In the chat and trade rules it says
"It is forbidden to sell or exchange in-game content (gems, codes, resources, accounts, vouchers etc...) for real money or digital goods. Any type of purchase/exchange/trade that isn't fully supported by the tools provided by blue byte is at the user's own risk. "
This is being interpreted to mean, with BB support, that it is not allowed to advertise gems or gem vouchers on g-3. The moderators are being told uphold this interpretation and to point people to the above as justification for it.
The problem is, this is NOT a correct interpretation of the above rule. It is wrong both in a literal meaning of the words and a common sense understanding of what the rule is actually trying to prevent. If moderators are to justify their blue-byte mandated moderation with reference to this rule, then the rule needs changing by Blue Byte.
First, the common sense interpretation of the rule is that it is there to prevent people making some sort of monetary profit in real life from selling things in the trade system. It is intended to keep everything totally within the game environment. For-profit trading of in-game content is well known in many other games and can be damaging. I think it is a very good thing that Blue Byte have instigated this rule.
Second, for the literal interpretation of the rule: no "in game content" can be exchanged for "real money" or "digital goods". The quoted terms need defining.
"in game content" is already defined: gems, codes, resources, accounts, vouchers etc...
ie, in game content is absolutely anything available in the game.
"real money": well, that's pretty obvious.
"digital good": well, a good is something that has real world value, and a digital good is one that can be transferred digitally, eg an mp3 or an itunes mp3 voucher.
So, the literal interpretation of this rule is that nothing which is available within the game can be traded for real money or anything else which has real world value.
This does not prevent the trading of gems for other in-game content, since in game content does not have real world value. However, since trading of gems (or vouchers) is not supported by the in-game interface, the second sentence of the above rule makes clear that it is done at the user's risk.
The only way the above rule can be interpreted to mean that gems can not be traded for other in-game content on g-3 is if you interpret "digital goods" to mean in-game digital "goods". This is not a possible definition since it creates an internal contradiction in the rule. If "digital goods" means "in-game content", then the rule says "no in-game content can be traded for in-game content" and all trading has been effectively banned.
I can understand BB wanting to stop people selling gem vouchers, but if you're going to tell moderators to enforce this, you need to give them something to back them up. At present, you're just embarrasing your moderators, putting them in a difficult position and creating an avenue for arguments on chat about moderation.
You need to have an explicit additional rule saying, "gems, voucher codes and accounts cannot be traded for other in-game content on public channels, and any private trading of such items is at user's own risk". Or you specifically ban the trading of gems, voucher codes and accounts completely, although how you would enforce that I have no idea.
Please stop making your moderators' jobs harder by insisting that your rules mean something they do not.