Regarding the Revision of the Prohibited Activities and Account Penalty Policy

[Freyt]

The point of contention here is that some of us are okay with these rules because we can determine "this is what they meant".

The rest are made up of people who legitimately cannot find reason within the rules IN ADDITION to those who can determine "this is what they meant". People are on this side because of what is potentially exploitable through these rules, not what a good person would do with them.

Rules should not rely on a GM to be a good person, or on a user to be a bad person. A rule should be designed in a way that dictates enforcing the rule to be a good thing and breaking the rule to be a bad thing.

This is like a playstyle of completing content effeciently vs using bugs to complete content. Both can be criticized, but only one of these can be determined objectively to have a specific negative intention behind it, and on the off chance that exploiting the bug was done with good intentions, the intentions are still harmful to the game and player base overall.

[Jellybums]

The point of contention here is that some of us are okay with these rules because we can determine "this is what they meant".

The rest are made up of people who legitimately cannot find reason within the rules IN ADDITION to those who can determine "this is what they meant". People are on this side because of what is potentially exploitable through these rules, not what a good person would do with them.

The added rules are fine. What's missing are implementation guidelines that should probably be written separately from ToS. Laws do not have the same details people ask about either, but that doesn't make them poorly written laws. Agencies (US EPA, other federal agencies, etc.) are tasked to write the details on how they're to be implemented (coz they're the ones implementing them). So in this case the GMs could probably do that. Can't imagine SE making changes to ToS so often.