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 :)

 

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.

 

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

 

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:

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

Ok, this clears it up. It's roughly the answer I expected, but wanted to make sure

 

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