New URL Policy Revealed - UOGuide Complies (EA Rejects) [Updated Again, long title]

[JC the Builder]

Adam on UOForums writes to inform us of the new policy on announcing website URLs in-game.

According to the powers that be, this is the policy

1) If your site has no advertisements/banners of any kind, it's OK to advertise your site in game (be it profile, guild link etc)

2) If your site has adverts, for whatever (be it brokers, flash banner ads etc), then it's NOT ok, with one exception

Apparently stratics is excluded from this, as they're on an "approved list", which no one can apply to be added to.

Even though I disagree with it, I have removed all item sales from the UOGuide website. UOGuide is now in full compliance with this new policy and can once again be mentioned in-game. Thanks to all who use and help advertise UOGuide.

--------------------------------------------------------
Update

Jeremy has replied, UOGuide still doesn't comply.

Also, JC - solicitations for cash also violate the ROC. (Solicitations for in-game gold or items would be fine, btw.)

I'm sorry, but I don't know of a web hosting company that accepts UO gold and items. This is absurd.

--------------------------------------------------------
Update 2

There has been another revision of the policy.

Ok, after several discussions between various folks of higher pay grade than me, we've hashed out the following (and yes, this will be in the FoF as well for wider distribution.)

1. Sites that sell things (any things, not necessarily UO things) for cash are definitely forbidden
2. Requests for donations are fine.
3. Ads are bad. Don't link to sites with ads.
4. Stratics is currently the only exception to #3; however, there may be more in the future. If you have an interest in being an exception, you're welcome to email me and as soon as we have a process I'll let you know what it is.

This doesn't change the whole submit-to-the-FoF process at all. I'm sure you have questions - feel free to ask them now so I can refine the version in the FoF

So UOGuide is free and clear..............for today at least.

 

[Ailish]

The policy makes good sense, except for stratics "white list" exception. Not trying to dog stratics here, but if no one else can apply for white list status, then stratics should not be allowed to have it either, in the interest of fairness.

 

[Kratos Aurion]

The policy makes good sense, except for stratics "white list" exception. Not trying to dog stratics here, but if no one else can apply for white list status, then stratics should not be allowed to have it either, in the interest of fairness.

Thats why I want EA to create an official UO forums. That way the rules apply to whatever EAs standards are and we have official mods who are/should be non-biased.

 

[Richtor Darkbane]

Thats why I want EA to create an official UO forums. That way the rules apply to whatever EAs standards are and we have official mods who are/should be non-biased.

/signed

 

[Jeremy]

It's not actually a new policy. That line in the ROC has been there for a dog's age.

 

[Flora Green]

JC I will advertise your site every chance I get in game. This whole thing really makes me mad.

 

[~Antzy~Pantz~]

Right and the crappy gm service we are provided with when one gm just chooses to abide by the rules when he/she feel like it... makes total sense to me, NOT!

 

[deadite]

Um, I wouldn't go around shouting uoguide.com just yet guys. I doubt most of the GMs keep up with JC's threads here in Uhall or check uoguide.com daily.

For all they know it still advertises. Better to wait a few weeks, if not months.

Or even better yet... how about Mythic re-opens the application process and lets folks with fan sites apply for "official fan site" status. If they abuse it by trying to sneak in item sales after getting Official status, then Mythic can ban them from the list forever and ever, amen.

 

[Jeremy]

The Stratics exclusion dates from the time when Stratics was the "official forum" and GMs would send players there for certain kinds of questions. That only changed fairly recently, and the policy hasn't been updated.

I will reiterate, though, that if you have an event you want to promote, please submit it for the FoF - you're certainly allowed to link to the official UO site in-game. (Just don't spam. I hate spam.)

 

[Hemisphere]

So, once the policy is updated then it will be an offense to mention Stratics URLs also? (since it's no longer the official forums and thus no longer exempt)

 

[AdamD]

The Stratics exclusion dates from the time when Stratics was the "official forum" and GMs would send players there for certain kinds of questions.

Was being the keyword here

I to, am not bashing stratics, but it's totally unfair to have an exception to the rule for one site because they USED to be an "official" site

Numerous sites were once "Official fansites" to, along with Stratics, but they were stripped of said title and linking to them in game is now a suspensory (sp?) offence. (IF they have any form of banner or service/items for sale)

If you're not willing to have a fansite program OR be willing to update the "safe list" of URL's, then NO site should have any exceptions or special treatment, full stop.

 

[Tomas_Bryce]

Why would you complain about the fact that Stratics is on the approved list? It would hurt only MORE players if stratics is for some reason banned from being mentioned in game. I can understand why you would not be happy about other sites, like yours not included, but arguing the other way around is simply being downright petty (even if you put a useless disclosure about not being) and nonconstructive.

And this post is made as simply a player, not a moderator.

 

[Jeremy]

Also, JC - solicitations for cash also violate the ROC. (Solicitations for in-game gold or items would be fine, btw.)

 

[Eslake]

The Stratics exclusion dates from the time when Stratics was the "official forum" and GMs would send players there for certain kinds of questions. That only changed fairly recently, and the policy hasn't been updated.

Which begs the question....

If not here, Where is the OFFICIAL forum than?

EA sure won't host one again, not after all the trouble they had with having to explain grossly contradictory statements by different members of the staff.

 

[Anjeel]

Why would you complain about the fact that Stratics is in the approved list? It would hurt only MORE players if stratics is for some reason banned from saying in game. I can understand why you would not be happy about other sites, like yours not included, but the other way around is simply being petty (even if you put a little disclosure about not being) and nonconstructive.

Also one more thing: Last time I checked stratics did not allowed sales for cash, whereas yours did.


And this post is made as simply a player, not a moderator.

Something that you moderators need to realize is that even when you are posting as "simplay a player" the fact remains that you are still a moderator. It is still fair to ask for equal treatment of fansites.

 

[Beefybone]

So basically, UO doesn't want any fansites anymore, except ones from a magical imaginary internet where bandwidth is free. Who's driving this ******** policy?

 

[JC the Builder]

Also, JC - solicitations for cash also violate the ROC. (Solicitations for in-game gold or items would be fine, btw.)

That is completely absurd. So now you are saying that people running UO fansites have to pay for it all themselves? This is a utter double-standard.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Also, JC - solicitations for cash also violate the ROC. (Solicitations for in-game gold or items would be fine, btw.)

*sighs*

So question....Can a site be promoted without mentioning the URL?

Can JC, for example, say that he "edits the UO Guide, which can be found by plugging 'uo guide' into Google?"

-Galen's player

 

[JC the Builder]

*sighs*

So question....Can a site be promoted without mentioning the URL?

Can JC, for example, say that he "edits the UO Guide, which can be found by plugging 'uo guide' into Google?"

-Galen's player

You can't mention Google because they serve advertisements.

 

[Anjeel]

So exactly how are fansites supposed to stay operational

 

[Tomas_Bryce]

Something that you moderators need to realize is that even when you are posting as "simplay a player" the fact remains that you are still a moderator. It is still fair to ask for equal treatment of fansites.

So? I am a moderator. So is he of his site.. more than that...

I am not the one asking EA to not include his site to the official list. In fact, I think it should be and its rather silly not to. That is being constructive. Asking the other way around, like he is, is being nonconstructive. You disagree? why?

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

You can't mention Google because they serve advertisements.

You definitely can't say "go to google.com."

Can you mention Google?

Oh...And by the way....While we're crucifying Jeremy here (sorry J., but I really must join the detractors on this one at least so far), I want to issue a special thanks......

To the pieces of garbage who were propagating viruses by saying it was a leaked Stygian Abyss video.

I'm pretty sure that's the ultimate source of the current strictness.

-Galen's player

 

[Anjeel]

fact is you are a moderator on this site. He is not.

His post was very constructive. Either allow fansites or not. How is that not construcive?

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

The Stratics exclusion dates from the time when Stratics was the "official forum" and GMs would send players there for certain kinds of questions. That only changed fairly recently, and the policy hasn't been updated.

I will reiterate, though, that if you have an event you want to promote, please submit it for the FoF - you're certainly allowed to link to the official UO site in-game. (Just don't spam. I hate spam.)

So hey hey hey.....Does that mean that after the Stratics Exception Clause is removed, that we can't direct people to Stratics either?

-Galen's player

 

[JC the Builder]

Oh...And by the way....While we're crucifying Jeremy here (sorry J., but I really must join the detractors on this one at least so far), I want to issue a special thanks......

To the pieces of garbage who were propagating viruses by saying it was a leaked Stygian Abyss video.

I'm pretty sure that's the ultimate source of the current strictness.

That happened like 2 years ago. Do you think that people spreading these things care if they get their temporary accounts banned? They would get suspended anyway if someone paged on them. They will just keep doing it.

 

[Cogniac]

Sadly, if this gets any more ridiculous, the solution will be to just shut down UOGuide.

 

[AirmidCecht]

I am more cornfuzzled than before.

 

[Tomas_Bryce]

His post was very constructive. Either allow fansites or not. How is that not construcive?

How does not having any site allowed helps anyone? Is that any different from "either you let me play ball or I take the ball with me"? Should not the energy and full focus be on getting other sites included in the list, instead of making life more difficult for everyone by taking out the sites already in? I dont know but maybe I am the only one who sees it that way.

 

[Jeremy]

You're welcome to advertise through the FoF - because I can vet those links before they go up and make sure there's nothing problematic. The in-game policy is strict because there's way too much potential for abuse (scams, keyloggers, shady gold sellers, etc) and we really don't want our service used to further those purposes.

Don't get me wrong - UOGuide is great, and I fully support it. But the policy is there for a number of very good reasons, and it's not likely to change.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

That happened like 2 years ago. Do you think that people spreading these things care if they get their temporary accounts banned? They would get suspended anyway if someone paged on them. They will just keep doing it.

Umm.....Dude. I'm on your side.

Call me nuts I just think that people who break the rules so badly that the authorities end up clamping down on everyone, even those of us who basically follow the rules, bear some responsibility for the crackdown.

-Galen's player

 

[Connor_Graham]

*S....I....G....H*

What's the big damn deal anyway? It's being done for the players' protection. If it's THAT important to give someone a web address, either get their ICQ# or do it in Party or Guild chat (assuming GM's can't see that). At the very least you can write it in a book and hand the book to the other person.

 

[Anjeel]

You're welcome to advertise through the FoF - because I can vet those links before they go up and make sure there's nothing problematic. The in-game policy is strict because there's way too much potential for abuse (scams, keyloggers, shady gold sellers, etc) and we really don't want our service used to further those purposes.

Don't get me wrong - UOGuide is great, and I fully support it. But the policy is there for a number of very good reasons, and it's not likely to change.

So how do you propose UOguide supports itself.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

Sadly, if this gets any more ridiculous, the solution will be to just shut down UOGuide.

No, it'll be to just never mention it in-game again, and stick to message boards and the like.

-Galen's player

 

[Anjeel]

How does not having any site allowed helps anyone? Is that any different from "either you let me play ball or I take the ball with me"? Should not the energy and full focus be on getting other sites included in the list, instead of making life more difficult for everyone by taking out the sites already in? I dont know but maybe I am the only one who sees it that way.

Not going to argue with you but thanks.

I personally think there should be fair treatment or no treatment. UO needs to just have its own official forum.

 

[Jeremy]

They can either sell ads and take donations, and advertise exclusively through out-of-game means (which I am happy to help with,) or they can find some other way to support themselves, and advertise in-game. The UOGuide staff are welcome to email me directly if they'd like to kick around some ideas.

 

[GalenKnighthawke]

You're welcome to advertise through the FoF - because I can vet those links before they go up and make sure there's nothing problematic. The in-game policy is strict because there's way too much potential for abuse (scams, keyloggers, shady gold sellers, etc) and we really don't want our service used to further those purposes.

Don't get me wrong - UOGuide is great, and I fully support it. But the policy is there for a number of very good reasons, and it's not likely to change.

Jeremy:

Is the ban on propagating URLs only? Or is it on advertising a site at all?

Let's operationalize it.

Saying "go to UOGUIDE.com" in-game is clearly NOT allowed.

But, is saying "find the UO Guide" allowed?

I am not trying to trap or trick you. Really. It's a sincere question.

-Galen's player

 

[Tomas_Bryce]

Not going to argue with you but thanks.

I personally think there should be fair treatment or no treatment. UO needs to just have its own official forum.

I think that it is in best interest of Ultima Online players to have sites like Stratics, UO Guide, etc. etc. included in the allowed list. No other alternative is good for me. I would rather have only UO Forums in the allowed site than no sites. Thats what I think.

I have no interest in arguing people who think otherwise either.

 

[Lady Michelle]

Internet providers like comcast let you build personal websites gaming sites etc ad banner free.
Call your internet provider and see what they offer you online webpage building free mail etc. Find out if they put ad banners on your webpages. the url will have your internet providers name in it. but they might have where you can change it to a domain name. You all ready pay for it monthly might as well use it.

 

[UO Relic]

It seems like the safest way to abide by all of the new policies is to NOT talk to anyone in game and never mention to anyone in RL that you play the game that way you would probably be safe from being banned

By not talking to anyone in game we could also get rid of all the dupers because if no one would talk to them to either purchase/sell items they will move onto a new game since they would have no clientele here hmm maybe that is EA's new method to rid of us dupers

 

[JC the Builder]

Internet providers like comcast let you build personal websites gaming sites etc ad banner free.
Call your internet provider and see what they offer you online webpage building free mail etc. Find out if they put ad banners on your webpages. the url will have your internet providers name in it. but they might have where you can change it to a domain name. You all ready pay for it monthly might as well use it.

The keyword there is personal. UOGuide is much too large for that.

 

[Aurelius]

They can either sell ads and take donations, and advertise exclusively through out-of-game means (which I am happy to help with,) or they can find some other way to support themselves, and advertise in-game. The UOGuide staff are welcome to email me directly if they'd like to kick around some ideas.

Since EA/Mythic seem hell bent on this damn silly policy, perhaps instead of just taking the usual "ban, suspend or abuse players who try to point other players at helpful sites", why not add a command into the client that will bring up a list of the sites you DO recommend as helpful?

That would let you vet things to your heart's content whilst still enabling people to tell others 'type ZZZZ and you'll see a list of good sites to look at outside the game'.

 

[Jeremy]

You could easily say "Visit UOGuide - see the link in the Five on Friday here!"

 

[Ash]

The keyword there is personal. UOGuide is much too large for that.

Not to mention I am sure the site uses more than basic HTML serving, meaning some sort of database to store retrieve the information and user accounts since it is built on wiki foundation, as well as active server pages, CGI, ASP and/or PERL. The only free sites I have ever seen from ISP is basic HTML only and quite limited in space.

Which means anything of the size and complexity of UOGuide would have to be on a hosted server.

 

[Ailish]

Also, JC - solicitations for cash also violate the ROC. (Solicitations for in-game gold or items would be fine, btw.)

Jeremy ... this is bad. Real bad. You have no idea what you just opened up. With that one little sentence you just "banned" everyone who says "you can get Automap "here" (automap is an approved program!!) or "go to tugsoft to get Assist" (another APPROVED application). Both of those sites "solicit" cash. On with a paypal donations button, and one with an actual price tag. You can backpedal on that how maybe those sites are "whitelisted" too ... but the fact is, recently our GMs have shown us again and again exactly how little they know of UO and how broadly they interpret these policies.

Tomas_Brice - you are missing the point. I was the first one to say that in all fairness there should be NO whitelist if there is no way to get on it. It was to elaborate exactly how unfair it is to not have that means. It would be like me saying "I have decided from today on my children will not be allowed to watch TV, no way to change my mind about this; BUT, since my 11 year old has watched TV before, she will be the exception to the rule."

Exceptions to rules only cause hard feelings and grief, especially if there is no way for anyone else to get an exception.

 

[Jeremy]

Hm, that's a good point. Obviously people can see all the links here but let me check on that.

 

[Anjeel]

Jeremy ... this is bad. Real bad. You have no idea what you just opened up. With that one little sentence you just "banned" everyone who says "you can get Automap "here" (automap is an approved program!!) or "go to tugsoft to get Assist" (another APPROVED application). Both of those sites "solicit" cash. On with a paypal donations button, and one with an actual price tag. You can backpedal on that how maybe those sites are "whitelisted" too ... but the fact is, recently our GMs have shown us again and again exactly how little they know of UO and how broadly they interpret these policies.

Tomas_Brice - you are missing the point. I was the first one to say that in all fairness there should be NO whitelist if there is no way to get on it. It was to elaborate exactly how unfair it is to not have that means. It would be like me saying "I have decided from today on my children will not be allowed to watch TV, no way to change my mind about this; BUT, since my 11 year old has watched TV before, she will be the exception to the rule."

Exceptions to rules only cause hard feelings and grief, especially if there is no way for anyone else to get an exception.

Hmm, so in all eseence UOAM and UOA should be done away with as well because they either solicit or require cash.......

Methinks policy should be revisited and possibly revised

 

[Ailish]

Hm, that's a good point. Obviously people can see all the links here but let me check on that.

Ugh. That is the problem. It ISNT obvious. There should be a static link on the Herald for approved applications. No one should be subjected to wading thru the "all EA games" KB to find approved apps.

Hmm, so in all eseence UOAM and UOA should be done away with as well because they either solicit or require cash.......

Methinks policy should be revisited and possibly revised

I hope you don't really think that is what I meant by that. I was trying to point out how people would use this broad policy to grief others via GM's who don't seem to actually know about THIS game. A GM would probably think they are illegal applications!

And yes, the second part of what you said is what I was getting at. The policy wording needs to be changed to reflect that there are approved sites. It would also be a GREAT thing if they re-opened the ability to BECOME an approved site ...

 

[Aurelius]

You could easily say "Visit UOGuide - see the link in the Five on Friday here!"

Erm... so saying "Visit UOGuide" is acceptable, whilst saying "Visit www.uoguide.com" isn't?

 

[Ailish]

Erm... so saying "Visit UOGuide" is acceptable, whilst saying "Visit www.uoguide.com" isn't?

ya ... a bit of nit-picking there, isnt it? It kinda seems like the policy should say if it has been vetted to be on the FoF then it is good to go in-game for at least that week ....

 

[Jeremy]

There is, Ailish - Under "Support", there's a "UO Pro Apps" nav item. It points directly to that KB article.