Agreed Nate.

This rule needs to be simplified. There needs to be a line drawn between what is allowed, and not. Casinos are currently on the uprise, as I see a few more being created each day. Before any actions are taken against casino owners for breaking this rule it needs to become simplified as it is too vague.

+1 Nate

 

The rules say this:

Clause 2.3 - Player Run Lotteries

• Any player run lottery is disallowed and will be treated as attempted scams or actual scamming depending on the situation.
  • This includes any type of raffle or lottery that requires a buy in.

Definition on raffle:


A raffle is a gambling competition in which people obtain numbered tickets, each ticket having the chance of winning a prize. At a set time, the winners are drawn from a container holding a copy of every number. The drawn tickets are checked against a collection of prizes with numbers attached to them, and the holder of the ticket wins the prize.

Add on part about "requires buy in":

No gambling competitions in which people obtain number tickets by paying you money (for a chance to win a prize) is allowed.

How much simpler can it get?
-1

 

So you focused on the definition of a raffle in your response, yet there is two sides to this rule. The other being that it is illegal for players to run lotteries, as it is disallowed.

There are a few complete definitions for a lottery. One being "a process or thing whose success or outcome is governed by chance." Not sure about you but that sounds like these casino games we see all over the server today, including 4/9 odds, mincer roulette, ect. These games require a buy in and are completely driven and governed by chance.

I do think this rule needs a little touch-up to clarify its meaning a little more.

 

I think that the main difference is how you get the chance: if you use an in-game random generator, such as dispensers or bonemeal, it is ok, because everybody in the game can see what happens; but if you use a random number generator that is located outside of the game (like, for instance, this), then it is not ok, because there would be no way to check whether the game is fixed.
This is, I think, the difference.
If my belief is correct, then a raffle run with an in-game built random number generator (for instance, something like this) would be ok. But I'm not sure my understanding of the rule is correct.

 

Making the rules tighter isn't a problem solver. It just opens it up to more rulebending and loophole finding. The rules are already too airtight as is.

 

Totally agree (but I'm not sure my understanding was correct tbh)

Not completely true: if the dispenser isn't /cprivate'd, you have water/pyro (can access dispensers) and the town doesn't have the interaction flag set to deny (or you're a member of the town), you can. Also, there's not only dispensers to generate some randomness: for instance, I've seen bonemeal used on grass and you had to bet on the number of flowers/tallgrass that was going to be generated (can't recall correctly, was a long time ago).

 

He's not saying to make the rules tighter, he's saying to make them clearer, which they currently are not.

 

Rules are fine as they are. The administration is currently focusing on simplifying the rules, so this would go against their motives. Making the rules more dense and exact will just create more loopholes.

 

Ok, then tell me: are casinos legit, yes or no? Because for how the rules are presently, they're too vague and could mean anything. Nobody is saying to make the rules more complicated: we're saying that they should be made more clear.

 

Casinos are legit depending on the activities that they conduct. Making the rules more dense to describe what exactly constitutes as a player raffle is what I'm talking about - that will just add complexity to the rules.

 

The rules state:

ANY raffle or lottery with a buy-in that's run by players is illegal. If you want to know what a raffle is, if you don't already, I'm pretty sure a dictionary already defines that.

 

Here's the answer to "go look in a dictionary":

Which is in contrast with what you said:

Now.
Different dictionaries may give different definitions of what a raffle is. Hell, even in the same dictionary there could be multiple definitions. Which one of these different definitions is to be used when interpreting the server rule? As of now, it's not clear. "Go look into a dictionary" doesn't solve anything.
Do you see now why a more clear (not complex, clear!) and unambiguous definition of raffle is needed?
Good dear, I thought this was simple to understand.

 

As per the oxford dictionary:


As per the Marriam-Webster Dictionary:


As per the Collins Dictionary:


We can find something in common with all of these: If you're selling tickets/chances and do a draw where the winning ticket/chance wins a prize, that's a lottery - It's pretty simple to understand, really.

 

Did you read the link I provided? It shows the problems in using a dictionary to define the meaning of the words you use

 

I did - The dictionary isn't authoritative, at all. People define the words themselves, not a board of people who verify definitions on a dictionary, like they say in the link.

However, you're missing the point - Yes, dictionaries aren't the authoritative definition of words, as absolutely no one has the authority to define words by themselves. However, dictionaries are meant more or less as a reference, and when multiple renowned, major, English dictionaries share pretty much the same definitions, I can assure you that a large amount of people agree that that is the definition of a word, such as in this case, a "Raffle".

I use the Oxford Dictionary generally when making my points and looking up definitions in general because its the most well recognized, and renowned English Dictionary, and above all its accurate - Something I can use when making points.

 

I think you are missing the point. The point of the link I provided was to explain why you can't use dictionaries to make points.
And holy shit, would it be a crime against humanity to add 10 <Mod Edit> words to that rule? You're just being stubborn for the sake of being so.
Hell, you don't even need to actually add words to the rule: it would be enough to link the word "raffle" to a dictionary definition coherent with the meaning it was intended, thus specifying which particular definition is to be used.