Clarification for Rules on Luring

bloodyghost

Meepcraft has rules in place about luring, but these rules are not specific on what constitutes as luring. This has caused complications for me in the past, and I'm sure has caused complications for others as well. Here's what Meep rules say about luring:

Luring
- Sending a player a /tpa, or accepting their tpa to you, then killing them is prohibited
- Using a false pretense in order to get a player to a spot in order to kill him
- Using any kind of deception in order to kill a player

What the rules fail to specify is the specifics of a group setting. Consider this situation in the Wild:

Player 1 >/tpahere> Player 2
Attacks \/
Player 3 >/tpahere> Player 4

There are 2 players in wild, Player 1 and Player 3. Player 1 and Player 3 each send a tp to Player 2 and Player 4 (respectively). Player 2 and Player 4 did not tpa to eachother, therefore is it allowed for Player 2 to kill Player 4?

Current rules may say no and may say yes; the last 2 clauses in the rules are what apply, however they are vague. Someone could say that player 2 was using deception if they attacked player 4 (by teleporting to player 1 as means of deception), even then this is way too open to interpretation.
If the rules say yes, this is legal, then a tp killer could have a wingman to kill people he tp's and they would both be fine.
Group settings cause complications where the staff is forced to pretty much just make an opinionative descision.

I propose this change:
Add the following clause, "By teleporting to a player in a group setting you take the risk of being attacked by other players of the group. Teleport to players in pvp zones with caution."

-Or-

Add this: "Killing a player that was teleported to another player along any circumstances is illegal."

I would vote for the first change, as I enjoy the chaos of wild meetings and events, it keeps things interesting.

jadenPete

I believe that if the player is told they have a risk of being killed, it should be allowed. Otherwise, killing a player who was teleported should be illegal.

Muunkee

Wouldn't any kind of deception to kill a player be the answer to this "issue?"

junelawnchaired

The rules aren't meant to explain things like this, just explain the punishment. The rule shouldn't have to explain the risks of luring. Luring is bad we all know that.

I think you're just overthinking this rule. Just don't trick players and you're good to go. With Prism you can see everyone who was involved or not.

TheTastyNacho

You are completely overthinking this. Also, I think this rule covers it

Using any kind of deception in order to kill a player
~ @bloodyghost

Deinen

When rules are bound to the language of the rule, loopholes are created. Rules are guidelines for behavior and can be fluid to deal with a situation not able to be clearly defined.

The easiest solution is giving fresh teleporters 30 or 60 seconds of invulnerability.

OKNEM

I agree with the first idea, we need a specification and a warning about group circumstances. It's better than leaving it out of the rules fully.

Also, while on this topic, I've had an inquiry about a certain situation involving luring. I think I've sorted it out, but just to clarify I would like some confirmation about this.

Using a false pretense in order to get a player to a spot in order to kill him
~ @bloodyghost

Say the supply drop was the false pretense. If you camped out near the chest, then someone came along, claimed the supplydrop [with the text coming up in global chat] before killing them, I'm thinking this is legal, as this is the purpose of supplydrop.

However, if you offered a reward for the first person to the supplydrop, they claimed it, and then you killed them, I'm thinking this is a different story. In this situation, I would shout, "First one to claim supplydrop gets 5k from me!". This can go a number of different ways. [We're saying that 'claiming' is defined as the text appearing in global chat.]

1. Player gets near supplydrop but doesn't claim it, as he is killed. Player receives nothing. This is debatable as the 5k could be seen as a false pretense but I clearly stated in global that you need to claim the supplydrop to win the 5k. I'm thinking this is legal.

2. Player gets near supplydrop and claims supplydrop before being killed. Player receives 5k. I'm thinking this is still legal as there were no false pretenses, and the ad stated that you had to claim the supplydrop, which he did. So if I paid him 5k and took his inventory, it would be legal.

3. Player gets near supplydrop and claims supplydrop before being killed. Player receives nothing. I'm thinking this is illegal as he has claimed the supplydrop but has not received the promised reward. This could be counted as scamming and luring.

Confirmation on this would be great. Not planning to do it anytime soon but I was debating over whether to do it or not with a friend a couple months ago.

Deinen

. Player gets near supplydrop but doesn't claim it, as he is killed. Player receives nothing. This is debatable as the 5k could be seen as a false pretense but I clearly stated in global that you need to claim the supplydrop to win the 5k. I'm thinking this is legal.
~ @OKNEM

Illegal, because you're using the supply drop as a pretense to get a player to travel to that location to kill him, false or not. The key is that you made the claim and then killed him. If another player kills him and they find cooperation between the murderer and you, the one who made the pretense, luring.

#2 is illegal for the same reasoning.

#3 is also illegal.

TheTastyNacho

When rules are bound to the language of the rule, loopholes are created. Rules are guidelines for behavior and can be fluid to deal with a situation not able to be clearly defined.
The easiest solution is giving fresh teleporters 30 or 60 seconds of invulnerability.
~ @Deinen

I like this idea^

bloodyghost

I like this idea^
~ @TheTastyNacho

Agreed. Why make staff work through messy rule details or prism history when this could solve the whole problem

FamousZAmos

So basically what I think you're assuming is that it's black and white, but this is entirely a grey area. I personally believe that if you have a group in wild, you should probably clarify that there's a risk of getting killed. I recently was lured by BaTaReIka_LoVe because I wanted to see her house... she tpa's to wild, and I resend, oblivious to the fact that she went to wild (I thought it was a speedhack anticheat bug) so after a minute or two I had to leave, and I WENT AFK... when I get back I had drowned. I'd like to see the luring rules be clearer so things like this don't happen. Does tpaing an afk player underwater count as luring? Does tpaing a player into a group of violent carnage if they're told they're going to die count as luring? I'd like to see the staff be helpful in this case like they are in normal crrcumstances, because, from my experience anyway, the staff ignore luring reports or just ban the other person with no real backup, only a vague understanding of what "counts" I remember this kid I really didn't like named AwesomeAdoGamer got banned for luring, and he's still banned. He claims he tpa'd a player to a group of people in wild (friendship town) and they got killed.

This wouldn't be an issue if staff took the time to fix the issue. I could blatantly lure someone and the ban would be a coin flip. Maybe they care, maybe they don't. I think rather than adding a small clause the Luring section should be reworded to be more specific, and staff should prioritize critical issues such as luring over some kid who wants a 3x5 creative plot. I understand they try their best and cannot be online all the time, but this is a big issue. I almost quit meep after getting lured, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Staff needs to adress similar playerbase issue FIRST because without the players, nobody buys ranks. If the playerbase dies, the server dies, it's that simple.

As far as the issue at hand, I agree that
"By teleporting to a player in a group setting you take the risk of being attacked by other players"
is a fairly plausable rule, but I think said rule should include "You must tell them there is a group and a chance of death."

SuperDyl

I'd like to voice some opinions, logic, and ideas I have.

1. I think important to this issue is the rule immediately below the section on luring which reads, "Using any kind of deception in order to hurt a player or gain from a player is prohibited." I think if this rule is remembered and noticed more, issues could be solved better.

2. The rule still doesn't cover all the different situations well enough, just as luring' doesn't by itself either. For this reason, I believe that their should be an addition, but not specifically to luring, instead it should be a change to the rule I mentioned into the phrase, "Either being part of and helping a group to hurt a player or gain from a player using deception or doing so alone is prohibited." This fixes the rule so groups cannot be left blameless from the rules. It may need to be adjusted a little so it flows better. I had to change the sentence a lot personally to make it flow the best I could come up with.

FamousZAmos

This wouldn't be an issue if staff took the time to fix the issue. I could blatantly lure someone and the ban would be a coin flip.
~ @FamousZAmos

This isnt bashing staff, I'm giving constructive criticism. I understand it's a hard job, and respect (most) of those who undertake the task of managing us.

OKNEM

Illegal, because you're using the supply drop as a pretense to get a player to travel to that location to kill him, false or not.
~ @Deinen

However the rules state the the pretense must be false in order for the act to become illegal?

LordInateur

@bloodyghost I have nothing against your question of course, but in general, the rules are not built to detail each and every scenario... if a player is setting out to look for loopholes or technicalities, then their intent is to do something that they clearly should not be doing while trying to avoid the consequences.

Keep in mind that I'm not a moderator. However, in regard to your scenario, if players 1, 2, 3 were in cahoots to kill player 4, then players 1, 2, and 3 would probably be at fault and would be subject to the punishment associated with this rule. Like @Muunkee suggested, this would be in line with items two and three on your list.

Using a false pretense in order to get a player to a spot in order to kill him

Using any kind of deception in order to kill a player

~ @bloodyghost

Deinen

However the rules state the the pretense must be false in order for the act to become illegal?
~ @OKNEM

Luring
Sending a player a /tpa, or accepting their tpa to you, then killing them is prohibited
Using a false pretense in order to get a player to a spot in order to kill him
Using any kind of deception in order to kill a player

It's clear luring has multiple definitions.

reggles44

Current rules may say no and may say yes; the last 2 clauses in the rules are what apply, however they are vague. Someone could say that player 2 was using deception if they attacked player 4 (by teleporting to player 1 as means of deception), even then this is way too open to interpretation.
If the rules say yes, this is legal, then a tp killer could have a wingman to kill people he tp's and they would both be fine.

~ @bloodyghost

I think you are misunderstanding something. When you say rules, what I hear is staff member enforcing rules which are made to be generic as to allow for judgement decisions to be made. Take a police officer for example (@KlutchDecals ), if every action they ever did was outlined in law they either wouldn't be effective because they can't adapt to situations or they would be so strict because any action a person takes could get the in trouble. Someone gets pulled over and they were going 3mph over the speed limit on a steep downhill section of road, technically they were speeding but at the same time they might have been just letting their car go down a hill.

The rules need to be obscure so that it can cover a wide variety of situations and be enforced on a per situation basis.

As per your situations where you say it should specify that a player teleporting to a group is accepting a risk of being in pvp, how would they know they are going to be in a group setting? How would you enforce it?

FamousZAmos

I think you are misunderstanding something. When you say rules, what I hear is staff member enforcing rules which are made to be generic as to allow for judgement decisions to be made
~ @reggles44

The rules have to be somewhat specific, at least enough to expect the rules to be followed. You can't expect us to follow the rules when we clearly don't understand the rule.

reggles44

The rules have to be somewhat specific, at least enough to expect the rules to be followed. You can't expect us to follow the rules when we clearly don't understand the rule.
~ @FamousZAmos

No the rules are to deter you from malicious intentions. For example, someone is selling a spawner in wild and his friend is there. He teleports someone to the spawner and his friend thinks they just ran into someone who might kill them and so he attacks. On the other hand you have two guys at a spawner and are advertising to sell it. One of them tp's a guy to them and the other guy kills them. In both situations they were advertising a spawner with the intention to kill someone, one player teleports a guy to them and the other one killed them. Are they both illegal? does the intention matter? Having a general rule that uses terminology that focuses on the intent in relation to an action allows for those two situations to be handled differently.

FamousZAmos

No the rules are to deter you from malicious intentions. For example, someone is selling a spawner in wild and his friend is there. He teleports someone to the spawner and his friend thinks they just ran into someone who might kill them and so he attacks. On the other hand you have two guys at a spawner and are advertising to sell it. One of them tp's a guy to them and the other guy kills them. In both situations they were advertising a spawner with the intention to kill someone, one player teleports a guy to them and the other one killed them. Are they both illegal? does the intention matter? Having a general rule that uses terminology that focuses on the intent in relation to an action allows for those two situations to be handled differently.
~ @reggles44

I'd like to hear the objective criteria for which intentions are bad or not. If I spam ads for free diamonds at spawn, I have good intentions but I'm still spamming. Obviously luring falls in a different circumstance, but you see my point. When I teleport a player to wild, usually it's bloody, so if I kill him as a joke is it still luring? I had good intentions and game his stuff back, but was it still luring? I guess the random nature of players forces staff to try to understand a scenario that's not ever the same. My point is, rules should be objective, and I think you'd agree with that. There will never be a good way to write this rule as I believe it's too complex a subject. Maybe you're right and the rules should "deter you from malicious intentions" but I don't think anyone on Meep is capable of reading minds.

My conclusion, if you don't understand the above incoherent mess of facts and overstatements, is that I personally am of the opinion that if someone tells you "expect to die, don't bring valuables" it isn't luring. The amount of players doesn't matter, if I die and nobody told me I would, whether I get back my stuff or not I'm still reporting them.

A good example is the lava altar: Literally we said "if you want to die, tpa to wild lava altar!" Nobody tpa'd with good gear because we were throwing people into a lava pit. I think we're actually arguing the same point reg, just in different words: I'm saying this: "If it's very clear that you are going to die and you die, it isn't luring. If nobody mentions you dying and you get killed, it IS luring"
I think big groups of people are unpredictable on meep (literally the playerbase is incapable of impulse control, due to the age range of players on meep [mostly 11-17]) and any big groups should advertise that you may die whether or not that's the intent.