Mentions: Rules update: Abetting
New rule update
Started by Unnamed199cz [2783125] on in General Discussion.
About this thread
Posts archived: 198 / 198 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
- Archived posts
- 198
- Discussion span
- →
- Authority score
- 62 / 100
- Historical score
- 45 / 100
- Story score
- 68 / 100
- Engagement score
- 84 / 100
People posting, likes and official posts are not counted for this thread yet: on threads longer than one page they come from a periodic pass over the archive, which has not covered it.
Most-liked replies
- bogie [148747] Admin
· 95 likes ·
Reading in a text based game issues aside so I can make a more formal post in GD here. This is a rules page update we have had considered for some time, Julie in particular has been very keen to … - SAndP500 [3663181]
· 38 likes ·
Abetting is what Italians do in the casino. Makes sense to me, if you know part of your faction is multis and you're keeping them there to benefit you then that should be looked at, or if you're funneling money … - bogie [148747] Admin
· 36 likes ·
This is already answered in the same announcement. This is also already answered in that same announcement. Unnamed199cz disliked your post New rule update I dont quite follow, did you not read any of that?
Mentioned in this thread
InvalidDavid [3582325] ×1
Abetting is what Italians do in the casino.
Makes sense to me, if you know part of your faction is multis and you're keeping them there to benefit you then that should be looked at, or if you're funneling money between accounts as a middleman when not owning them yourself
Why not earlier?
This is already answered in the same announcement.
And shouldnt this be considered already being a rule without update?
This is also already answered in that same announcement.
Unnamed199cz disliked your post
New rule update
I dont quite follow, did you not read any of that?
Mentions: New rule update
You said why now, not why not until now.
You said generic things, but there is no reason why this rule shouldnt be there before
I removed the dislike as that wasnt intentional, I read the post, but my first question is still here
While actions such as aiding multi-account abuse, covering for known cheaters, and facilitating illicit asset transfers have always been against the rules in the most extreme and obvious of cases, we've now added a dedicated ABETTING violation entry to make enforcement and player understanding more direct and transparent.
Beyond that I am confused why you are taking issue with this? I lack the capacity to travel back in time to update the rules page several years ago.
It sounds like you support this change so I am confused why you are just trying to create a strawman argument against it here.
I support it, I just dont understand why it wasn´t there earlier, I would have normally guessed that helping someone go against policies is also against policies
"this has been in consideration for some time"
Edit: I was literally just asking what took some time to add this as its one of the most basic rules, duh
Any change to get cheaters or ppl who help cheaters is a good change.
I guess that’s why you still don’t have the time traveller merit
Yes, agreed
I wonder how this will affect SMTH
Reading in a text based game issues aside so I can make a more formal post in GD here.
This is a rules page update we have had considered for some time, Julie in particular has been very keen to ensure actions such as middlemanning are clearly defined in publicly available rules pages, rather than tucked away. As said, whilst this has always been against the rules we have not had a formal area for it in the guidelines until now, which this change resolves.
The consideration is not to make up new offences as such, but rather to ensure existing punishments and rule violations are clearly defined and given consistent guidance.
We have applied similar situations as described in case by case scenarios in the past, where relevant. For example, where we may have deleted entire factions due to widespread cheating within them. We considered the overall gain to be beyond the scope of fairness, and the most reasonable course of action was to remove it. However going forward we want this to be clearly communicated to players to ensure we are all on the same page.
The updated guidelines ensure that players, faction leaders, and staff all have a consistent understanding of what constitutes abetting, and removes ambiguity from situations where someone might claim they were "just helping a friend" or "didn't think it was their place to report it."
This gives us greater scope and clarification when dealing with, as an example, faction groups that may aggressively benefit from rule violations such as RMT or Multiple Accounts, rather than just specific individuals - allowing for a level of accountability and fair play among the wider community.
We appreciate the community’s continued understanding and support in keeping Torn fair. If you're ever unsure whether a specific situation might fall under this rule — please ask. It's better to check in advance than risk punitive action.
RIP SMTH
For example, if a faction leader is fully aware that a member is running multiple accounts, and continues to shield them or benefit from that behavior — this rule would apply.
No poll, sad emoji...
On topic, good addition to the rules, as stated it should be there before, but now it's clear and in white ink*
*dark mode supremacy
I'm not sure why some people are taking issue with the rule update. If you've got nothing to hide, then it should be a fully positive change. I can see why they don't want to change rules on a whim because then there'd just be mass confusion and nobody knowing what the f**k is and isn't against the rules. The fact that it was under consideration means they had time to discuss any potential challenges before the change was put in place, which is also a good thing. If it means more cheaters are banned, then it's good. I don't think we really have to question why now and not sooner.
good change
Makes sense.. if I'm honest I always thought this was a thing..
Can't see any downside to this.
Seems like common sense tbh
Because any rule that can be justified with “If you’ve got nothing to hide, then…” tends to be problematic.
The updated guidelines ensure that players, faction leaders, and staff all have a consistent understanding of what constitutes abetting, and removes ambiguity from situations where someone might claim they were "just helping a friend" or "didn't think it was their place to report it."
Read the last quote there.
We are all mandatory reporters now.
You can follow every rule to the letter, but if the admins think you knew someone else was violating the rules and didn’t tattle, you’re subject to a ban.
Snitch cultures are just not healthy cultures. It tends to breed a lot of suspicion and CYA reporting.
Prep work for banning all of SMTH. Love to see it.