| It might frustrating and very un-Fun to be told "Patrick, Thomas, and Erin say no" because the rules aren't well-defined. With respect, the rule is well-defined: it's a walled garden, we're the gardeners, and we will prune ruthlessly. You may not like that rule, but that's our price of admission. Our rationale for it is simple: we don't want to spend our time being disciplinarians arguing with rules lawyers. I've spent most of my life on Internet message boards. I know how that conversation goes: "You didn't explicitly say that `festering pustule of a fascist` was an insult, so I am innocent of `harassing behavior.` Also, for behavior to rise to the level of harassment..." "I consider running a dictionary attack against someone else's password and then resetting it to something random to be valuable security research! How was I supposed to know that was out of bounds!?" etc, etc It's not clear to me whether or not it's 'fun' to craftily infer your internal network topology, for instance. You're always clear to ask. That one's Fun. Probing AWS' infrastructure to attempt to reconfigure that network topology, on the other hand, un-Fun -- it will get the game shut down for everyone. Your game has a global audience, so you have to assume that linguistic/cultural/whatever norms aren't shared by all your players. I am aware that we have norms which are not shared by all our players. We're going to enforce them regardless. Please make the text stand out more? Noted, I will see what I can do. |