The World of Layonara
NWN Discussions and Suggestions => NWN Ideas, Suggestions, Requests => Topic started by: Hellblazer on February 02, 2010, 08:57:32 PM
-
Due to this statement in the rules
The player must solicit the testimonies of three (3) other players, p to support his/her claim, preferably those that were present at the event in question and the loss.
Be rephrased to say:
For extreme lag , the player must solicit the testimonies of three (3) other players present on the server at the same time, to support his/her claim. In the event of a jump of the player across the map or disconnection. It is requested that only 3 eyes witnesses to the event, post their support.
As it has been stipulated by Dorg here (http://forums.layonara.com/disputes-grievances-request-reimbursements/261362-torroc-reinburstment-ss-action.html#post1550292) that this was the intention of that rule.
This is the sort of statement we look for from GMs in cases such as these, that being belief in and support of the accounts given by the plaintiff and his/her witnesses. For supporting comments from players, we want eye-witness reports, whether they were there present at the moment of the loss or somewhere else on the server experiencing the same sort of lag or whatever that is being attributed as the cause of loss.
As it stands right now, the phrasing of that rule for witnesses, can be cause to confusion.
-
As I stated here:
For everyone's reference, the wording of this line in the policy was written with heavy lag and/or disconnection events that lead to loss, which can be observed server-wide. Admittedly, this wording is both insufficient and inapplicable for situations such as these, where one must actually be present to see the result in order to provide a witnessing testimonial. However, since the wording of this is vague, I am taking some responsibility here and applying some leeway to this case.
Therefore, with the understanding that this policy is worded with some ambiguity and lack of precision, which we will revise to a more suitable form, and that any similarly insufficient claims from this point forward will not be approved, I will accept davidhoff's statement in this case only as the third "witness" for this claim.
So yes, it will be rewritten to remove the unintentional ambiguity.