I have a question on forum contracts: is it possible to make a dummy contract? Basically I mean a contract actually involving no player above the one submitting it. Why? To have a quick (but unalterable and approved, and therefore legally valid) template to refer to when making ingame contracts. The idea is: I'm gonna use the same contract over and over again with multiple users, each one independently from each other. I don't want to wait for staff approval every time (and I know staff will approve it, because it was approved the first time); even assuming staff is quick, we're still talking minutes in the best case. The contract is quite long, so it would be awkward to print it ingame. So my idea is to just make each time a very quick ingame contract linking to the (unalterable, previously approved) forum template. A couple examples where it would be very handy: Town rules; Tool rental; Casino/bet rules; you get the idea. Is it possible to stretch the current format in such a way? I have a clear idea on how to stretch it (just write a generic "the counterpart" instead of tagging anyone), I'm just wondering whether it would be approved and whether it would be enforceable. Thank you
The TL;DR of the story: I suggested a few forum contract templates (that require users to copy/paste it and fill in the blanks) in a PDF file using LaTeX a while ago and have been too busy to convert them to forum BB code. I'm hoping to finish it in the next 1-2 weeks, but I don't want to make any promises. So... I guess I'll call it "previously suggested and pretty much accepted, but without a definitive implementation date".
I was just about to tag you 314 and basically state what you have said. @Expipiplusone To understand what you're asking here. Are you asking if it would be possible to say if you're doing an agreement the player basically agrees in-game to follow all the terms on a pre-approved thread of terms?
Yes. If I didn't misunderstand @314's reply, there's a difference with his suggestion (of which I didn't know, and I think the community will benefit a lot when it's implemented): when his suggestion is implemented, I will only be able to chose among a limited set of templates pre-made by staff (by 314); while my idea was that even a simple user could be able to make their own template(s) and have them approved (if staff doesn't find issues ofc). 314's idea would still be much appreciated, as one wouldn't even need to write their own template if they can find one already made by staff that suits their needs; but if my town has some special rules, or whatever, I might need to make my own.
Okay, I think I understand this suggestion now. The way I see it, pre-made contracts cannot simply be linked with the message "I agree to this". The vast majority of contracts includes a lot of variables. When will this transaction take place, e.g. a loan repayment? How much money will be transferred? What is the location of the town mentioned in the contract? Et cetera pp. Basically, contracts have so many variables that agreeing to a pre-made contract won't work. Those variables need to be added to the contract, at which point it simply becomes the copy&paste format I've been working on. During my active 'career' as an apartment seller/renter I usually took a screenshot of the player's reply to "Do you agree to follow the town rules listed at <URL>?". It's a lot faster than a contract and I was able to keep all evidence in a single folder. In my opinion contracts for this special case aren't really needed; and if they are, the town owner should know enough about rules and contracts to create their own personal contract. This isn't exactly different from my own suggestion, though. After I wrote those contracts they went through a peer review; I don't see a reason why a player's contracts couldn't get the same treatment if the staff team deems the template to be useful enough. I am pretty certain that I managed to butcher my grammar, or at least my message. I shouldn't write forum posts while sleep deprived...
Assuming I'm reading everything correctly, you want to basically make a contract thread in the contract section stating <The Player> will not do A, B and C. <The Player> will do D, E, and F. Then make in game agreements with people stating that they're accepting the "contract" linked there. In which case, it doesn't work. Not really. You can't hold people accountable for a breach of contract when they did not sign one. And while you could make the argument that they are signing one in effect, they are not actually signing one. This aside I would be extremely hesitant about what would effectively be deputizing players to make their own staff-approved contracts without staff approval and off the public record.
I see, but the problem is that, if the thread is not locked, you could potentially change the text: that's why contracts are locked when approved and why all counterparts are required to sign again whenever a contract is changed during approval (at least, this is my understanding). Wait, do ingame contracts have a different validity than forum contracts? I mean: if ingame contracts and forum contracts have the same applicability and it's just a matter of preference (at least, that was my understanding, but I may be wrong), why wouldn't someone agreeing ingame to a publicly available and unalterable text be considered a valid agreement? Sorry, I don't understand this passage
Locked signs in a town are fine, even though they can be changed at will. Based on that - at least in my opinion - even an editable forum thread is more reliable due to its edit history.
Yes, they're different. In game agreements are agreements that are only valid under the rules of whatever perceived wrong may happen. Granted in most cases this is scamming, however it isn't always. Funnily enough one of the biggest and best examples is one of the examples you've given for your idea, which is town rules. Town rules have no legal basis and players won't be banned for breaking them. However, if they have agreed to these town rules in a forum contract, then breaking them would be breach of contract, which is a bannable offense (if pursued). The statement sort of builds on the previous point - contracts have a very specific set of rules and regulations. The biggest are that they require at minimum 3 parties: The initiator, the signatory (or signatories), and a staff member to approve, and that they are all open record. Empowering players to private contracts that effectively aren't subject to review seems... well, dumb.
I see. But my idea was indeed that a contract template, once reviewed and approved, stays reviewed and approved. If the same identical terms are applied between me and X, and then (independently) between me and Y, and (independently) between me and Z... why would them be valid in the first instance but not in the next? The only scenario I can conceive where this might happen is when rules change and don't allow that kind of agreement anymore: but it's a quite infrequent situation and in any case it would be my duty (and Y's and Z's duty) to make sure those terms are still valid, before agreeing to them. But what you said before (contracts and ingame agreements are not the same, namely: breach of contract and breach of ingame agreement have very different consequences) explains why it wouldn't work. However, if rules were changed so that "breach of ingame agreement" had the same consequences, I guess there would be no difference. So: is it doable? I mean, changing the rules in such a way.
Wait, I thought of something funny. Griefing is not allowed in towns: this is stated in the server rules, and if someone griefs in a town, they're banned. If I didn't misunderstand you, this is the sole reason why someone is banned for griefing in a town: and not because the rules of town X say "griefing is not allowed". So: what if I make a town where "griefing is allowed"? Another member could still report the grief, and the griefer would still be banned: because "griefing is allowed" was never signed as a contract, but only as an ingame agreement. Or not? Maybe I have not clear the meaning of this passage:
I mean, technically yes? I don't really see "Breach of Contract" as an "add-on" to existing ban reasons (ie Scamming vs Scamming + Breach of Contract) so in theory there would be little difference. Alas no, your issue in that example is your understanding of our griefing rules, which currently state: Grief is not allowed in protected towns, unless the town owner has decided otherwise. In the event a grief occurs in a non-grief town then a grief report can be filed here: Grief Report and Rollback Request I bolded the relevant part, the rules themselves say that towns can allow grief at the discretion of the town owner. So if a town owner decides such for their town, griefing is not against the rules in the first place.
Ugh, I'm confused. I'll make a practical example. Say that I'm hiring builders. I offer 10 pieces of bacon for 10 stacks of dirt placed. If I understand correctly: if we make a forum contract, I give them the bacon, and they don't place the dirt, then it's breach of contract and they are banned; if we make an ingame agreement, I give them the bacon and they don't place the dirt, it's not breach of contract (because there's no forum contract) and it's not even scam (because there's no money involved), so they won't be banned: at most, a mod will try to persuade them to give back the bacon or do the job, but just diplomatically. Am I correct?
I mean basically, although scamming would come into play in that scenario. The best examples of things that would be breach of contract but NOT a violation of other rules aren't transactions. For example, say that you and I wish to share a melon sword, so we make a contract stating that the sword is to stay in a particular chest when not in use, and each of us gets 12 hours out of the say to use it. If one of us were to not follow it, it would be breach of contract. The same could apply for apportioning land in a nation or something of the sort.
Ok, so let's use this case as example: if the agreement is done via forum contract, the one not complying would be banned for breach of contract; while, if the agreement is done inchat, even though screenshotted and whatever, the one not complying wouldn't be banned?
Assuming whatever agreement they made is separate of buying the sword then yeah pretty much. Staff could still recover the sword if it's /own'd (assuming not to the one who made off with it, anyway) but there aren't really any rules that fully cover that. Scamming could potentially come into play depending on the agreement but it wouldn't be by default.
Ok, I'm starting to get the grips with this. Now: let's put aside, for the sake of discussion, the obvious fact that such a particular circumstance would be pretty rare, and let's assume that, instead, I make such agreements on a daily basis (every time with a different tool, so every agreement is independent of the others, they don't influence each other, and they call for the same identical clauses). If I limit myself to make ingame agreements, I have a slightly smaller guarantee than I would have if I used forum contracts: because with forum contracts there's a bigger deterrent (ban) against breach. On the other hand, if I make a forum contract every time, I will have to wait more (staff approval every time) and I would probably flood that section with tens of identical contracts. So, my idea would be: I do the forum thing only once and, once approved, whenever I want to make that agreement with someone for a particular tool, I just refer ingame to that dummy contract. Here's the question: would such an ingame agreement have the same legal effectiveness of a forum contract (I mean: bannable for breach of contract)? I understand that the single ingame agreement wouldn't be subject to staff approval per se, and it totally makes sense when you say that it would be dumb to make something staff-approved despite it was never approved by staff; but in this case, every agreement would literally refer to a template that was actually approved by staff, earlier, and it is simple enough and with no internal moving parts so that it applies to every instance in the same identical way. Conclusion note (as I anticipated in this comment): even if it could be made to work as I conceive, I realize all the requirements that came to light in this discussion make it highly unlikely that anyone would ever need (or want) to use this, so I guess this discussion has gone completely theoretical. I'm going on mainly because I want to make sure I completely understand the logic and subtleties of our legal system.
The problem with hypotheticals like yours is that currently a contract within the context of ECC has an extremely specific definition: It is exclusively a document outlining terms of an agreement signed by both players on the forum. Under the current setup a document like that can't be treated as a contract because it's not a contract. Now, we are free to change the definition of a contract. That could happen. The fact of the matter here is that such a document is only practical in so few specific circumstances that I really see no reason to modify and complicate everything about our contract process to support it.
Would a forum "I agree" in that same thread have the same value of an ingame screenshot? In my opinion it would even be better and surely more convenient, but I wanted to be sure before going on following that path
