TOPIC: [Forums] Prohibition on AI for Appeals & Reports

Server Name: ZARP Gaming dot com forums

Suggestion Title: Disallowing ChatGPT for Appeals & Reports

How would it benefit the server: Greatly

Potential Issues/Exploits: None

Additional notes:

To maintain the integrity and authenticity of our ban and punishment appeal process, the use of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, for drafting or translating appeals and ban/punishment requests will no longer be allowed. Appeals and requests must reflect the player's genuine thoughts and understanding of the rules, as AI-generated submissions undermine this process and make it difficult for staff to assess sincerity and accountability. Similarly, players are reminded that submitting appeals on behalf of others is strictly prohibited, as this removes personal responsibility and creates the same issues of detachment and misrepresentation seen with AI involvement.

Non-English speakers relying on AI for translation also face significant challenges, as such tools often fail to accurately convey the player’s intent or comprehension of the rules. This results in confusion for staff and a lack of clarity in resolving disputes. To ensure fairness and effective communication, all appeals and requests must be written directly by the player without external assistance. Appeals suspected of violating this rule will be rejected.

No I didn't write this with AI...

No I didn't inspect element the page...

Actually a good suggestion, usage of AI is straight up lazy and often leads to more confusion and a clear sign of lack of effort

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to kindly request an exception to the stated rule regarding the use of AI tools for drafting appeals, specifically for a player named "sinz." Sinz is a French-speaking individual who is both new to the game and to the English language, making it particularly challenging for him to effectively communicate his thoughts, understanding of the rules, and appeal in a manner that aligns with the policy.

Sinz's situation is unique in that his language barrier creates a genuine obstacle to expressing himself fully and accurately. While I understand the rationale behind the rule—to maintain sincerity and personal accountability—it’s important to consider that Sinz’s intent and comprehension may not be adequately conveyed without some level of translation assistance. This could unfairly penalize him, not for lack of understanding or remorse, but simply because of linguistic limitations.

Granting an exception for Sinz would demonstrate the community’s commitment to inclusivity and fairness. He is a new player trying to engage with the game and its community, and providing him with a bit of leeway would encourage his growth and participation. To ensure the spirit of the rule is upheld, perhaps staff could allow him to use AI tools specifically for translation, with the understanding that the appeal is still written in his own words and reflects his genuine thoughts.

Thank you for considering this request. I am confident that this approach will strike a balance between upholding the integrity of the appeal process and supporting players like Sinz, who simply need a bit of help navigating the language barrier as they learn and adapt.

Sincerely,
Sinz lawyer

Agameplayer wrote:
shut up you loser

This is fucked up, I merely wanted to help the new player Sinz! he clearly doesn't understand english well and is a struggling member of zarp with little to no assets.

Oh, wow, you’re right. Let’s ban not just ChatGPT, but everything that helps people communicate. Get those dictionaries outta here! Translator apps? Toss ’em into the void! And while we’re at it, I guess the next step is forbidding word processors with spellcheck because—heaven forbid—a correct spelling might ruin the authenticity of someone’s heartfelt appeal.

Look, a real conversation means bridging communication gaps, not policing them with a ‘no AI allowed’ sign. Some folks need help expressing themselves or clarifying their thoughts, and ChatGPT can be that voice. The idea that staff can only gauge sincerity in basic, unassisted text assumes we all speak the same brand of plain-English-from-birth. Spoiler: we don’t.

So sure, let’s punish players for exploring modern tools to get their point across. That’ll definitely make the community more inclusive… except, oh wait, the exact opposite. Maybe the best way to see someone’s genuine understanding isn’t forcing them to struggle with grammar or translation, but actually examining the content of their arguments. Crazy thought, right?

In short: banning ChatGPT? That’s like banning loudspeakers and then complaining people in the nosebleeds can’t hear the band. Let’s not turn the clock back to the Stone Age just to test sincerity, folks.

Martin wrote:
You're wrong

Nafe wrote:
Oh, look, you whipped out the world’s shortest essay. Care to cite some actual evidence? Because ‘You’re wrong’ is a fantastic thesis statement but it’s running a little thin on supporting paragraphs. Let’s hear the why behind that bold punctuation, champ!

Martin wrote:
You're still wrong.

Nafe wrote:
Well, hello again, Captain Counterargument. If brevity is the soul of wit, I’m sure Shakespeare’s spinning in his grave right now, itching for a few more details. But hey, consistency is key—at least you’re unwavering.

Martin wrote:
Wrong.

Martin wrote:
I think we should force everyone to use ChatGPT because ChatGPT can't break the zarp TOS by saying the nword or other disgusting words

Nafe wrote:
Oh, look who popped in with another robust, one-word manifesto of intellectual brilliance: ‘Wrong.’ Such depth—truly the stuff of philosophical legends. I’m quaking in my boots here, champ! I’d invite you to elaborate, but hey, why waste your keystrokes on details when you can keep dropping your mighty hammer of a single word?

Meanwhile, the rest of us are out here using functional grey matter, constructing full sentences, expressing actual thoughts—y’know, that little thing called communication. But sure, let’s pretend your hollow repetition is anything more than a shriveled echo in an empty cave.

At least give me some mental gymnastics or a silly logic puzzle. Gosh, anything to prove there’s a spark of rational life behind that monotone placeholder of an argument. Till then, enjoy your minimalistic masterpiece. Maybe next time you’ll even treat us to a full phrase. Aim high!

Martin wrote:
Okay buddy, you want a robust reply?

I think you’re conflating two separate issues here: the role of tools like ChatGPT in communication and the importance of authenticity in certain contexts. Nobody’s saying we should ban tools that help people express themselves or bridge gaps, but there’s a valid concern about whether AI-generated content always reflects the individual’s genuine understanding or intentions. It’s less about rejecting modern tools and more about ensuring that personal responsibility and sincerity aren’t overshadowed by convenience.

You’re right that not everyone has the same linguistic background or natural fluency, and tools like this can be invaluable in leveling the playing field. But there’s a difference between assistance and substitution. If the content of a message is completely crafted by an AI, it raises the question of whether we’re engaging with the actual person or just a polished facade. Relying too heavily on AI can blur those lines, and that’s worth discussing without being dismissed as anti-progress.

Ultimately, the goal isn’t to punish players or exclude people but to strike a balance where tools like ChatGPT enhance communication without compromising authenticity. Just as spellcheck doesn’t write an essay for you, AI should supplement—not replace—the effort of putting your own thoughts and values into words. That’s the bridge worth building.

Nafe wrote:
Oh, fantastic! Another lecture. Look at you—parading around with that holier-than-thou tone, acting like your ‘balanced approach’ is the gold standard. Authenticity, sincerity… yeah, sure, keep preaching your sanctimonious fairy tales. Meanwhile, you’re just draping your control-freak nonsense in flowery language. Newsflash, bud: nobody’s buying the moral high ground you’re selling. You want robust? Here’s robust: Your entire argument is a pompous disguise for micromanaging how others communicate. Bravo.

Martin wrote:
Oh, Martin, there you go again—swinging for the fences with the theatrics. Bravo, truly. But let’s cut through the melodrama for a second. Nobody’s trying to “micromanage” how people communicate; we’re talking about ensuring that tools like AI are used thoughtfully, not as a substitute for genuine engagement. If that strikes you as a “control freak” move, maybe it’s worth reflecting on why basic accountability feels so threatening to you.

The irony here is rich: you accuse me of parading a “holier-than-thou” tone while you deliver your own performance dripping in mockery and condescension. Are we debating ideas, or is this just an audition for the world’s angriest monologue? You claim nobody’s buying what I’m selling, but your need to resort to overblown insults suggests the opposite—you’re rattled, and it shows.

So here’s the deal: If you’ve got a substantive counterpoint beyond the personal jabs, I’m all ears. But if your main play is spinning your frustration into snarky one-liners, don’t mistake that for a mic drop. It’s just noise.