"Aggros Abuse"

By changing the ToS doesn't that infer that you guys admit that it was unclear before? In which case it seems fair to un-punish recently banned player and absolve her of any guilt. Obviously if someone were to do the Nib cloud abuse thing now, after you updated the ToS, then they would get banned under the updated ToS. But she was banned before the rule change, so it seems unfair to ban her on grounds of ToS that was instituted after the fact.

In any case I am glad that the updated rules are clearer. I still don't see what's wrong with issuing a warning in-game though (like in NPC text) before someone enters these bosses. Yes, people are liable for reading the ToS, but in reality I don't think everyone reads through the entire thing in detail before playing a game. And someone may read it at level 1 but they might forget by the time they hit level 160 and do Nib because that takes months to get to that point. So a warning in-game still has my vote but that's up to you guys

 

Giving a warning is considered and is discussed, but please note we can't warn everything on the ToS.

The person you are referring to submitted a ban appeal and was responded with a reason for why they will stay banned. Plus, ToS changes are not retroactive and that will not be used to unban someone who was previously banned.

 

Hi, I'm the person that got banned (and ban appeal denied). The part of the reply to my ban appeal states, "I understand that you may not have that intention to do the deed, but what you did was a rule breaker and to stay consistent with the past offenders and how we handled those cases, ban stays in tact. As this is your first offense, you may return to the game over your ban period is over."

Going off what echung379 stated above, I do think it is extremely unfair to be banned because of an unclear ToS and to have that ban denied because they want "to stay consistent with past offenders." Also, I don't agree that this would be retroactive because it wasn't even in existence before today--so following under the ToS of March 17, 2019 (PST) it is unfair to be banned for something that wasn't clearly stated just to "hold a precedent."

Now with this 1st offense on my record (and any others that have experienced the same trauma of a sudden ban for something that was unclear), I have to walk on eggshells worrying about when/what's the next time I'm going to suddenly get banned for something else that may be unclear--EXCEPT the next time I get banned out of the blue for something that's in a grey area it would be an account ban because it would be a "2nd offense." Let's think about it: as someone who has been loyal to ML for over a year, why would a heavily washed (and still washing) lvl 161 bowmaster purposely risk losing their months of hard work and efforts?????????

And yeah, a warning right when someone enters the nib map would be a big help in reminding players of the updated ToS. This would be especially helpful with reminding those that played original MapleStory where it might've been ok.

Nevertheless, thank you for clearing up the Aggro Abuse ToS for future players.

 

I read that person's ban appeal response and it doesn't add any new information. It's basically summed up to: "we have a recording of you attacking Nibergen from a safe spot. What you did is not allowed. Ban appeal denied." That doesn't change the fact that at that point, the ToS was unclear and we were not informed of that Nibergen spot being bannable.

Retroactive is defined as: "extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past." So "not retroactive" would mean new rules do not extend to a prior time before the rule change. i.e. someone who committed a crime in the past that violated the old ToS and got banned, and then ToS was updated in a way that their past crime was no longer considered a crime, doesn't mean that they should be unbanned per the new ToS. Example: Vote abuse was not allowed back in the day, but now, there's a rule change so you can vote on multiple accounts, this doesn't mean you should unban people who vote abused before the rule change. I get it.

However, in this case, it's different. You admitted that the ToS was unclear. So then you updated the ToS. You are now justifying a past ban based on a new set of rules that were not in place at the time of the crime. It's equivalent to saying I bought a drug when it was legal and used it recreationally and then one day the state passes a law saying it's no longer legal. And then I get arrested because I used the drug before the law change.

 

After long discussion over the few days, we changed the ToS in question. I'll explain some changes and why they are changed that way

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Before Change:

2.10 Aggro Abuse - Any form of aggro abuse that causes a monster or boss to no longer attack at all is forbidden. This includes using functions in-game that may cause the mob to freeze, positioning a character so the boss freezes, or using the death of a character to purposely cause the monster(s) to no longer attack. Punishment: 1st offense: 1 week ban; 2nd Offense: Account Ban*

*If the abuse is done in group activity (ex: Horntail) everyone in that group will automatically be held accountable

After Change:

2.10 Boss Freeze Abuse - Any form of abuse that intentionally causes monsters in boss maps to stop using abilities or attacking is forbidden. This includes, but not limited to: positioning a character in a certain area of the map or using the death of a character to purposefully cause the boss or other surrounding mobs to freeze and/or no longer seek to attack an active player. Examples would include: Elder Wraiths in Big Foot maps being frozen; Nibergen not attacking (damage being done by clouds only); or Alishar not using any magic attacks. Punishment: 7 day ban; 2nd Offense: Account Ban*

*If the abuse is done in group activity (ex: Horntail) everyone in that group will automatically be held accountable

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Issues with previous ToS and explanation of changes

1) Aggro Abuse was mostly applied to boss monsters, should the ToS entail to boss only vs. all mobs?

• Change: Any form of abuse that intentionally causes monsters in boss maps...
• Regular mobs were aggro abused before, such as Nest Golem, but it has been fixed since then.
• Kid Mannequins are auto aggro, and people reading the ToS may consider it aggro abuse or intended gameplay. Making the ToS apply to only boss mobs gets rid of this problem
• Aggro Abuse mostly gets enforced on bosses, so it makes sense to make it boss-related

2) How do you define "attack"? Do monsters following after you count as attack? What if the monster is trying to attack a dead player?

• Change: ...the boss or other surrounding mobs to freeze and/or no longer seek to attack an active player.
• Mobs following you trying to attack, but unable due to attack range, is intended and therefore not an abuse
• Death/Rope aggro abuse is still an abuse because the player is not active anymore.

3) Safe spot vs. Abuse

• Change: ...abuse that intentionally causes monsters in boss maps to stop using abilities or attacking is forbidden & ...the boss or other surrounding mobs to freeze and/or no longer seek to attack an active player.
• Mobs are still trying to attack players on the safe spot, versus mobs freezing and not attacking

4) Aggro Abuse enforces on more than aggro

• Change: Name -> Boss Freeze Abuse
• Now it entails to all abuses that may freeze mobs. Plus it only applies to bosses, so we added "boss" to the name to make it more straightforward.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Clarifications with the change

1. Monsters not attacking due to intended usage of skill is permitted.

• Dark Sight: Skill is intended to ignore damage, therefore it's not an abuse
• Puppet: Skill is intended to take the aggro away from player, so this is not abuse
• Spider web (or any stun): Skill is intended to immobilize mobs, so this is not abuse
• If you have any more skills to be clarified, or you feel that this needs to be somehow explained more clearly to the players on the ToS, please suggest.

2. I made the boss stop attacking unintentionally, what do I do?

• If you know the reason why the boss is frozen, undo it (resurrecting dead player, moving to a spot where boss can attack, etc.
• If you cannot undo it, please type @gm and ask if anyone is online to assist you.
• If nobody is available to assist, please do not continue attacking until boss gets unfrozen, or exit boss map.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.

EDIT: Also, shot is looking for ways to fix the abuses, if possible. Hopefully this rule becomes obsolete with his works.

 

Unfortunately, this part of aggro abuse has already been discussed months ago and determined that this specific case is indeed considered as an aggro abuse. Now we understand that as time passes by, people are prone to forget rules like this exist. However, we do not believe it is our responsibility to make people aware about matters like this, especially when you see the boss stops attacking entirely. Bottom line is, if you think certain boss is too easy to defeat, it is probably a better idea to ask us a question to be 100% clear that what you are doing is under this rule.

We have few ideas in mind that could potentially solve the issue with intentionally breaking this rule. We will keep on experimenting and finalize it once we know for sure it will help.
Thanks~

 

I mean I don't have any issue with the changes (I actually agree with the changes). My issue is that obviously there was some clarity issues before the change but you're not unbanning someone who was banned back when things were unclear. You're basically banning someone based on new sets of updated rules that weren't in existence at the time of the ban. That's what I have issue with.

 

I've already explained that I wasn't on the forums months ago, and I didn't even have access to NT and Nib. It's not that I forgot, I didn't even know these conversations had ever taken place. I don't think it's fair for you to point to ONE RANDOM THREAD that took place 5 months ago and say "it's your responsibility to have read this." Now, if it was outlined clearly in the ToS or in the NPC chat at the boss or some reasonably accessible place, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

 

I made my character on 11-05-2018....a month after it was "discussed" (and apparently no rules/warnings regarding nib were added from then until today)...was I suppose to have gone to a random post that was made a month prior to my character's existence?

 

The ToS before change stated:
2.10 Aggro Abuse - Any form of aggro abuse that causes a monster or boss to no longer attack at all is forbidden. This includes using functions in-game that may cause the mob to freeze, positioning a character so the boss freezes, or using the death of a character to purposely cause the monster(s) to no longer attack. Punishment: 1st offense: 1 week ban; 2nd Offense: Account Ban

This rule existed before today regarding Nibergen. Also, following precedence is very important because we want to act fairly for all users.

When we looked at the video, Nibergen was not attacking at all, and Aerika was taking damage from cloud only, which justified the ban.

The ToS was changed because the clause had clarity issues in general which were brought up in this and previous thread (See Issues with previous ToS and explanation of changes in my long post), not necessarily due to Nibergen only.

 

No matter how random you think it was, matter is that the problem has already been discussed and there were people that had been banned for it in the past. Our point was that it is important for you to do your own research instead of solely relying on us to do it for you until it is too late.

And unfortunately, we, as a staff, are not allowed to give special treatments to people that committed the same offense, meaning a reason has to be just more than "I did not know." Sure, we could give a warning to some individuals that seem genuine, but we also need to take into account that doing so sets a precedent that one is allowed to intentionally break rules like this and that they can get away with it until we catch them doing so for the first time. Therefore, as much as we want to give some people another try, it is a dangerous preposition that is more complicated than one thinks.

I wish everybody that got banned and appealed were as genuine as OP were, but that's usually not the case unfortunately.

 

We're going in circles lol you guys were inconsistently applying the ToS because you didn't ban players who were freezing mobs (i.e. GS2/shaolin). The application of ToS was inconsistent and unclear. You guys even changed it, admitting that it was unclear. Also, in JMS attacking Nib while on the cloud was allowed. So naturally if one played in JMS years ago, then he or she would naturally not expect ML to disallow it, seeing as how ML advertises itself as an old school server comparable to GMS/JMS.

Also, Nibergen doesn't even hit under the cloud even in a condition where it's not frozen. When Nib attacks the platforms, you can still stand under the cloud and not take damage from the ship. So the only real difference in standing in the bottom right corner is Nib doesn't weapon cancel. But that adds maybe 10-15min to the run? and 50 pots? No reasonable level 160 player is going to be doing that intentionally and risking a ban if they knew that there was risk of ban, it's really not worth it.

There's a plethora of reasons why it could be confusing, as has been reiterated and discussed numerous times.

 

Dude there's 147,303 posts on this forum are you telling me to read each one? Every time I attempt a new boss or a new mob i'm supposed to read through thousands of threads to try to find clarity on what you guys consider to be okay and not okay?

"Meaning a reason has to be just more than I did not know"
If you've read this thread you'd know that I (and many other people) brought up numerous reasons why someone could reasonably commit this Nib "offense" unknowingly and unintentionally.

"sure, we could give a warning to some individuals that seem genuine, but we also need to take into account that doing so sets a precedent that one is allowed to intentionally break rules like this and that they can get away with it."
I think there's cases when you don't need to provide any warning. Like if someone is blatantly advertising MapleRoyals in the FM then that's clearly against ToS and they should just get banned straight up. But in this case, there's lots of inconsistencies and lack of clarity (which you guys admit, by changing ToS), so a warning is more justified.

 

or just search "Nibergen" in the forum? We don't expect anybody to look through 147,303 posts on this forum as you mentioned. It's not hard to find.

No matter how unintentional or unknowingly one broke the rule, the fact is that this had already been discussed and made clear that this is considered as aggro abuse, therefore we have all the right to take necessary actions when we see someone breaking the same rule.

And again, we do not promote favoritism of any sort due to the reason I mentioned above. We do admit the rule could have been clearer, but that does not give one all the right to abuse and get away with it.

 

Well what about people who don't go through the forum? Like me. My first post on the forum was in regards to this thread and I've been playing this game for more than a year. I know there's other people who don't use the forum. There's no clause in the ToS saying you have to search specific bosses in the forum search bar and adhere to those rules. At least not that I can see.

If you admit that the rule was not clear then why not fix it 5 months ago.....

 

I think a clear distinction to make here is that the ban was justified in both before and after the change.

Nibergen is quite literally frozen if you stood in the cloud, whereas GS2/Shaolin mobs still followed you and try to attack. In this specific argument, the new ToS changes how we enforce on GS2/Shaolin, not Nibergen.

If Aerika was banned from farming at GS2, then I think it's a good argument to ask for an unban since ToS was not clear whether or not mobs following you counted as attack or not (although that appeal will be granted or not is a separate question), and ToS changes reflect that GS2/Shaolin is not a problem. For Nibergen, I have to disagree because that part of ToS that got her banned stayed in similar wording.

Even if she didn't look up Nibergen on forum, the past ToS stated freezing a mob is a cause of ban.

The ban was issued automatically by a new filter that was too sensitive, which caused mass false bans. Your ban appeal was granted because one $$$$$$$$$$$ isn't a cause for spamming ban.

 

In my opinion, the ban was not justified before the change but is justified after the change. So obviously we are in disagreement.

I would argue that before the change, there's no difference between GS2/shaolin and Nibergen because both GS2/shaolin and Nibergen are unable to attack the player. The ToS stated "Any form of aggro abuse that causes a monster or boss to no longer attack at all is forbidden" NOT "Any form of aggro abuse that causes a monster or boss to no longer attack you and no longer chase you around the map is forbidden." And additionally, it doesn't matter that GS2/shaolin mobs try to move to you, this doesn't make it any difference, because Nibergen is by design a stationary monster so it literally can't move no matter where you stand (regardless of whether or not you're "aggro abusing" it).

 

Ultimately, it feels unfair that you updated the aggro abuse clause in ToS because you guys admitted it was unclear. And then you don't do anything for people who suffered because how it was written beforehand.

I'm pretty sure if you were in my situation you would also be frustrated because you're getting punished for something that staff admitted was unclear.

There's multiple good people who got banned for this exact scenario because it was unclear and they didn't know what they were doing wrong. So a reasonable approach would be to fix the ToS and absolve those who unintentionally and unknowingly committed these acts before ToS was fixed.

 

I think a good solution, which Damn suggested, is for Aerika to finished serving her ban sentence, but then don't count this ban as a 1st offense. If you're worried about preferential treatment, you can also erase the ban strike on all other players who were hit with the same Nibergen cloud ban.

This way, you don't need to worry about preferential treatment and you can still help out those who were Nib banned unintentionally and unknowingly due to earlier confusing ToS.