SS refund policy discussion

[jrizz]

I would like to start a discussion around the redeemable SS criteria policy. The purpose of this discussion is to shed light on any areas of the policy that seem vague to the community. I wanted to have this discussion without it being brought on by soemone's request. After carefully reviewing the criteria set forth by the world team and the almost endless posts on the subject, I feel there are few things that are not clear. I will start by breaking down the rules as I have interpreted them according to what is written down. This I hope will spark a discussion that will bring to light anything not in the policy or misunderstood by the community.

First and foremost the rules state that the base criteria for a SS refund are as follows:
1.SS loss due to GM action that was not meant to occur in that event.
2.SS loss due to GM accidental neglect.

Both of the above criteria carry through almost all the considerations for SS refund. This means, I think, that SS refunds are only available during or as a result of GM run quests.


The rules go on to say that a GM logged on as a player or WL can be witness to the SS loss but still only under the above criteria. Once again, only if it happens during or as a result of a GM run quest.

The next sections go into additional conditions. The above criteria must STILL be met. Here is a breakdown of the additional conditions:
a. GM witnessed death – This is still subject to the above criteria. This goes on to say that the witnessing GM has final say on the matter.
b. WL witnessed death – This is still subject to the above criteria. This goes on to say that the witnessing WL can only offer supporting evidence for GM consideration.
c. Irregular spawn/bug death – These two things need to be considered separately
   Irregular spawns seem to mean, by the text, spawns that were placed by a GM during a quest and where not appropriate for the situation. This does not cover in my opinion late spawns, fast spawns, or “lag jumps” into spawn areas.

NOTE: Think of it this way. If a spawn does something you did not expect it is just the monsters changing up their tactics and they caught you off guard. If you get jumped into the middle of a spawn, well you got separated from your group and ambushed by the bad guys. That is the risk of adventuring

d. Bug death – This seems to be one kind of death that overrides the base criteria rule. But from other posts I have gleaned this information:
1.The bug must be verifiable.
2.The bug must be new or relatively unknown. I say this due to the invisibility and GS bugs. I have seen stated that these are well known and you use them at your own risk.
3.The GM team still has sole discretion on what is a bug or not.

e.Exceptional lag – As far as I can tell this still has the base criteria (must be during or as a result of a GM run quest). It goes on to add that you need these things:
1.Corroboration from another player in a different area on the same server. This needs to be obtained within the first 20 mins.
2.A timely dispute post. There is no indication of what timely means but if you look at the above condition then you can guess that 20 mins is the rule of thumb.
3.A timely server reset post. Again on indication of what timely means but 20 mins seems the goal.

NOTE: I am guessing that this means exceptional lag due to the running of a quest on the same server, since it still needs the base criteria. This is one of the few areas that I think is vague. Here is my question:
Does exceptional lag override the base criteria (as stated in the opening paragraph on SS refunds)?

f. Jumped at the transition – This still needs to meet the base criteria. Furthermore it goes on to state that this kind of request will soon no longer be considered.

The rules then go on to explain about common death types that are preventable or unverifiable. So even if you meet the criteria set in the first paragraph, SS loss due to lag deaths (I guess this means regular lag), and disconnections deaths are non-refundable. But it then goes on to say in the very last sentence that there is an exception. If a GM witnesses a disconnection death after witnessing you die and the base criteria are met then it can be considered.

I would say that we should no longer file requests (and I have been guilty of this) unless all of the below are met:
1.You are part of a GM quest or a GM quest is running on the same server.
2.Your death is a result of that GM run quest. (exceptional lag falls under this one so you must also meet all the requirements of a EL)
3.A GM or WL witnessed your death.
The only exception is a bug related death due to an unknown or little known bug (unknown or little known means by the team, I think). This kind of death has its own set of requirements that need to be met. These are very rare.


If this seems harsh please remember that PCs used to have only 5 SS, and L increased that number to 10. I see this increase as a way to make up for the other situations that result in a SS loss, such as all things that fall under technical issues. Can you imagine trying to make 20th level with only 5 SS! It would be a rare PC that made it and then from that small group it would be a rare PC that made WL. Any of us that intend to make 21st level without going the WL path would never make it. We have already been “gifted” 5 more SS to make up for all the things that can happen when technology is involved. I myself have lost two SS due to technical issues. I posted for them, but now I understand the system and why it is as it is. I will not post anymore requests for SS refunds unless I meet the criteria that are for the most part clearly stated for us.

[Weeblie]

In my own experience, the "known bugs" are only:

1. Invisibility Bug - Creatures sometimes see you even if you are invisible and they have no True Seeing/See Invisibility.
2. Greater Sanctuary Bug - Creatures see you even if you are in ethereal mode. This is a rather COMMON bug. Has at least happend a couple of times for me (one of them resulting in SS loss).
3. Polymorph Bug - I have heard that while polymorphed (or some other equal spells), there is a small chance that you suddenly turn back to "normal" again (and sometimes, it turns you back instantly). This might cause a death in that short time period, resulting in SS loss.
4. Constitution/Temporary HP dropping resulting in death - Technically, not a "bug"...

Oh... and... Hmm... I think my own understanding of the rules differs from yours (as, not necessary all of the points you pointed out has to be met). I would apply for the following situations:

1. GM quest and the GM says he or she approves the SS return. This is almost guaranteed to get approved, no matter how it happens, as long as the GM approves it. The best scenario.
2. Exceptional Lag Death or Irregular Spawn Death backed up by a GM/WL. The lag one is a lot trickier, as in 99% of the cases, the server doesn't "suddenly lag" but instead the lag increases overtime. The GM/WL in question would most probably be reluctant to back up you, as... well... it's most probably not EXCEPTIONAL lag.
3. Unknown AND reproduceable bug AND the player reports the bug by calling for help instead of trying to fix the situation by him or herself. Maybe a spell not working as its intended and is the direct cause of you dying? These cases are extremely rare as, luckily, most things tend to work!

[Faldred]

Both of the above criteria carry through almost all the considerations for SS refund. This means, I think, that SS refunds are only available during or as a result of GM run quests.

Not necessarily -- the GM could be doing something ad-hoc, like spawning some creatures on top of a party that's being a little too casual about their own defense, that wouldn't be part of a GM quest.  Let's say a GM does that to a group of 12-16 level characters, not realizing a lone 9th level character is also in the area on unrelated business, and happens to run across the spawn that is for a larger and higher-level group.

That would clearly qualify as well.

Nonetheless, it looks like the rest of what you say is spot-on.

[Weeblie]

Spontanteous quests (like dropping creatures on parties) are kind of a sort of GM quest too. Just very short ones.

[IDii]

Actually PC's never had only 5 SS's. It was 10 you had to gather till you were permanently dead since the token system was introduced in the beginning of beta4 (back in 2003 or something, don't remember exactly). Some time after the first characters reached lvl21 the soul mother defense feat was added.
Somewhere back in 2003/2004 there was a small accidental token database wipe that reseted everyone at 0, but it wasn't that huge since most people were only just like lvl5-8 after the B3/B4 character wipe.
At one point there was a quest event that reduced every character's SS counter by one as well. Don't remember when it was exactly... Think over a year ago though.
Other than that the system has remained the same, other than the change of the death token name to soul strand.

Anyway if you get the SS on a quest the GM running the quest pretty much gets to decide it. Since quests are usually controlled by the GM running it and they should have a good idea of what should have and what shouldn't have happened.
Let's say a GM accidentally creates an encounter that was too difficult or impossible, then it's very likely people will get the SS's lost in that encounter back. However if the encounter was just fine and you lose a SS, even if it was because you crashed or lagged it probably won't be returned to you.

If you happen to die outside a GM-run event, it gets a lot more difficult to get it reimbursed. Since in this case the only one in control of what's happening is you. So if you die, it's your responsibility.
In this case SS's only really get reimbursed if it's from an obviously bugged death you can't do anything about. Like being ported to the middle of the map when zoning in and instantly dying to a spawn there counts. That's totally unavoidable and nothing you can do about it.
Lag and PC crashes are another matter though. That's something you can (at least theoretically) control.

The reason the token system is in place is to make people learn from their mistakes. So the more the SS loss is your mistake, the less likely it is to be reimbursed.
This might sound a bit harsh when roleplaying reckless characters that tend to die a lot... But then again those characters shouldn't lead long lives anyway.

[Weeblie]

IDii - 12/21/2006  9:48 PM

Like being ported to the middle of the map when zoning in and instantly dying to a spawn there counts. That's totally unavoidable and nothing you can do about it.

AT-jumping deaths are no longer reimburseable (the result was at least that from a previous denied request).

[IDii]

Do you mean AT-jumping as in being jumped by a spawn at an AT or being jumped to the middle of the map when you enter the area?

I've seen the jump bug a few times. Party enters an area and one unlucky person gets jumped into the middle of the map instantly, right in the middle of a fire giant spawn too. Nothing you can do about that so it doesn't make sense those aren't reimbursable.

Being jumped by a spawn at an AT is another matter entirely. You should be cautious when traveling in a dangerous area anyway and not rely on monster locations.

EDIT: Ah, nevermind. Found the thread with the buggy death. Not going to comment on that though.

[Weeblie]

With AT-jumping, I mean exactly what you mean. Walking through the AT and ending up somewhere else on the map (usually, the other side).

I think the reason they are no longer reimburseable is that it's way too easy to say "Oh, I jumped and died." for all SS-losses. Proving that you did get that bug isn't the easiest thing to do (if we consider the fact that a screenshot shows nearly nothing and logs are too easy to fake).

Edit: New suggestion is maybe to walk through ATs with invis/g-sanc?

[IDii]

Yeah, I got that.

Well they're still reimbursable, just need the whole witness dealie like in all cases.

[Vyris]

I'd like to see something like this...

start a new character

Standard character :

10 soul strands
experience penalties apply from race

Nightmare character :

5 soul strands
no racial experience penalties

Hardcore character :

0 soul strands (fail against the soul mother and perm.)
no racial exp penalties
10% exp bonus from combat exp gained


hehe that could be fun... although probably a character approvers worst nightmare.

Vyris

[Dorganath]

OK, let me see if I can clarify things, as I'm the one who touched the policies most recently.
  There seems to be some misconception here, so let me see if I can break the chain of assumption.  If part of this is unclear, please ask specific follow-up questions.
  First, on the witnessing...
  The event(s) that result in the loss of a Soul Strand have to be witnessed by a GM or a WL in order to be considered.  There are exceptions to this, which I will cover below.  What this means is simple.  If a Soul Strand is to be returned, a GM (player) or WL (player) has to have witnessed the circumstances.  This in itself is not a guarantee, but it is a requirement.
  Why is it like this? Mostly because bands of friends would start witnessing for each other, going into a dangerous area, get slammed by one of more spawns which resulted in some kind of loss like a Soul Strand or XP or whatever, and then they'd all claim sudden and severe lag in an attempt to get whatever it was returned. This had two effects.  First, it created a lot of extra work in the follow-up and returning end of things.  Second, it fostered the idea that if players go out and take risks, they can be fairly sure of having no real penalties if things turn bad, because they could get their friends to back them up on the reimbursement.  Yes, this is a case of a few spoiling it for the many, but unfortunately, that happens from time to time.
  What does this mean? Simply put, it means that if a GM or WL does not witness the circumstances of the death, then there return will not be approved
  What does this NOT mean? It does NOT mean that one MUST be on a GM-run event, whether scheduled or spontaneous, in order to be elligible for a return.  It does not mean that it only applies if a GM screws up and toasts the party, mis-clicks or does any number of other silly things that gets one or more characters killed with losses of XP and/or Soul Strands. I was just on West as a GM looking into a couple things and just generally hopping around. In that hour, I witnessed lag. I could have also witnessed deaths with odd circumstances and Soul Strand or XP losses. If such were the case, I may have supported a Soul Strand return. I think this is the largest misconception listed above.
  Since this question/answer format seems to be working for me as I type this, I'll continue.
  What does it mean when you say a GM or WL must be present? It means simply that a player who is a GM or WL must be physically present to attest to the conditions of the death.  This may happen in one of several ways:
  * A GM player logged in as a GM * A GM player logged in as one of his/her characters * A WL player logged in as one of his/her characters, and not necessarily the character that achieved WL status
  Any of these is valid, and the reason is simple.  Regardless of how the player is logged in, it's still the same player. Their perceptions and honesty do not change, and neither does the trust the GM Team has in those players.
  Can a GM or WL player self-testify for his/her own character's loss? Absolutely not.  A GM or WL still requires the statement of another GM or WL in order to be reimbursed.
  This seems pretty harsh. Are there ever exceptions? Yes, but they are rare out of the necessity for fairness and equality throughout.  The most likely avenue for an exception is a death and loss due to a bug. Now, there are and will continue to be differences in opinion as to what does and does not constitute a bug that is acceptable to use in a Soul Strand return request without a GM or WL witnessing. In the case of things like the Invisibility bug, or the G. Sanc bug...things which are out of our control despite our best efforts (and yes, we have tried) and should work differently than they do, or more precisely, they should work correctly as intended but do not because of flaws in Bioware's code...in such cases, a Soul Strand or XP may be returnable if the circumstances are witnessed by a GM or WL. I gave an example of this in some other thread.  Suppose a solo mage gets in over his head and tries to escape but dies and loses a Soul Strand.  What's to stop him from claiming the Invisibility Bug to get out of the consequences for actions which were reckless on his part and completely avoidable?  Nothing.  How could we know the difference? We can't.  Should we trust his word blindly?  Would you? In fact, deaths due to problems like this are very prime examples of why witnessing is required as it is now.  There are other known Bioware-related bugs, many of which cause situations that may result in death and loss. We require GM or WL witnesses to keep people from abusing the system and claiming things that did not actually contribute to the loss.
  But the above example is not really an exception.  Let me give you one, very similar to something that actually happened.  After a recent spell change, it was found that certain immunities were either not being respected or effects were behaving in an unintended way due to the way Bioware coded things on their end.  In this and similar cases, the bug in question is something we introduced and which could be tested for, verified and corrected.  This is a case of "our fault" and since the problem that caused the loss could be reproduced and witnessed in a consistent manner, a return of a Soul Strand was eventually approved, even though the event was not directly witnessed by a GM or WL. This is the intent behind the clause which states that the GM Team will reserve the final judgement as to what does and does not constitute a bug.
  What about being jumped by creatures left at a transition? This shouldn't really happen anymore, as we have a system in place to return placed creatures to their spawn points. As such, the likelihood of this occuring has greatly been reduced.  Because this system was put into place, there's no reason to have an allowance for this type of death in the Soul Strand return policy.
  What about being lag-jumped across a transition into a hot spawn? If witnessed as described above, then that decision is up to the GM.  But, I will say that this can be prevented by the player by not "driving" across transitions but rather clicking on the transition itself.
  What about excessive lag in general?  Lag makes things more dangerous, I think we can all agree on this.  When the server is generally laggy, going out and adventuring can be a truly perilous experience. If the lag is this bad, then the players are taking the welfare of their characters into their own hands. If the lag is that bad on a consistent basis, there's no recourse for losses due to lag.  Now, if the lag is sudden and severe (and this is something in excess of what is experienced when another character logs on. I'm talking about major spikes or persistent lag that comes on suddenly and stays.  The policy for such cases is already spelled out and I think fairly clear, yet nearly every request for a Soul Strand return that has claimed lag has failed to be accompanied by a timely request to reboot the server on the forums where we can track it.  Also, in such cases, a GM does not need to directly witness the death but can be on the server and attest to the lag.  Assuming all other criteria are met, this avenue gives a chance of reimbursement.
  What about if some GM drops a spawn of demons on my party that's camping resources or being careless? Well, such cases are up to the GMs.  In general though, GMs do not drop creatures directly "on top of" PCs.  We'll generally give you some distance such that you can see what's coming, but we'll not "punish" players by spawning in their midst.  That simply is not fair, and we don't as a practice, or do things like that intentionally.  Mistakes happen, and thus, such instances are up to the GM.
  What about irregular spawns? Well first, define "irregular".  A spawn not "acting as expected" is not necessarily irregular. It may indicate GM involvement, it may indicate a new class of creature being spawned due to higher party CR, or new creatures added to a spawn or area during an update.  Now, if by a mistake by the builders, the spawn point of an encounter actually materializes on top of the PCs as they move into an area, for example, that's irregular, a bug, and can be verified and fixed. We can also in some ways verify that without needing a GM or WL to witness.  Left-over creatures from a quest may also constitute an irregular spawn.  Creatures changed in an update that end up being too powerful for their intended environment may constitute an irregular spawn.
  As the original poster pointed out, if something changes or acts in a way not entirely expected, such are the risks of adventuring.  But we do try to keep such changes fair and challenging; we're not out to kill characters.
  I think I've covered all or at least most of the main points, so I'll conclude this response here.
  However, I will state again for clarity:
  It is not necessary to be on a GM-run event in order to receive consideration for Soul Strand return.
  This is simply a misunderstanding in how the policy was intended.

[jrizz]

@dorg the reason I put in the GM run event part was due to this sentence:

"Loss of a Soul Strand and/or XP due to a wrongful death will only be refundable if witnessed and/or endorsed by a GM due to GM action or accidental neglect"

All of the rest of the criteria point back to this sentence. Perhaps it needs to be revised.

[Dorganath]

I will try to clarify the statement then in the policy, though I think it may be nothing more than the inadvertent omission of the word "or":
  Loss of a Soul Strand and/or XP due to a wrongful death will only be refundable if witnessed and/or endorsed by a GM or due to GM action or accidental neglect.

[twidget658]

There was one instance where there was a WL in party that witnessed the whole event. After the loss of a Soul Strand, a GM was contacted. The WL, plus others in the party, sided with the person that lost the SS. The GM, however, did not agree and posted unfavorably. From the outside looking in, the WL was discredited and it seemed that his input was not considered.

How much weight is actually put into a WL’s testimony? Does a GM’s testimony override a WL?

I realize that this is unique situation, but I do not think WLs and GMs should oppose each other, openly. I do feel that this WL was done wrong. Now if the GM and WL discussed this behind closed doors and an agreement was reached, then that should be released to the public as to not undermine the WL’s authority.

[Dorganath]

twidget658 - 12/21/2006  9:57 PM  There was one instance where there was a WL in party that witnessed the whole event. After the loss of a Soul Strand, a GM was contacted. The WL, plus others in the party, sided with the person that lost the SS. The GM, however, did not agree and posted unfavorably. From the outside looking in, the WL was discredited and it seemed that his input was not considered.      How much weight is actually put into a WL’s testimony? Does a GM’s testimony override a WL?       I realize that this is unique situation, but I do not think WLs and GMs should oppose each other, openly. I do feel that this WL was done wrong. Now if the GM and WL discussed this behind closed doors and an agreement was reached, then that should be released to the public as to not undermine the WL’s authority.

 I'm not sure exactly to which instance you are referring (though it sounds vaguely familiar), so I can only answer in a general sense, nor can I really comment as to whether a WL was discredited. If true, I doubt sincerely that it was the GM's intent to discredit.
  Regarding the weight of WL's vs. GMs, I refer you to Item #2 in our Soul Strand reimbursement:  

2. WORLD LEADER WITNESSED DEATH: As an alternative to a GM witness, a World Leader may offer testimony and evidence in support of or contrary to the request. This testimony and evidence will be considered, and a GM will then decide based on the facts.

[/SIZE]
  This means two key things:  1) That WL tesimony is acceptable as supporting evidence, but not as the sole justification or approval, for a Soul Strand reimbursement. 2) The final decision is made by a GM.
  Or in other words, the WL does not have authority to approve Soul Strand returns, only support them. Again, without a specific instance to review, I will not speculate further as to why things were decided as they were.
  However, to continue speaking generically, a WL's authority in matters of Soul Strand reimbursements stops at the statement of support or refute. They cannot approve the request on their own. If it were allowed (and perhaps some day it will be) for WL's to directly approve such requests, a GM will always have the authority to change that final decision. In the same vein, Leanthar will always have the authority to override another GM's decision.
  In that last example, it's not much different than the players who are now approving characters. We've given them a degree of trust and so far it has worked out very well for everyone. But when they took the positions, the players were told, and agreed, that a GM may always override a character approval.
  Regarding opposition and private dealings within the reimbursement process in general:
  It should not be considered terribly unusual for WLs and GMs to have a difference of opinion regarding decisions that get made. I think it would reflect poorly if there was open disagreement to the point of becoming disrespectful, accusatory and other negative things, but an expression of concern or differences in opinions by some of this community's most trusted and respected members is always a good thing, even if it differs from that of the GM Team.
  I do not believe that there should be much "behind closed doors" discussion between WLs and GMs in the reimbursement process, simply because I wish to have these things out in the open for all to see for reasons of transparency. Occasionally, members of the GM team do discuss some of these requests among ourselves, but the result of those discussions is always posted publicly. I don't think it would help the process however to have a private statement from a WL to the GM team or to have WLs and GMs come to some sort of back-room agreement for such things, as I think it's important for everyone to be able to see the reasoning so there can be no question in the eyes of the community that we are handling things as fairly and with as much thought as possible.
  If there is a specific incident on which you would like me to comment more specifically, please link it below. Perhaps then I can more fully answer your questions and concerns.

[Talan Va'lash]

Dorganath - 12/21/2006  5:42 PM
OK, let me see if I can clarify things, as I'm the one who touched the policies most recently.
There seems to be some misconception here, so let me see if I can break the chain of assumption.
If part of this is unclear, please ask specific follow-up questions.

^^ This post (the one I quote the beginning of) should be added to the grievance section. It made things clearer for me and I thought I knew all the rules heh.

[Dorganath]

Talan Va'lash - 12/22/2006  12:40 AM  

Dorganath - 12/21/2006  5:42 PM OK, let me see if I can clarify things, as I'm the one who touched the policies most recently. There seems to be some misconception here, so let me see if I can break the chain of assumption.  If part of this is unclear, please ask specific follow-up questions.

 
  ^^ This post (the one I quote the beginning of) should be added to the grievance section. It made things clearer for me and I thought I knew all the rules heh.

 Already done! http://www.layonaraonline.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=33116&posts=1&start=1  

[jrizz]

twidget658 - 12/21/2006  7:57 PM

There was one instance where there was a WL in party that witnessed the whole event. After the loss of a Soul Strand, a GM was contacted. The WL, plus others in the party, sided with the person that lost the SS. The GM, however, did not agree and posted unfavorably. From the outside looking in, the WL was discredited and it seemed that his input was not considered.

How much weight is actually put into a WL’s testimony? Does a GM’s testimony override a WL?

I realize that this is unique situation, but I do not think WLs and GMs should oppose each other, openly. I do feel that this WL was done wrong. Now if the GM and WL discussed this behind closed doors and an agreement was reached, then that should be released to the public as to not undermine the WL’s authority.

The instance you refer to @twidget I think would have been approved but for a few missing reqs.
1. another player on the same server in another area stating that the lag spike was exceptional
2. A post to have the server reset, posted within 20 mins of the event.

[Leanthar]

@jrizz. Exactly. We have more than JUST WL/GM witnessing and posting as a requirement and that is pretty well spelled out. There was no "discrediting", not everything was provided as we request in the policy.

[jrizz]

What I am try to get to with this discussion is a greater understanding of the policy for the whole community. It seems to be getting there.

The base rule says "witnessed and/or endorsed by a GM" can we get a better understanding of what endorsed means here (by example would help)?. I think what endorsed means is when the event is witnessed by a WL, or in the case of a new bug a GM can endorse it.

@Twidget, the mistake in the post that you refered to was my fault. I advised the player to make the post. The player was a new player and I should have given more guidence. I will not make that mistake in the future.