Rules enforcement
Dear, this must be one of my favourite topics, as I'm ranting about this again. There was a discussion on the other thread regarding whatnots and wherenots of a case where the closed planet felt treaten harshly, and it struck to me as very similar to my own case. Actually, superficially, it is very similar. Where differences arise, is where the two people, one dumb, hasty, and anxious, another cooler, more planning, and with resourceful friends, go different. The first faces the police about his infridgements, and talks hastily and carelessly, and gets closed. The second takes caution, asks advice from his experienced friends, and knows how to sweet talk himself out of it.
Looking at it on perspective. Quote:
Quote:
The basic idea is, that B|nTara suggested Kileman a rules breach in order to gain advantage. On this case, B|nTara was closed. No actual farming happened. The rule that sealed B|nTara's fate: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tough luck, B|nTara, next time you have to deal with the multihunters, contact someone, me, for example. I'm okay to give advice on how to deal with them, and I have some experience of it, too. Good one, arc, having wielklem work your case out. Enjoy the last day of the round! Back to my drivel. This is "yet" another view why the rules enforcement squad, the multihunters, really seem to be getting lost out there. I used to think that cheating is something that happens in the game, and that you're judged under your in-game actions, not your verbal talent. Many may come up with lots of examples regarding 1up and eXilition duo that has obviously been treaten different, perhaps due to multihunter bias, perhaps due to incompetence. One multihunter may choose to close a planet on the same grounds another planet goes off with a warning. Really, the punishment regarding cheating shouldn't rely on how dumb you are on an IRC conversation, or do we really need rules lawyers around to help players around with the multihunter tantrums? |
Re: Rules enforcement
/me eagerly anticipates the mh reply. Nice posting!
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Tbh, I'm still surprised that Fiery was made head of MH department
|
Re: Rules enforcement
what these rules can only be enforced subjectively?
what? :( that'd make no sense (lo support planet rule) |
Re: Rules enforcement
Smudge is against woman in power!
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Nope, if she was up to the job I'd back her but she gets too, well, tempermental easily and has always had a bias towards different players / groups of players, even when I was in MH team.
And I never dissed Appoco when he was running the show ;p |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Assassin was the master bias too. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Tietaja uses far too many commas, but his post speaks volumes.
I stand by this summary of Bintara's closure: He's been closed for a non event which has been sensationalised by the MH staff. A warning and fleet recall would have been the most appropriate action for an event which didn't and wouldn't have even taken place. |
Re: Rules enforcement
If she had boobies like Appocco i doubt she would be dissed :D
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Indeed.
Appoco has manboobs which are indeed the definition of FTW |
Re: Rules enforcement
When bringing this up, we could probably also bring up alliance politics.
If your alliance have a nap with another alliance. And you launch on a planet from that alliance, not knowing your doing it, but doing it without checking with anyone who can verify that your target is not friendly. Basically you will get 2 choises, recall right away. Land and we let the friendly alliance roid you without yuo getting defence. So you can then decide, recall and not get roids, land get roided and maybe lose ships if you want to fight them. Something who probably wount be very much liked by the friendly alliance. Whats the difference on this and other farming ? |
Re: Rules enforcement
Those are standards set by alliance HC. If you get roided by a friendly alliance because you landed on them, it's because your alliance decided not to defend you--not you personally consenting. You have the "option" of saying FO to your alliance, and leaving.
|
Re: Rules enforcement
I really think this is a lot simpler than a lot of you are making out.
Sure the rules are stated, but just like real life laws (was it REALLY premeditated murder or was it actually self defense?) there are often extremely murky gray areas and some interpretation is required. Given the nature of this game, and the sort of posts that have been made in these two threads, thats obviously an extremely painful, tedious and thankless task. Under those circumstances (and in real life sadly) the way the accused behaves is obviously going to affect that process. Yes there may be a few innocent hotheads with potty mouths and trout slapping twitches that get closed, but they enjoy a very valuable life lesson, and by the same token there will be guilty players that are able to smooth talk their way out of it which sucks a lot more in my opinion, but what can you do? It happens in real life too! Its not fair, but letting everyone off / busting everyone are clearly retarded ways of dealing with it (and these are normally the closest thing that threads like these come to dealing with what is a real problem). Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
its been oversensationalised by those rallying to his cause.
The only agenda here is that carried by those people trying to 'stick it to the man', not of any genuine concern or belief that he is entirely innocent and indeed intelligent. Its one big bandwagon for everyone who has a grievance about individuals, or a general disdain for authority to jump on. Fact is he broke a rule, had evidence provided which showed him breaking that rule and was punished for it. End of story |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Personally, i think that part is entirely irrelevent. Regardless of motive there was a rule broken and he was punished for it. Its only in my previous post to cater for those grasping at straws |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Currently in this thread, you have smudge railing against fiery, keizari railing against assassin, shyne railing against all multihunters, stoom taking the opportunity to troll me, and no doubt there will be others later on in this thread taking the opportunity to jump on. This isnt about the rules, their applicability or enforcability. this is about people taking the opportunity to push their own agendas - using the pretense that bintara has somehow caused a precident when infact its a simple open and shut case. This thread cannot be constructive imo while it cites recent example in an attempt to form policy ( and affect change on bintaras behalf ) via the forums. It was doomed from the beginning to fall into this predictable pattern |
Re: Rules enforcement
you do think a lot of yourself dont you
|
Re: Rules enforcement
while there is some more or less subtle trolling included in this thread you fail to see something, or just chose not to see it: the rules are beeing enforced inconsistently which pisses a lot of ppl off. i think that is the reason why Stoom made his post, so don't play the poor victim who got flamed by Stoom out of nowhere and try to understand the complaints that are made here.
they are very valid and as long as the rules are enforced inconsistently, depending on how smart you are, how good your rhetorical skills are, or if you got friends in the PA crew or the MH department more ppl will get pissed off. in my opinion this hurts the game and i can not understand why you, a former member of the PA crew, who (i think) wants this game to stay alive, keeps defending this absolutly shitty set of rules and how they are enforced. |
Re: Rules enforcement
what the **** phil, x got closed for doing z, whilst y didn't. that's wrong, there's no two ways about it. there's no bullshit around, there's no more need for any sort of your idiocy - the mh's screwed up, there's no denying it. what should be looked at it is how to avoid such situations ever again.
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
If the rules are too complicated to be enforced with a static level instead of the dynamic "who is your attorney, who is your judge" sceme, there may be a solid reason to start working on the rules. Especially when a player gets closed for something as meager as an ingame mail (with no warnings whatsoever), and another gets away with it (and the bottom line seems to be the one was smart with an experienced advisor and the other one was an utter idiot with no help). If it comes down the line that the outcome is decided by factors other than the actual violation, it does need to be discussed. ps. The person who feels I don't like Assassin because he was right about my alliance (which one, and what was he right about?) could perhaps elaborate more specifically. I've spent the current round in the same alliance with Assassin, and I have no "problem" with him as person. I just found his multihunting lacking. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
I am sure there is a reasoning behind the closure, but personally I think its appalling that it was done |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
It would be great if they could be enforced 100% in all cases equally - this is a highly desirable outcome, but i dont think they are being enforced all that inconsistantly, personally. Everyone on the recieving end of punishment - hates it. It is an obvious reaction to assume that they are being picked on and one perpetuated by others in an attempt to claim bias even if its a load of nonsense. It makes life difficult for the multihunters and much easier for others who may be caught in the future to evade punishment There are going to be times when one hunter does things differently to another, but thats why theres a leader for multihunters - they make the final call on cases, everything rests with them if you think your case hasnt been handled well by another. Ive posted in the other thread about how i would have handled the case, personally but im not the one who warned him, or closed him. All i can give is an opinion ( and a bit of reasoning as to how the 'abusive language' reason appeared on the email ) Something else to keep in mind, closure is not the end of the process - it is the middle. Once closed you have an appeal against the decision, this is where those who are more skilled at making excuses can get off when they really shouldnt have. Its really irritating but hard to prevent if you want people to have a reasonable chance to prove their innocence. Gathered evidence can go a long way to mitigate the chance of a guilty party getting away without punishment but it is not without problems of its own - for instance there is a limit to what you can actually gather in a browser based game and there are ( moderately well ) known ways to avoid detection completely. Quote:
See above rg understanding of complaints. Quote:
I see absolutely no bias, or evidence that having friends in pateam helps you in any way. The only ones claiming any form of bias are those who have something to gain from it or mistakenly think they are being picked on ( see above ). Quote:
A reasonable chunk of the rules have come about because of people, not satisfied with playing on an even footing with others trying to gain what has been considered as an unfair advantage over other players. Subsequently a rule has been drafted to prevent it. You could get rid of them all and ask people to play fairly but do you honestly think they would, if there was an increased probability of winning by not doing so? I dont, therefore i think the rules must remain and be applied. Simply removing them and claiming its fair because all people can do it isnt a reasonable action to take since not everyone considers it fair to do so. Anarchists may love it, but not everyone is an anarchist. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
furthermore, it is up to her to enforce consistancy and identify inconsistancy within the mh department, not any of us |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
You're being a complete idiot Phil^ by justifying this kind of shit. It also shows how you acted as a MH if you indeed condone this shit. Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
try reading with an open mind, no preconceptions or a thought process that goes "omg its phil, must...insult...". Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
stoom made an excellent point with the whole "You're being a complete idiot Phil^ by justifying this kind of shit. It also shows how you acted as a MH if you indeed condone this shit." thing to be fair with you
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Had he actually tried to read my posts with an open mind he wouldnt have come to the conclusion that im trying to justify what the mh did or did not do. key points of what ive said, summarised :
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
the same could be said of any game really which has a multiplayer component, or any forum for that matter on the internet. You play/post on their servers, they have a final say over what happens on them and it is they who make the determination - it can be on any basis that they want too. There is no democracy on the internet or free speech on privately owned servers Quote:
We dont have a magic button which can change what the multihunters do, or what access people have to the game - they do. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Quote:
ps. after your edit; point regarding "stopping from posting" dealt with above; you although hinted that the population isn't allowed to point out inconsistencies and issue critique on them ("furthermore, it is up to her to enforce consistancy and identify inconsistancy within the mh department, not any of us"). in my opinion, if there is gross inconsistency and misconduct observed in the rules enforcement, it needs to be taken up. by your suggestion, i'll think through formulating a post summarizing the recent developments (and beyond) and coming up with some ideas on it on the suggestions forum. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Its not the case that the game or its policies are designed exclusively by the community. Assuming facism and comparing pateam to a soviet style administration is daft since there would be no listening in the first place under such a regime. I dont see anything that would indicate that you or bintara are being silenced by the administration over this. You're still posting arent you? :confused: |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
I am posting. I do not feel Bintara is being silenced, but in your behavior, you are continously trying to disencourage people from critisizing the actions of the multihunter team. In the wake of recent events, it seems that there are plenty of people in the community who would welcome an open discussion regarding the rules, even incorporating the multihunters to a further extent than just "We won't talk about it, it's our COC". |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
All im trying to do is point out the procedures to go through for certain situations and ultimately who to go to for it all. the forums arent a good place to go for individual cases, but they are good for discussing general things. Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Quote:
Note the "retired" under my username. And for the record, yes the MH Team is one of the most under valued areas of PA where people expect them to be right all the time and when something goes wrong they expect an apology and re-opening, however it appears that some people may be too stubborn to apologise. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Firstly and most importantly
Quote:
Quote:
The situations referenced above aren't the same, despite the information that has been organised. I will attempt to paraphrase the situations and clarify the issue, despite fact this breaks the defacto rule about not discussing cases. As referenced, B|nTaRa mailed Kileman to ask to land for XP. He sent several in-game e-mails, a few of which were replied to carefully by Kileman telling him all B|nTaRa would get was his ships turned into salvage. He said he was willing to lose the roids again, but wanted the XP, even to the MH. This is against the rules, so he got closed. arc said he was being fleet caught and requested that Keizari pull his fleet in return for roids. Keizari reported this (with parts of what was apparently a fair few converstations with Fiery quoted above) and pulled his fleet. arc never actually let Keizari steal the asteroids, and later explained that he was actually happily waiting to steal the Fi sent having already saved his ships. Keizari would have therefore pretty much lost the fleet catch and the roids, and his Fi fleet. Apparently something which wasn't mentioned was Fiery apoligising to Keizari for not letting him send his Fi fleet and letting arc have the oppertunity to let himself be roided instead of stealing the ships. It's therefore an unproven issue, but it's very much in doubt as to whether arc was lying himself out of trouble or agreeing to a lesser evil of losing free roids instead of the loss of ships, hence arc still being open. Hopefully this helps to clear up some of the issues. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Anyway, before this derails into a philosophical discussion, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this thread, and it seems to me that if you disagree (which is fine, of course), the best course of action would be to stop posting in it. You may have noticed you are currently the driving force behind the conversation. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
well my personial opinion is that it was a bit hard punishment for a minor offense i mean it was no harm done really and what i can read out here that arc dude did more or less the same shit here, if arc is keept open then let the other dork be ópent too or close them both.
ps phil^ is a moron for keeping replying bs here |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
After reading those logs I'd say Arc's case was worse than Bintara, so if Bintara is closed so should Arc. None of them should however be closed though, no crime was committed (yet).
|
Re: Rules enforcement
It is more an issue of actual rules than the individual cases. While the inconsistency with the cases is obvious, the rules which in essence rely on reading and second-guessing players' minds allows for that inconsistency to happen.
Now, I'm not a law expert, but (recorded) conversations between people can't be used as the only evidence towards a crime even in reality. And I'm saying "even in reality", because people get killed in reality - so the stakes are much higher and consequences much more fatal. You are playing (or running) a game here. I think that whoever thought of the rule which can get people closed for sending (non-abusive) messages wasn't quite aware of that. Specifically, in the Bintara/Kileman case, no one should've been either warned or closed until (or unless) Kileman actually sent away his anti-FR in a suspicious direction and Bintara landed - in which case the deal would be obvious, and then both would be closed. Which would not happen anyway. So we're talking about a case which has nothing to do with actual cheating and everything to do with EULA and the MH lacking common sense. Is it so difficult to actually wait until the offense actually happens, and then close the people involved? You know, the universe won't explode if a few roids actually get farmed, and the players involved would be closed after it anyway. |
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
edit. also, what is this fleetcatch we're talking about? I never noticed one. |
Re: Rules enforcement
I was thinking about posting something usefull here.. I reconsidered after the amount of text that was in the other posts. Cba to read it all at a saturday evening!
|
Re: Rules enforcement
Quote:
|
Re: Rules enforcement
I have pointed out for a long time (in particular with respect to the support planet rule) that how a rule is enforced should not be down to how good you are at defending yourself.
This current case is the perfect demonstration why. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018