Search results for query: *

Could you clarify for other server owners what constitutes as racism or homophobia? Obsviously stuff like ‘kill the <race, religion>’ falls under that category but is a username of say Hitler allowed? What about something like ‘**** hitler?’ Less hated persons who some might argue committed horrible acts like ‘kaiser wilhelm’ or ‘erdogan?’ Any dictator for that matter?

Messages supporting the nazis or slavery is clear but what about messages supporting other controversial topics? British empire for those who are strongly anti-colonialism? Ottoman empire? They did afterall commit genocide. What about the soviet union who also committed horrible acts?

The list goes on and on and while some are clear, could you clarify the grey areas. Many thanks.

Duh said:

Just to make sure we are on the same page. This is not my decision to make. It is TaleWorlds' policy. I have previously stated that I don't mind (reasonable/whitelisted) cosmetics.

Click to expand...

I completely understand that and I don't write this to attack or argue with you personally in any way. I only write it in case TW sees it and might reconsider.

Your idea about a whitelisted list of cosmetics btw is kinda what I mean about a case by case system. You could issue a blanket ban and tell us, if you want to be able to continue giving donators skins etc., prove to us it doesn't affect gameplay and you're not making a profit off it. That way if donations really are that important to a servers' survival, they'll make the effort to apply.

Thanks for replying. I think we can agree that its not speculative that hosters will get less donations if they can't give skins etc. in return. I don't really see why you would want to do this just to ban cosmetics. It seems a bit extreme.


[/quote]

H E R O O F T H E I M P E R I U M said:

Are you people like 15 or something? Servers don't cost that much. The vast majority of any Warband servers have been maintained without any major donations, and/or they have been run by a group of people who split the costs. This really isn't a big deal.

Click to expand...

'Oh I've seen this server or that server survive without donations' again. TW is arguing that cosmetics and welcome messages are affecting gameplay to such an extent that you may not receive them in return for donations. You choose to instead call me childish for arguing that server hosters should be able to try to cover their costs? This surprises me a bit.

'Servers don't cost that much.' Well cosmetics and welcome messages don't affect gameplay that much, very little in fact. Me arguing this point warrants a reply from you, but I am somehow '15' for replying to TW's argument for their point?

Anyways the mods have said we are free to discuss it here, and that they'll respond to us. I'm glad for that. Shows they at least want to have dialogue with us. Only person who takes issue with having a discussion here seems to be you.

You've said not to use inflammatory languages but you've seem to not reply to me when I made it a point to be civil and replied to the rather more aggressive ones.

I get you guys have a lot of work to do so may have miss it. I'll just repeat my questions here, have you considered that going as far as cosmetics and welcome messages is locking less well off people from hosting servers? The mod above says the policy is to combat pay to win but cosmetics and welcome messages do not fall into this catagory?

If they do not make a profit off it, is it really fair to prevent them from trying to cover their costs when it is not pay to win? Why then not use a case by case system? I get the argument of 'oh I've seen this server or that server survive without donations,' but it comes back to the owner having more money to spare. Should there really be a disadvantage to less well off server owners?

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to read and reply to this. Could you help clarify something?

I get that the spirit in which this policy is being rolled out is that less well off people shouldn't have any disadvantages on any server. In going as far as cosmetics, however, aren't you risking locking out those very same people from hosting servers? i.e. from now on, are only affluent individuals going to be able to host servers?

Its clear that TW meant well with this policy but could you clarify why this is ok?

I get that if donators were getting stat advantages or the server owner was making ludicrous amounts of money, it'd be a problem but for some servers at least, the donations doesn't even cover the running costs and you only get cosmetics in return. Isn't a case by case system better then? In fact what even is the downsides to a case by case system? why is TW against it?

Thanks again for taking the time to read and reply to this.