Shattered Kingdoms

Thanks for clarification.

It looks like you ignored every comment in this thread and just posted the rules as written. Why even bother posting them and then complaining that nobody is responding if you're going to ignore comments anyway?

Very sad. It's cool that you turned off CRS and made getting back to life easier. I just wish there was more respect between the playerbase and the staff.



From my perspective, all of the staff is one entity because you all hide behind total anonymity and I have no idea who any of you are or who is involved in what. So, yes it comes off as hypocritical. Why is the word filter still in place if the current staff doesn't agree with it?

I guess I'm holding out hope that SK will be great again one day. Maybe some of these good staff could work their way into important positions? The end of CRS suggests that perhaps some new voices are being heard.

Every single comment was, in fact, accommodated, minus the removal of the specific word.

Go back and look at the differences once more.

The mention of deletion was removed. Throwing a tantrum still being bad sportsmanship was retained.

This was answered in the thread. The rules are about player interactions with each other and the staff. But despite this it was discussed and the language was revised to "understand why they were targeted".


Not negotiable. If you are going to goose someone, be just as sure they will be okay with it as you would in real life.


Yes, that is what we mean. If you think the game is not behaving in a way that is consistent with how people or physics would logically behave in a fantasy world, staying silent is not an excuse for abusing it.


Yes, we kept this and it's not hostile or petty. "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is in fact a standard legal principle and we are stating we will follow it. If you don't understand that already, it is important that you do. Because people do try to use this as an excuse. Note that there is a difference between being guilty and the sentencing that will follow. You will be punished either way, but a convincing argument of ignorance MAY allow for leniency in that punishment. That also applies to the abuse rule above.


Clearly that did not happen. And I will add that I personally am not a big fan of the short form of "Wheaton's Law", but others argued that it was worth keeping. Some additional language was changed and added to clarify what it meant.

The "end of CRS" was advocated by current staff of long-standing. The same ones who made arguments about rules which you disagreed with. Perhaps surprisingly, you can often find areas of agreement with people who you may not like.

What I will say here is that every comment was read, discussed and then some changes were made in response. As noted above, we did not change everything solely because it was requested by someone.

These rules will not be as static as the previous two decades. I am committed to adding further clarification to the rules as the situation arises.

Thanks, I apologize for missing the subtle differences that were brought about by this thread and I appreciate the response.

I just want to address a couple of things, but I will say that I think things are going in a good direction and I don't intend this to be an argument.



You say "not negotiable" as though I was asking you to loosen the rules for sexual harassment. While I do think the penalty for harrassing a PLAYER via OOC communication is a serious violation, I was asking for the rules to be written in a more specific way. I didn't think you would seriously consider using the "goose" social as a violation of this rule, so I'm glad you did clarify it here. I simply wish such examples were included in the written rule. It sounds like the rule was specifically written to allow "mudsex" in the game but not allow players to coerce other players into participating in "mudsex" via in-character power dynamics. The fact that this apparently also includes using socials makes it pretty clear that this rule is extremely vague. Does an unwanted look constitute a valid complaint? Will each case be up to the discretion of administrator? I see the only listed punishment is siteban for not ceasing "immediately."



That's great, but as I said in my last post, there is no way for me as a player to have any insight into whether various staff members are long-serving or not. Staff comes and goes in secret (sometimes they make a hello post) and often seems to show up under different names. I have absolutely no idea who is on staff and whether I've played with them before. I have no idea whether there is any particular staff member that I agree with more than the others. I can only say whether I think new changes are good or bad and the recent preponderance of good changes lead me to believe there was someone new and influential on staff.



This is a violation of rule 1. Completely uncalled for. There are no members of the staff that I don't like, mostly because I don't know any of them. You've done something very good here over the past 20 years, Dulrik, and I only want to see the game be good. I'm not a power player so my personal preference is that strong players are encouraged to take over factions in the game and run them however they want so that when I log in something cool is happening, even if that means I get killed all the time for being a permanoob. I cry every time SK loses a vet because they're the soul of the game to me even though I've intentionally avoided the OOC cliques. SK is probably the safest way to interact with sociopaths. Aren't all the best SK characters of all time in-character sociopaths?

My comment was not only innocuous; it was actually intended to be conciliatory.

If you read it hostilely, it just reinforces my own (apparently mistaken) perception that your earlier responses indicated a mindset of dislike for the staff "as a whole", even if you don't know who anyone is individually.

At any rate, please accept my apologies for the confusion.

Sorry, I was just being pedantic due to my belief that rule 1 is too vague to be included as an official rule. You indicated I might be surprised to know that I can agree with people I don't like, which suggests that you think I don't know that I can agree with people that I don't like. That does not seem conciliatory to me, but if you intended it as conciliatory then I clearly misunderstand what you were trying to say.





I thank you for your active role in navigating this important issue for the game that I feel has been the biggest problem for some time now.

Should we read your replacement of the former rules manager as an acknowledgement that he/she was causing problems within the community?

Since you indicated your interest in promoting transparency, I see that Sadr is a newly-created immortal account and searching his/her profile does not bring up any introductory post, as some new immortals have posted in the past. I understand that you allow staff members to remain anonymous if they wish, but how does replacing an unpopular staff member with an unknown staff member increase transparency?

For the official record, I love SK, I love Dulrik and I have never personally had any negative experiences with any staff members except that the last time I made a character I quit because you banned the player who was helping me to get interested in the game again. He took several hours out of his time to coach my character through the new stat/enchantment system through in-character roleplay, convinced my character to join his religion and then was deleted with no in-character explanation or any acknowledgement of the harm that simply removing a prominent character from the game would have on everyone else who plays. I only include this information in the interest of total transparency for those who suspect my motives are insincere.