| Author |
There was this one time in banned camp.... |
Hawumph
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Jan 23, 2002
Posts: 368
From: Somewhere you don't want to go!
|  Posted: 24-11-2009 00:08
OK for those of you that don't get the reference, it's American Pie, a silly film.
But on a more serious note. Banned.
We've had a situation recently where some people just do not listen. So, unfortunately, one person has been banned.
Before anyone asks, yes, he has been given a time scale. It is 6 months. And he has been told that if he behaves and stays away for 6 months, that will be the end of it. If not, it's a permanent ban.
In case said player is looking, there is a distinct possibility that you already broke the 6 month ban and laughed about it, in 24 hours. If so, haha, enjoy your permanent ban, if not, my apologies.
To anybody else that feels they can abuse other players, swear at them, talk about drugs in the tearoom, any of the many things that get frowned upon. Please. Don't?
We try and give pointers, warnings, second warnings, even zillionth warnings. But eventually, you will end up out of here.
Which is a shame, because even the banned people actually like the community. They just interact with it in a non productive way.
To anyone that has taken flak, I would apologise, but you also need to let us know?
So for once, I make a serious post. It's not like we are policing you, we have certain, and to be honest, flexible, guidelines. Nobody wants rules set in stone. Or if you do, you are too rigid!
If you get warned, try and listen. If you don't listen, it will be repeated, trust me. And eventually, the point has to be made.
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 24-11-2009 09:37
Thank you for putting us in the picture. There have been rumours flying about.
There is no doubt he deserved this ban and his position cannot be defended but this is not something we should be happy about. Personally it saddens me. Say what you like about his deplorable attitude the game was always more colourful when he was on.
|
Angkor
pilgrim
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
Posts: 28 | Posted: 25-11-2009 05:23
Well put Royston. I didn't witness these goings on, but I've seen that sort of thing in the past and it's disappointing when the boundaries are overstepped. Even the most spiteful people seem to be able to add to the colour of the Land, and it's a shame when they just push the envelope that little bit too far.
I enjoy your Bash reports, btw, and hope that one day soon I can manage my time so that I can actually join in one of the events.
|
Shantigh
friar
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 84
From: Firkins
| Posted: 26-11-2009 04:49
Apologies in advance for the rather long post.
-----
Despite his repeated bad behaviour, which does nothing to help his case or plight, I feel 6 months is perhaps a bit long.
And on that score, I agree with the player themselves when they said as much tonight on one of their ban-breaking guest apperances.
While I'm not for a whole rules and regulations fiasco with over policing, I do feel that it's maybe time for guidelines. The majority of games available, and every game I play has a system of warnings, punishments all leading upto a final long term ban. I think in the first instance - which this is, regardless of behaviour - it's the first time a game ban has been enforced on this player - I think it's too long.
I would prefer to see a system put in place where bans are incremented, based on an initial 3 strikes:
--> Verbal & Written Warning
--> As above & Points docked from their highest level persona
--> As above & their highest level persona fodded.
Obviously, it's not hard and fast, you will get people guesting to do it (but arches can trace via IPs) and you will get people doing it when they have no high level persona. In those cases, a warning would likely have to suffice.
If after the third strike, the behaviour continues. Then a ban is issued, the ban is of a set period, say between 1 and 4 weeks, any shorter is meaningless, any longer serves only to provoke and irritate the player - which ruins the point of having it as a cool down period, since rightly, they would feel the ban was unjustly long. Giving an average first ban of between 1 and 2 weeks is reasonably fair, and able to be done on an individual basis.
Once that ban is over, and they return and the behaviour continues - you can either use the 3 strikes system again, or go straight to another ban. This time the ban would be longer. Between 1 month and 2 months.
Repeat, if it's still happening, this is the stage to either permanently ban someone or do a final temporary ban lasting between 3-6 months. In my opinion 6 month bans are meaningless, the game will have moved on so much, and if the player has been away that long on ill terms with the game you are unlikely to have them return, and certainly unlikely to have them return in a happy mood.
And if a third ban is used, and behaviour is bad after that - then it's time for a permanent ban.
I don't think it would be difficult to put together a set of disciplinary guidelines that is available for the players to use, and it should be included in the terms and conditions of the game. Frankly, any mentions of bans should be highlighted and agreed to. Which involves making all current players agree again to a new terms and conditions, you can't just change them and expect to professionally enforce them if the player base does not agree. Especially why you are asking the same players to donate money.
I would also make the point that I think a forum only ban serves only to further provoke a player, and in this case seems to have done exactly that. Forum accounts and user accounts on the game are linked, there is no reason why they shouldn't be linked when it comes to a ban. In fact, if anything, it makes more sense to ban someone from the game and leave the forum open than vice versa. I realise it's a covering your bum movement on behalf of the wizs due to nasty things that could appear on the forum and deter newer players, but given the small amounts of activity on this board at all - daily ''policing'' should be more than possible by the admins, and if not - make more admins. It's a forum after all, and there are daily players who could do the job.
And while the player in question has done nothing to help themselves, I do think the lack of structure gave the whole proceeding a lack of fairness and professionalness (if that is a word!) - and I would ask that the ridiculous length of ban be reconsidered. In MUD 6 months is akin to a permanent ban. And while his behaviour is mostly indefensible, the player in question does have every right to be agrieved at the process that led to the ban. And every right to be agrieved at the length of the ban.
I also feel that the prior forum ban with no time limit was completely unprofessional as was the mocking of the lack of time limit on a ban. Once again, this is or at least was a business and there are certain respects a customer demands and regardless of the customers behaviour - the admins should be above disrepute, and I don't feel in this case they really were. It was a perfectly reasonable point to ask for a length of the ban, and something that should have been given to the player. Saying it is just a ban is certainly not enough. Especially not for what had until then been a loyal ''customer''.
To close - with any luck, a disciplinary system wouldn't be needed to be enacted, however I think it is something of high importance that one be put in place and agreed to under a new set of terms and conditions by the player base.
/rant.
    
|
Shantigh
friar
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 84
From: Firkins
| Posted: 26-11-2009 04:53
And for any/many errors in the above, it was written at 5am.
And I have to get up in 3 hours. Joy.
|
Shantigh
friar
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 84
From: Firkins
| Posted: 26-11-2009 05:07
A final, additional note:
In the system I detailed above, if someone broke their short term ban, then a longer term ban could be immediatly added. I would suggest adding an extra week per offense, to a set point (for instance upto 4 then start adding months, until you reach 6, then a perm ban).
I think it would also be good to clarify the use of guests. To me, using a guest is not playing the game. Since it's impossible to play as a guest. However given the majority of tearoomers, that would have to be addressed. Since in my eyes, someone logging on as a guest is not playing, and in the cases of non-abuse related bans - such as cheating in the land, then guesting perhaps should still be allowed, so they can chat, but not play.
Guesting is certainly a loophole, and one that would have to be clarified in a set of guidelines. Would you allow a cheater to come on to chat? and disallow an abusive player guest privs? I think it would be possible to do it that way.
A game I currently play has two levels of ban, the first is contact ban, no forum posting/no PMing but due to the dynamic nature of the game, a 1 month ban could end up literally in a few hundred dollars worth of costs to recover what you have lost due to being unable to play. The first type of ban is for minor things. The second, which bans all gameplay on all accounts, is done for cheating, bullying and other such misbehaviour.
That game however is reasonably unique that 30 days without playing will screw over your account. Here - perhaps persona could be deleted as another part of a disciplinary nature?
Anyways, I'll start to ramble if I don't close. And no Haw, that wasn't rambling already  . MUD does have a lot of options open, and writing up a disciplinary sheet might help prevent some bad behaviour. Especially if a high level hard-to-get (for some players) persona is at risk. It would also give a peace of mind to players who suffer from other players, that there is something in place to deal with it, and it's not some vague chat or ticking off. And it's more likely to make people report wrong doings, because they think something will happen. At the moment, it's kinda like touching the TS, you know, something might happen to the wrong doer, but chances are slim.
Oh and a very very final note - a proper system of reporting should be put somewhere visible, while a lot of old hands will now about jotting down the reset number etc, newer players may not. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to put something on the website - such as a form to fill in to complain about a player. Of course, a form on a website is liable to be abused - but such is life.
But just a post somewhere, highlighting how to complain and who to complain to, and what information you need to provide would be good. Rather than people perhaps thinking that they don't want to bother so and so, and they know X is busy and don't want to trouble them. I would suggest, if using MUD mail - it goes to somewhere joint, that can be read by all the arches, rather than an individual arch who may or may not be busy and not see it, or be too busy to act on it.
I'm not one of the people who needs to know where to complain, as I bend Haw's ear til it gets a wee bit red at top. But it's always good for new players to be aware that they can get help, rather than just leave because they didn't know who or how to complain.
Ok, bed for real this time.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 26-11-2009 11:56
I agree that going from fods straight to a six month ban was probably not the most effective course of action, and some intermediate bans in between (and much earlier) would have been useful. Leak (I don't see the need to be secretive about his name, most of us know who we're talking about, and it will only serve to confuse readers who weren't there for the ban) obviously wasn't deterred by the dozens of fods/warnings he received, and it probably just put out the message that being abusive is ok and nothing much will happen to you if you do it. I do think that he had a very large number of warnings, more than enough for him to have changed his ways, and therefore by the time it reached this point a 6 month ban probably seemed reasonable. By that time it was too late to go back and give him intermediate bans. I still personally would have gone for a 1 month ban at this point, with a "one strike and you're out" policy on his return. But I don't feel strongly either way about it as I think someone who shows that level of disregard for wiz warnings can't expect to be treated too leniently. In future cases I would hope that a more linear progression from fod > small ban > large ban, would be used, but that is the choice of the wiz or arch dealing with it.
I don't agree that there should be a fixed structure to bans. That goes against the grain of everything it means to be a wiz, where rules are deliberately not set in stone, and wizzes have the power to use their own discretion and manage the game as they see fit, within the bounds of the Good Wiz Guide. I have read one version of the GWG and it is constantly reiterating that it is a guide (as per the name) and not a hard and fast set of rules. I feel that forcing wizzes to follow a set path of punishments would really detract from decades of game tradition.
Also, this is not the kind of game where we enforce terms and conditions and expect "customer service" from our "admins". That has never been what the spirit of the game is about. Remember, our admins are players, not employees of a commercial game. I don't think that a player should have to sign a contract to agree to what actions a wiz can take against them. Lets also bear in mind that this game is now free, even if it wasn't in the past. I doubt that donations are sufficient to cover Foddy & Karya's server costs, let alone their time. They are running the game as a favour to the players, not as a profit making enterprise, and I think it is more appropriate to have a grateful playerbase rather than one whose first port of call is quoting clause numbers in contracts. Every wiz/arch who plays is doing so in their free time for no personal gain other than enjoyment. In the past when I have donated, I have fully expected (and hoped) that the money will be spent by the admins on a drink or a meal out or something along those lines. I have never viewed it as some kind of "subscription" in return for which I expect to receive certain game standards which are present in commercial games.
I am all for the rules of the game being more readily available to newbies, but I don't think we need to be making those rules more rigid than they are.
Regarding guests, I have always been of the view that in a fee-less game they are an unnecessary feature and only serve to put stumbling blocks in the way of potential new players who just want to get straight into the game. Ideally I would like to see them scrapped, and have the ability to instantly make accounts available on the login screen. Having persona names recognised as aliases to account numbers would be nice too and might encourage people to play who might otherwise forget their account number (i.e. if I have account name Z00001234 with personas A, B, and C, then I can login to that account with any of the four names, as long as I know the password).
[ This Message was edited by: Armand on 26-11-2009 12:25 ]
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 26-11-2009 12:00
First of all, we must none of us fall into the trap in believing that the world of MUD is a democracy, It never has been and never will be. The forum is a place where we can exchange views but there is no reason to expect those views to be acted upon and change the way this world is run. This is especially so where there is no consensus amongst us. And there is no consensus in this case.
The problem with deciding whether or not someone?s words and general behaviour is insulting or abusive towards another player is subjective. This opinion varies generally, not only during the course of time (what was accepted as humorous 50 years ago is now considered non-pc), but also from place to place (Americans are far more likely to feel the need to complain about some careless remark than the English. This a matter of culture). But what I have always been led to believe is that it is the opinion (the genuine opinion) of the person on the receiving end of the remarks that matters. If they find it insulting or abusive - then it is. The person making the remarks saying that it was only a joke, for instance, makes not an iota of difference (even if that was genuine). This makes it incredibly difficult for those in authority to make a judgement and decide whether what was said was offensive in the first place and to the extent of punishment in the second. For this reason a great many warnings are usually given first. And it also usually happens that things are left to deteriorate until there is no doubt.
One good way of ensuring that any punitive action is reasonable is to spread the judgement over a number of people. A board rather than a single person.
If we are to believe the Wizzes, and I can see no reason why we should not, this was a joint decision between them as to taking action and the extent of it. We are also told that plenty of warnings were issued first.
It is unfortunate that the appearance of a visitor should be broadcast as it might result in a life ban from the game. However there is not a shred of evidence, that I can see, that this was the player who was banned. It could easily be some malicious person pretending to be him to cause more trouble.
I can see the guest facility being withdrawn. I think this is a left over from the time we were charged to play and it enabled a visitor to have a taste of a very restricted game free of charge. In two and a half years the only guests I have come across are seasoned players having ?a bit of fun? in the Tearoom. The loss of guest facility would not be the end of the world but it would be a shame.
There was also a suggestion these problems encountered in this MUD are continuing in BL. If this has happened it is totally wrong. We must confine our own feuds and vendettas here and not transfer them to other MUDs.
Lastly no one is allowed to write a longer thread than me!
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 26-11-2009 12:19
I agree to an extent that it is the victim's role to decide what is and isn't abusive. However the possibility also needs to be considered that the victim is too easily offended, or that they really just dislike the person and act offended at everything they say.
For example, there have been players in the past (I won't mention names) who have been offended by the concept of pking, believing it to be akin to murdering someone in real life, or believing it to be against their religion. I do not believe such cases should be taken seriously or result in punishment for the so-called offensive person. So in any abusive situation I think two factors need to be considered: 1. Was someone offended? 2. Was their offense reasonable?
Obviously as you said, defining "reasonable" is never going to be easy, because that is subjective. However I think generally the cases which become problems revolve around things that are widely accepted as being offensive e.g. racist remarks, excessive swearing/insults, RL threats, etc.
|
Shantigh
friar
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 84
From: Firkins
| Posted: 26-11-2009 12:34
I don't think a structure goes against what it means to be a wiz. I feel it helps rather than hinders them, especially where a player may feel personally agrieved or feel that a wiz is biased against them, being able to go 'by the book' is a bonus, they can still choose to a degree to treat things as case by case, but when it comes down to it - being able to show you aren't carrying out a personal vengeance is paramount.
Now, to back that up - I don't feel that anything here was personal, nor do I think it was incorrect to punish the player. However - many things in the past have been taken personally, and in fact on a number of occassions there has been biases.
And poppycock, that this isn't the type of game to expect customer service. For those among us who paid to play (when it was a monthly subscription!), certainly we demand, not just expect a level of customer service. And until they remove the paypal donate notice from the site, there should be a level of customer service to do otherwise is simply unprofessional.
Terms and conditions are a way of life nowadays on the net, and I do think updates should be agreed to. It's simple common courtesy. I personally find it highly unprofessional that we don't get a choice on agreeing or disagreeing to any changes, however minor, are made to the terms and conditions.
I also agree with Royston that the game is not a democracy, however - if any game wishes to keep a player base, they have to treat their players with respect, and that includes any and all disciplinary action. If they fail to do that, people will leave, and without the players, the game dies. So not a democracy, but still beholden to the players.
There is more that I forgot to mention in the early hours (apologies Royston, I may out type you yet!)
What counts as breaking the ''rules'' is subjective, as Royston says. But players should not be left guessing at what is or not allowed. And I feel it's not good enough to expect players to just know better. I agree that the majority should, but you make rules and guidelines so there can be no errors in what constitutes ill behaviour.
Now, somewhere in the rules there are remarks on what counts as bad behaviour, I think this need to be fleshed out and included within a disciplinary structure. It needn't be a nit-picking list, but something that covers most of the bases, such as:
--> Excessive Swearing
----- In this case I mean things like ''f'' words, ''c'' words etc. I personally do not count hell, damn, piss, bloody or bugger as swearing, and at least on the game I play (which is aimed at children under 10 to pensioners) - these are allowed. We'll see if MUD's forum filters remove any of the ones I've typed. For the most part, swearing is very low on MUD so excessive swearing is obvious.
--> Bullying.
----- This is probably one of the most subjective, but again, it's usually fairly blatant. Even when done in what a player thinks is a subtle manner, most people spot.
--> Provocation, ''Trolling''
----- Another subjective one, but again usually easy to spot. It's usually not an isolated incident and when things are said to upset (come under bullying) or provoke anger, then while the person reacting may end up in the wrong (Excessive swearing or abuse) - the person who manipulated the event shouldn't get off without a similar warning, it takes two to tango after all.
--> Abuse
----- And another one which can be subjective, as often it can be done in a subtle way (which also comes under bullying). But again, normally quite blatant.
--> Cheating
----- Loobying, Intentional suicides to gain points and Multilining are probably the only real cheating methods. I think it would be in the best interests of the game to have these included in some form of disciplinary. Granted few folk actually play, but it's still required reading for all players, since some still seem to be ignorant or cheat because there is no structure in place and know they'll only get a warning. Cheating isn't subjective, therefore can be dealt with reasonably harshly, and should be, especially with players who know better. This includes returning players who do it.
----- A point on multilining - a definition should be modernised. Thesedays people don't multiline in the days of dial up. And nowadays it's normal for players to talk on MSN, because hey, I'll share some of my embarassing tales, but when I want to talk to a friend, as a friend - I tend to do on MSN, not MUD. There's also the issue of two people playing in the same room, which I do with Tanis on occassion and I'm sure others do. The point should be made that multilining would be classed as getting help in the game when your character was unable to ask for help within the game world - e.g asking a deaf persona to help you, trying to ask for help while mute etc. It's fairly obvious, but again - it should be noted somewhere, so it's possible to refer to it.
A list of these things would be useful under a heading of what can get you banned/disciplined on mud. It needn't have long descriptions, the headings alone should be good enough. And while much is subjective, at least when wizards (note plural, as I feel no one wizard should be responsible for decision making) agree that something is wrong, they can point a player at this, explain what they did wrong, and back it up with the set down guidelines/procedure/whatever.
As for guesting, I still see a reason for it. Until the site is able to produce immediate accounts (rather than the current 24 hour wait) then guests are required. Of course the Java client is broken and really makes it impossible for guests (And possibly even logged in accounts) play since it doggedly displays the login screen covering all the text. Guesting is useful for players who have forgot details to get in touch with admins as well, and I would feel is certainly quicker than an email. So for the moment, I'd say guesting is still something the game needs - until accounts can be made instantly, even then, it's still a useful tool.
I do think MUD and it's wizards would benefit from having guidelines/a system for disciplinary action. At the moment it is very easy for someone to view things as biased, and to stress again, for a game asking for money - there has to be a level of customer care. And while the game is unlikely to be making money, it was a business, and I believe is still likely registered as such, and therefore should have a professional way of dealing with problems. And when you have a professional way of dealing with problems you don't get nearly as much trouble as what this has caused.
|
royston
ranger
Joined: Jul 14, 2007
Posts: 1217
From: Felixstowe, Suffolk.
| Posted: 26-11-2009 12:37
Quote:
|
Obviously as you said, defining "reasonable" is never going to be easy,
|
|
'Reasonable' frequently crops up in English Law. One famous judge, asked by a jury to define a 'reasonable man', said it was a man travelling outside (i.e. upstairs) on a Clapham Omnibus.
_________________
|
Shantigh
friar
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 84
From: Firkins
| Posted: 26-11-2009 12:44
On the context of abuse and over sensitive victims. If it's done once and it upsets someone, fair enough, you learn that's what presses their buttons, to do it twice could almost be given the benefit of the doubt, to do it again after that - then it is abuse, because once can be a loss of temper, twice can be forgetful, three times is usually done just to harass/abuse/stress/upset a player and comes under bullying. It's not rocket science, nor is it that subjective when behaviour repeats, as I said in my above post, regardless of how subtle the bully/abuser thinks they are being, they are usually not very subtle at all.
Disliking someone and acting offended at things they say isn't usually done. At least not in my experience, usually because the players do have common sense, and don't tend to put up with it. Someone will call them on it. Of course, often the reason for dislike ties into some form of bad behaviour on the game.
So in abusive situations I think it becomes pretty obvious what it is. They don't tend to be unique events, and the trend can be spotted. And as long as a player is doing something to purposefully upset someone - that counts as abuse.
|
Shantigh
friar
Joined: Aug 27, 2001
Posts: 84
From: Firkins
| Posted: 26-11-2009 13:06
An additional act of wrong-doing to add to a list that should be included next to a set of disciplinary procedures:
--> Sharing Game Secrets
----- Yes, us old MUD players know that sharing is wrong. It ruins the mystique of the game, and the game has so few puzzles (in comparison to other MUDs, MMORPGs) - that even sharing a few major ones can spoil a lot of fun and exploration for a new player. However, there are things that do get shared, and I think at least some sort of write-up should be made.
As a rule of the thumb, back in the days of ERM, we would share the low level secrets (how to make protector, how to make warrior) - after they had already made those levels through gameplay. So they got the thrill of making the level first, then the ease of getting there quickly again. For things like glowing, we tended to direct them to the area and tell them to read things and have a guess at what to do. We would provide hints and tips, but never straight out secrets. For instance one of the fun parts of helping newbies was sending them to a certain island to read a sign to learn a task. A lot died, but then they made the persona back up again, and gave it a bash.
Now back under Wireplay that system was ran without any issues. We had a healthy number of newbies, and a reasonable return rate. I kept a notebook of all newbies I'd dealt with, and between Astral and I, we'd do shifts on helping them.
Now the point of this long wandering post is - newbies return under that amount of help, and it should be discouraged for the sharing outright of secrets. And examples should be given. These can be alluded to so that older players know what is being said, and new players remain in the dark. Such as saying, teaching someone who to complete areas solo - should be left for them to figure out themselves.
In my experience, newbies flourished better under guidance than outright sharing. There was a bigger sense of achievement present, and they felt they'd done things, not just done what they were told to do.
|
Samson
friar
Joined: Oct 28, 2006
Posts: 105 | Posted: 26-11-2009 13:12
Leak has had all kind of warnings and words of advice from mortals and wizzes but has pushed the boundaries too far too many times. MUD has a history of being family friendly, stemming back to the days of paid to pay on BT.
I dislike 'rules' as every circumstance is different, something said at 11pm on a Saturday night between adults should not be treated the same as the same thing being said at 5pm when it is possible one of the players is a child.
As others have said, most of us actually like Leak, I just wish he'd behave the same as he would if we were in the same room in real life! Perhaps others could take this on board too...
|
Gadget
friar
Joined: Dec 08, 2001
Posts: 88 | Posted: 26-11-2009 14:01
Quote:
|
As for guesting, I still see a reason for it. Until the site is able to produce immediate accounts (rather than the current 24 hour wait) then guests are required.
|
|
Not sure there's a 24 hour wait for new accounts, it seems to be pretty instant.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 26-11-2009 14:05
Well I did say removal of guests *and* addition of instant account creation on login.
The current system is theoretically instant, but it is not very obvious to a newbie (the link is in tiny font on the website), and it depends on the end user receiving an email, which is subject to all the normal delays involved with emails.
|
blib
explorer
Joined: Jan 01, 2007
Posts: 533
From: N.London (just)
| Posted: 26-11-2009 17:52
While we're at it, can we ban Armand too?
_________________
Fleeing is for wimps !
|
Magician
cleric
Joined: Mar 27, 2005
Posts: 160 | Posted: 26-11-2009 19:56
Not much been happening then? <G>
|
Angkor
pilgrim
Joined: Jan 30, 2004
Posts: 28 | Posted: 30-11-2009 05:12
"something said at 11pm on a Saturday night between adults should not be treated the same as the same thing being said at 5pm when it is possible one of the players is a child."
Your 11pm on a Saturday night in the UK, half way across the world from me, is a time when a child is likely to be playing in my time zone. Please don't fall into the same trap that Americans do by thinking that there is one place that is the centre of the universe.
|
Armand
explorer
Joined: Nov 20, 2006
Posts: 532 | Posted: 30-11-2009 13:14
That was just an example to illustrate his point. We can modify it slightly so that it is still valid: something said between adults should not be treated the same as the same thing being when one of the players is a child.
|
|
