are just the fruits of a debating exercise.
Correct, as I keep saying the GM's opinions and actions are what matter. The trend is that the GM's actions are contrary to the narrow definition/interpretation people are trying to argue in this and other threads. Also, just so we're clear, I'm not saying other people aren't free to share their opinion. I'm mainly cautioning that new/returning players are going to be mislead if a smattering of players keep claiming their own personal interpretation of the rules is correct and that the GM's are the one's that are consistently wrong.
Which is totally unfair, each and every player should be treated equally, rules need to be clearer. Any breaches of rules should be treated the same and shouldn't depend on the GM you get.
No two human beings view things identically and sometimes a GM might miss a detail another GM sees upon reviewing a ticket. What matters is that the GM is consistent in their approach and players should understand that no two scenarios are the same. Likewise there is an appeals process, so I think it is relatively fair. This actual rule is very clear, accounts should not be played unattended. They give you two examples that are clearly stated to not be all-inclusive: One example communicates they do not want to see toons unattended unless they're parked out of the way of where people will actually play (i.e. "corner of zone", NOT "safe spot"). The second example makes it obvious they also do not want players exploiting passive toon actions or mobs tethered to a player's toon. Again, a player should not try to read the examples as a definition because it's stated the examples are not all-inclusive. To some extent, its common sense, pay attention to your account and expect GM action if they don't see any indicators you are at your computer. (Reasonable toon actions, chat responses, action on other accounts form your IP) I think many are inventing ambiguity in this scenario. Especially because we're now seeing a pattern of suspensions. They're actually being more lenient than a lot of people (myself included) thought they would be when they started enforcing this policy more a couple months ago.
As one of those returning players, I had to read through a lot of this stuff to figure out what is and isn't allowable.... when I originally left EQ years ago, mercs weren't even thought of yet. At the risk of fanning the flames, the problem is that they have left the rules vague to allow themselves flexibility but that same flexibility is what is causing players grief. Their intention is pretty clear, they are trying to avoid AFK progression, but it's entirely possible to follow their rules and still allow for something like accumulation of experience. What if I found a corner close enough where I am not in anyway interacting or have the potential to interact with mobs, but I'm still just close enough to gain exp? While I whole-heartedly agree that this is semantics, that the nature of rules. Additionally, I have to say that as someone that prefers to box 4 toons, the wording concerns me specifically because of the "flexibility" built in to it. By definition, I am breaking the rule when I turn autoattack on for my berserker and then tab over to my SK and focus purely on him to manage multiple mobs. Because there is no clear delineation of exactly what they want, this means that at any time one of my accounts is subject to suspension for breaking a rule I cannot argue against. I would agree that this is not the original intent of this rule, but it IS a perfectly valid interpretation and application of it. I suspect that this is more in line with Brutus' complaints... that there is wiggle room on both sides of the rule, and therefore it is unclear what is actually punishable.
Sorry, but your post is reading as another example of someone trying to cherry pick the words to find an issue where there really isn't one to a person that really reads them and isn't consciously trying to find a loophole. There's an obvious flaw in your argument's hypothetical example relative to what DBG actually wrote as their example. 8. Unattended Gameplay ... If you are going to be away from the computer for more than a few seconds please move your character to an empty corner of the zone or log out completely. ... I'd argue you haven't really moved to an empty corner of the zone if your group is close enough to give you exp. Further, gaining a benefit like experience or quest progression (as you admit) is obviously "play" so someone should understand it's a potential violation. Again, you shouldn't look at the examples as excuses for other things to try. It's common sense, don't leave your toon in play if you're not there. No, the guidance says you're not allowed to leave an account unattended. No where does that conflict with common boxing practices of having a different window active as you control a different toon. If you're at your computer and monitoring each toon that's not unattended. They wouldn't have made it easier to run concurrent clients if they felt not having your EQ window active automatically meant you were "AFK". Boxers have been accidentally flagged for unattended play, but the people I've heard that those that promptly submitted tickets and any info they could like IP addresses, logs when available, description of what messaged toon was being used for (e.g. Bard box) have had luck getting suspensions reversed. If the DBG reverses it, it's less about the rule being misinterpreted by the GM and more of a GM mistakenly thinking someone was AFK. That's going to happen, but I think that's fine if DBG is willing to fix it.
