The Morality of Item Giveaways and Raffles:

thefabricant

Just recently I saw the following discussion which raised some concerns for me:


Whilst the discussion there raised some interesting points, I have my own concerns which are a little bit different. Now item Giveaways and Raffles have been in the community for a very long time and come in various forms, here are some examples.

• A player does a giveaway on YouTube where commenting on the video enters you into a Raffle.
  
• A player does a giveaway on Twitch where commenting a specific word enters you into a Raffle.
  
• A player does a giveaway on Twitch where commenting a specific word enters you into a Raffle, on the condition that you are subscribed.
  
• A player does a Raffle on their platform of choice where paying X amount of AD enters them into the Raffle for the item or code.
  
• A player does a Raffle on their platform of choice where paying X amount of real world money enters them into the Raffle for the item or code.
  

Now my concern is this. All of these different types of Giveaways and Raffles indirectly act as a method to launder either real world money or AD and definitely constitute as "buying views." The first and second type of giveaway are the least morally grey, as the only money that is going to the person doing the giveaway is through any ad revenue they receive. The 4th is slightly more grey, as players are still "paying" for the item, but it is still in the form of AD and not real money. The 3rd and the 5th however are in my opinion the most ethically questionable, because for someone to win the item, they have to essentially pay for it. This in my opinion falls into the realm of real money trading.

If it does constitute real world money trading in the form of money laundering, then this is a violation of section 11.2 m of the game's terms of service which clearly states the following:

Neverwinter Terms of Service said:

11.2 Without limiting the foregoing, in addition to the User Content rules set forth in Section 16, you agree not to take any of the following actions:
m. trade, sell, auction or otherwise transfer any virtual items or goods of any nature outside the game;

Some games with similar policies do in fact treat in game item giveaways done via Twitch streams or YouTube as real money trading, here is an example.

Others like BDO for example, do not. What is important here though is not how other games handle it, but how NW handles it and in my opinion, it should be something that is clarified in the form of a giveaway policy. There are a fairly large number of NW content creators who do actively do this and whether or not it is something which is classified as RMT is something which should be known up front, as if I was to do something similar, I would not want to risk my account in the process.

zimxero

This is all up to Cryptic policy, or lack thereof...

IMO, anything that promotes the monetary success of the game is good as long as:

It does not devalue gameplay or currency.
It does not involve any monetary transactions.
No game exploits, hacking, or gold selling activities are occurring.
It does not involve cryptic unless they are in control or providing express consent.

sandukutupu

I don't stream but I do give-aways and there is a party planned for October. Here is a plausible scenario; what if, a streamer attends my party and invites only people who subscribed to his channel? While my party is open to the public, his membership would get insight to a player hosted event and thus indirectly benefit from the knowledge. Another possibility would be the player who is hosting a party contacts the streamer who attends and streams the give-away event. The party host is just looking for people to attend. So who would they blame in such a fashion? Sounds like the trolley question from Ethics 101.

micky1p00

I would say it is an ethics questions in many ways.

On one hand there is no harm in someone wanting to thanks subscribers by doing subs only giveaway or even increase the subs by enticing more people. On the other it is something easy to abuse, by de-facto RMT, "weekly subs only rank 15 giveaway" and in practice this is selling game items.

Intentions are very hard to asses, one can have the best intentions, and another the opposite while doing the same actions.

I guess this is more of an issue for larger games with more money turnover for both streamers, and youtubers and the game itself. Though there is a long standing issue in NW of RMT in various means (and so there is no misunderstanding I'm not accusing streamers or youtubers).

plasticbat

sandukutupu said:

I don't stream but I do give-aways and there is a party planned for October. Here is a plausible scenario; what if, a streamer attends my party and invites only people who subscribed to his channel? While my party is open to the public, his membership would get insight to a player hosted event and thus indirectly benefit from the knowledge. Another possibility would be the player who is hosting a party contacts the streamer who attends and streams the give-away event. The party host is just looking for people to attend. So who would they blame in such a fashion? Sounds like the trolley question from Ethics 101.

You are doing that "in game". You do not "trade, sell, auction or otherwise transfer any virtual items or goods of any nature outside the game".

duur

please give a source, because all ToS I can find don't have that article. even is I search for that whole quote. Which suggest you're using an old, outdated, version/page

Also you cut it off at a point where normally the more specifics and exceptions would be named.

And quoting an other game's mail (which is most of the time also forbidden) doesn't mean s***, it is cryptic's/PWE's rules not someone elses.

thefabricant

duur said:

please give a source, because all ToS I can find don't have that article. even is I search for that whole quote. Which suggest you're using an old, outdated, version/page

@duur Here. It also states this.

Arc Terms of Service said:

Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. (“PWE”) would like to thank you for visiting our website. This document contains the terms and conditions (“Terms”) for governing your access to, and use of, the PWE Website located at www.arcgames.com (or any subsequent URL which may replace it) and all officially associated websites and micro-sites, mobile sites and subdomains of such sites (collectively, the “Website”), any games and game platforms, clients or servers operated by PWE through the Website or otherwise supported by PWE on the Website (the “Games”), and all features, functions, software and services offered through this Website. The Website, the Games and the features, functions, software and services offered through this Website collectively constitute the “Service.”

Which incidentally, includes Neverwinter. Its in section 11, user conduct.

micky1p00

Bottom of the forums:

https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms



Though if we talk about ToS, I would say this is the more relevant part:

duur

micky1p00 said:

Bottom of the forums:

https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms



Though if we talk about ToS, I would say this is the more relevant part:

If you clicked on it, you see there is no 11.2 there... so Sharpedge/thefabricant must be referring to an other document.

thefabricant

duur said:

micky1p00 said:

Bottom of the forums:

https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms



Though if we talk about ToS, I would say this is the more relevant part:

If you clicked on it, you see there is no 11.2 there... so Sharpedge/thefabricant must be referring to an other document.

duur

thefabricant said:

<

If I click on that ToS button/link on the bottom, it shows "11. Location Data" with only an 11.1 as sub item, no 11.2 as in your quote. Which is something completely else then you say. And in your first post you called it the T.o.S. so I looked there...

this is article 11 there


If you are going to be a rule enforcer, use the right quotations, because, if you don't your whole story is irrelevant to the rules sections you quote, because those don't exist.

thefabricant

duur said:

thefabricant said:

<

If I click on that ToS button/link on the bottom, it shows "11. Location Data" with only an 11.1 as sub item, no 11.2 as in your quote. Which is something completely else then you say. And in your first post you called it the T.o.S. so I looked there...

this is article 11 there


If you are going to be a rule enforcer, use the right quotations, because, if you don't your whole story is irrelevant to the rules sections you quote, because those don't exist.

You can see in the picture I posted they very much are there, it is the exact same url as the 1 in your picture. I also cleared my cache and checked again, it is still very much there. I also checked in another browser. You will probably find that depending on the country you live in, its put in a different section, because different countries will have different terms. I imagine if you live in the EU or California, there will be additional sections on Privacy. The section name is, "User Content," so go and look for that. I was even kind enough to ask someone in the EU to check for you, in your case it should be section 15.2m.

Furthermore, that rule is stated in multiple places with different wordings, I just picked the shortest one which illustrates the same point. If you want another example, you could go with section 19.1 as @micky1p00 pointed out as well, which says the same thing, or section 20.2 (or whatever it is called in your country) which is along similar lines. Here is a screenshot of that, for your convenience.

duur

19. Hyperlinks
20. Mobile Software

are shown to me.

This means one thing... referring to "the ToS" can't be done. Because with all these variables, you can't say one or one of the others is true.

A nasty technicallity.
(the ToS I get shown is from "Perfect World Publishing BV" My guess yours (and others) could be from other legal entities)

thefabricant

duur said:

19. Hyperlinks
20. Mobile Software

are shown to me.

This means one thing... referring to "the ToS" can't be done. Because with all these variables, you can't say one or one of the others is true.

A nasty technicallity.

It should be section 15.2 if you live in California, the EU or the UK. My original quotation that is.

thefiresidecat

well someone has to make money off the game. if it's not actually neverwinter it might as well be people who stand infront of a webcam and read the tool tips to people who can't read.

micky1p00

duur said:

19. Hyperlinks
20. Mobile Software

are shown to me.

This means one thing... referring to "the ToS" can't be done. Because with all these variables, you can't say one or one of the others is true.

A nasty technicallity.
(the ToS I get shown is from "Perfect World Publishing BV" My guess yours (and others) could be from other legal entities)

Just use a search, you will find the same paragraphs if under some different enumeration. Enumeration in this case is not relevant, and I don't see the point to argue if it's numbered 20 or 19 or 15, as long as the text match, and the is all there if you just do a text search.

duur

thefabricant said:

duur said:

19. Hyperlinks
20. Mobile Software

are shown to me.

This means one thing... referring to "the ToS" can't be done. Because with all these variables, you can't say one or one of the others is true.

A nasty technicallity.

It should be section 15.2 if you live in California, the EU or the UK. My original quotation that is.

But you pointed in your first quote to article 11 which has in some versions not even a 11.2 sub.. and the m: you used was even from a total different article, but the quote connects it with article 11. That makes the quote as argument not really strong, more or less reduced it to a level of "look see me quoting stuff".

And that was what caused me to reply.

And second, content creators have an completely different contract with the publisher too (with their own rules of conduct)
Also creators are given those codes by a person that represents the company, with the special task to give them away. (again, under an extra set of rule for the content creators), that part alone implies consent.

On top of whatever other (game)developers do, have rules, those have zero connections with what this set of game, creator, publisher say or do.

If you start trying to use rules to get your vision enforced, start with making sure you have all info, and especially be extreme careful with partial quotes.

thefabricant

duur said:

<
But you pointed in your first quote to article 11 which has in some versions not even a 11.2 sub.. and the m: you used was even from a total different article, but the quote connects it with article 11. That makes the quote as argument not really strong, more or less reduced it to a level of "look see me quoting stuff".

And that was what caused me to reply.

What matters is the content, not the enumeration. The content is there regardless of what country you happen to live in, when I originally made the post I just forgot that GDPR happens to exist and is stuck in there if you live in certain jurisdictions. I don't happen to live in a country where it applies and you know, countries that have it (like the Netherlands in your case I suspect), don't happen to be the only countries that exist in the world.

duur said:

And second, content creators have an completely different contract with the publisher too (with their own rules of conduct)
Also creators are given those codes by a person that represents the company, with the special task to give them away. (again, under an extra set of rule for the content creators), that part alone implies consent.

On top of whatever other (game)developers do, have rules, those have zero connections with what this set of game, creator, publisher say or do.

If you start trying to use rules to get your vision enforced, start with making sure you have all info, and especially be extreme careful with partial quotes.

Sure they do, but this is not a post specifically only about giveaways of codes. For example, if you give away items you acquired in game through farming, they would not have been given to you with the express purpose of being given away. There are people who are doing this, both those who are part of the content creator program and those who are not.

Furthermore, lets say you did a giveaway of a code handed to you by a developer on Patreon, only available to people who have paid and have access to the prerequisite tier. This is very clearly a trade of money for the code, because if nobody pays to have access to that tier, then the code will not be given away.

All I am asking is, for a clarification of these rules so that everyone knows what is allowed and what is not. I fully expect that giveaways are allowed, but right now it falls into a grey area because it is very clear that it can be used as a method to RMT and there is nothing stating that it is outside of that.

jaegernl

You know what my favourite keyboard shortcut is? Ctrl + F. It really saves on arguing.

micky1p00

duur said:

And second, content creators have an completely different contract with the publisher too (with their own rules of conduct)

This is not correct. Participation in the Content Creators Program has some additional rules, as conditions to participate in the program, and do not supersede the games ToS. Other streamers, crators, etc.. are not bound by those additional rules and free to do whatever in the game as limited per the ToS.

Here it is:
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/neverwinter/#/discussion/1252413/content-creator-program-rules-of-conduct

And the first thing there is:

There is also relevant part at the end, but I don't want to spam screenshots here.

duur said:

Also creators are given those codes by a person that represents the company, with the special task to give them away. (again, under an extra set of rule for the content creators), that part alone implies consent.

This indeed implies permission, and while the ToS requires explicit and not implicit permission, this will be nitpicking as it is obvious the codes are meant to be given away. This is not the question at all.
The question is the return for said giveaway.

For easier framing, lets frame this in the following way:
Are we allowed, as players, to make raffles to paying patrons only. (via patreon site for example)
For even easier concept, lets remove the codes as those not really relevant, and take personal items, lets say some enchantments or legendary pack or whatever, bought by the player in game.

duur said:

On top of whatever other (game)developers do, have rules, those have zero connections with what this set of game, creator, publisher say or do.

If you start trying to use rules to get your vision enforced, start with making sure you have all info, and especially be extreme careful with partial quotes.

I don't see anyone enforcing anything. The only one who can enforce are ofc the devs (in general, if it's PWE, Cryptic or whomever). No forum post stops anyone from doing any giveaway. Nor any players have any 'power' to force anything, only opinions, discussions and interpretations.

sandukutupu

I am not here to enforce any rules, but you are on the wrong page @duur because I clicked those links and 11.2 subsection m states;
11.2 Without limiting the foregoing, in addition to the User Content rules set forth in Section 16, you agree not to take any of the following actions:
m. trade, sell, auction or otherwise transfer any virtual items or goods of any nature outside the game

The page you are showing in the screen shot is their privacy policy.

Have fun!

duur

sandukutupu said:

I am not here to enforce any rules, but you are on the wrong page @duur because I clicked those links and 11.2 subsection m states;

8<

Have fun! </p>

just look to the URLs, sharpedge's and mine screen shots have the same...both show despite that different documents.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms

One is from "Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. (“PWE”)" (sharpedge's) the other from "Perfect World Publishing BV" (mine)
Which have a quite different structure and different formulations. Both are from the same URL and same link on the forum page

jaegernl

It's almost like people live in different places, where Terms of Service get ordered differently. If only we had a keyboard shortcut to see if a cited clause also applies to us.

Also, I like turtles.

plasticbat

duur said:

sandukutupu said:

I am not here to enforce any rules, but you are on the wrong page @duur because I clicked those links and 11.2 subsection m states;

8<

Have fun! </p>

just look to the URLs, sharpedge's and mine screen shots have the same...both show despite that different documents.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms

One is from "Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. (“PWE”)" (sharpedge's) the other from "Perfect World Publishing BV" (mine)
Which have a quite different structure and different formulations. Both are from the same URL and same link on the forum page

I guess we should ask which country you are living in. I (Canada), Sharpedge (South Africa), @sandukutupu (US) show the same page for

https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms

thefabricant

plasticbat said:

duur said:

sandukutupu said:

I am not here to enforce any rules, but you are on the wrong page @duur because I clicked those links and 11.2 subsection m states;

8<

Have fun! </p>

just look to the URLs, sharpedge's and mine screen shots have the same...both show despite that different documents.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms

One is from "Perfect World Entertainment, Inc. (“PWE”)" (sharpedge's) the other from "Perfect World Publishing BV" (mine)
Which have a quite different structure and different formulations. Both are from the same URL and same link on the forum page

I guess we should ask which country you are living in. I (Canada), Sharpedge (South Africa), @sandukutupu (US) show the same page for

https://www.arcgames.com/en/about/terms

Hes living in the Netherlands or somewhere near it. Duur means expensive in Dutch (or Afrikaans, but hes not from South Africa that is for sure). The URL likely looks like that for anyone subject to GDPR laws.

micky1p00

I've PMed the EU community manager to check the links, if the privacy policy and terms of service are not mixed up.

Though if tomorrow morning I'll VPN to EU and see that it's a ctrl+f issue, that will be a waste of everyone time..

jaegernl

I have a secret for you, Janne. And it's not about turtles.

rainer

In the Netherlands/Germany the section referred to is 15.2. Took me less than a minute to find...

Not that this is the point.

Obviously the following examples are not allowed (even if x is a code btw!):
- [Twitch] First person to subscribe will get item x
- 'Donate' y to get item x
This would practically be the same as selling x for money.

The point is where is the line? Subscriber only giveaways in general, is this ok? We just need an official statement of what we can and can't do to prevent getting into trouble at some point, because right now this is very much a grey area.

thalia

It's like a local club where you buy a raffle ticket for a drawing that also supports the community club....most of this game's streamers im aware, are not streaming as a buisness as there is not much viewership to make revenue from, are building a commuity moreso than running a buisness

nova

You're part of the CCP aren't you Sharp?...
You have giveaway codes, how exactly did you go about giving your codes away? Did you ever give them away?

thefabricant

novaiidbzii#7952 said:

You're part of the CCP aren't you Sharp?...
You have giveaway codes, how exactly did you go about giving your codes away? Did you ever give them away?

I am not a part of the CCP and nor have I ever had codes to give away, but clearly you are not reading the thread. I am not disputing that codes given to you with the purpose of being given away are fine to give away. There are different ways of giving something away however and not all are equal, I am asking which methods of giving something away are fine and which are not.

thefabricant said:

Furthermore, lets say you did a giveaway of a code handed to you by a developer on Patreon, only available to people who have paid and have access to the prerequisite tier. This is very clearly a trade of money for the code, because if nobody pays to have access to that tier, then the code will not be given away.

All I am asking is, for a clarification of these rules so that everyone knows what is allowed and what is not. I fully expect that giveaways are allowed, but right now it falls into a grey area because it is very clear that it can be used as a method to RMT and there is nothing stating that it is outside of that.

Clearly there are some ways you can "give something away" which constitute as a real money trade and others which do not. All I am asking is, where is the line drawn. If nobody knows where the line is, you can step across the line without knowing it and put your account at risk. For example, if you held a "giveaway" where the first person to donate 100$ wins a mount, that almost definitely counts as RMT.

That argument can be extended towards subscriber only giveaways. If you have no subscribers and you hold a subscriber only giveaway on Twitch, the only way for someone to win it, is for someone to subscribe for you. Therefor there is a direct correlation between someone giving you money and you giving them the item. Likewise, its pretty clear that if people know that giveaways for subs only, there is an incentive for them to subscribe and as a result you can say they are "paying for a chance to win something."