An Open Letter to the Planetarion Players

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Red-

Descendancy should not have been OKed by fiery in the first place, that was not a clever move.

1. Descendancy was formed for inactive players like myself. I'd rather be there than clogging up a spot in Ascendancy where someone who wants to play seriously can be.

2. Achilles is in TRANSCENDANCY. It's essentially completely separate. It operates in a public channel where anyone and everyone can ask for scans.

3. Descendancy has 13 members. The average score is 330k. Are you seriously saying that's a big threat? We might as well not have joined it - none of us defend each other or anything. It's a gimmick as much as anything else.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Remy

Your analysis is wrong, you are free to speak to ME about it, so i can explain it a bit more in detail. You have no access to the logs like i do, so you might not even be ABLE to see WHY such scans are related to asc.

You're kidding, right? For the love of god, tell me this is some kind of joke that goes way, way over my head.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Remy

Your analysis is wrong, you are free to speak to ME about it, so i can explain it a bit more in detail. You have no access to the logs like i do, so you might not even be ABLE to see WHY such scans are related to asc.

I checked my logs for each scan you said was done for the benefit of Ascendancy to see who asked for it. I don't care what kind of tenuous link you can draw between these scans and Ascendancy because I can publish verifiable, testimonial evidence of what happened.

Originally Posted by Remy

Of course a few of those annotations will be wrong, or possibly a bit far fetched (if you see him scanning a whole galaxy, that is attacked by asc a few ticks later, then one combo of tech/unit scan on one of the not attacked planets in that gal at the same time he scanned the rest, is prbably a scanned planet not attacked because no1 liked it ), but on the other had, some i will have annotated as non Asc, when they indeed WERE asc related.

Firstly, I have never scanned a galaxy on behalf of Ascendancy this round. This is simply another lie. Infact, quite recently I refused to do so on two separate occasions, verifiable by JBG. The reason was lack of resources because I was scanning for anyone.

Also, you freely admit that a large percentage of your evidence is rubbish. How can you close a planet with evidence like that. Isn't it suppsed to be "conclusive" or do you just not care about trivialities like that?

Originally Posted by Remy

2 small things: nowhere did we express the % of scans you need to do before being seen as a support planet, so maybe 50% was enough, or 30%, or 80%? Did you care to ask?

No I didn't. I see you still haven't decided to enlighten us about the required percentage either. I am curious though, if this requirement for closure is as flexible as you say, then why lie on your report and claim 90% of my scans were done for Ascendancy? When you did this you fabricated evidence that didn't exist and fraudulently reported the reason for my closure to your superiors and on the casefile itself. This alone should see you removed as a multihunter.

Originally Posted by Remy

UPon recounting the scans i checked, i come to 43 scans out of 132 not directly related to asc, which is 67% done for asc. Some of those 43 i could link to descendancy, some i couldnt really track at all, or the planet in quesiotn was deleted or had moved to unfindable places. Some i could have looked deeper into, and i probably will find some link on some of those.

Very well. Refering then to the evidence (lol, seriously) I was presented with can you explain why:

1) You still assign the planet and structure scans on PT273, PT 275 & PT 277 to Ascendancy?

2) You still assign the jgps done for Gwarth when he was attacking Ascendancy as scans for the benefit of Asc?

3) On one occasion you assign scans done for Tomkat, a member of Descendancy, correctly yet on another occasion you assign them to Asc? I'd really like to be enlightened as to what exact sekret toolz information drew you to 2 completely disparate conclusions.

[Cocteau]

Originally Posted by Remy

Of course a few of those annotations will be wrong, or possibly a bit far fetched (if you see him scanning a whole galaxy, that is attacked by asc a few ticks later, then one combo of tech/unit scan on one of the not attacked planets in that gal at the same time he scanned the rest, is prbably a scanned planet not attacked because no1 liked it ), but on the other had, some i will have annotated as non Asc, when they indeed WERE asc related.

Get a life.

Seriously, get one.

Might help you think logically sensible.

[Remy]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

In those 7 or so rounds as a scanner, are you telling us that you SOLELY did scans for your alliance only, and never for friends?

I incidentally scanned for friends, yes, please observe the word: incidentally. Next time you post, say something usefull

[Smudge]

/signed

The MH Team has been in total disarray these past couple of rounds. To ensure this stuff doesnt happen again :

* The Support Planet rule to be either removed or made so clear its black and white
* The MH Team to be properly trained and a set of rules made to say what offense is punishable how, and for this set of rules to be made public
* A proper appeals process which can resolve things asap. I'm assuming Fiery contacted PA Team saying that her connection was broken, at which point someone else should have stepped in to resolve the case, ie Cin (as I believe he in the past has done MH'ing. In this case if Fiery had been |afk more than she was there is a chance the planet in question could have got deleted.

Granted this round is a free round and we're greatful for that, but come on PA Team, pull your sleeves over your shoulders and sort it out.

[Talin]

Originally Posted by Remy

Next time you post, say something usefull

I found this hilarious.

Anyway.

There are two problems here. First is the problem with the support rule in itself, which has nothing to with you. Second is your completely overblown interpretation of that rule.

You closed a person for scanning, for the love of God. I could (well I couldn't, but for the sake of argument) understand if that was done by someone who started playing in R16 or so, and got swallowed by this new "let's make up more ridiculous rules" conception of PA.

But you played since R3, according to your signature. Are you seriously telling me that when you think about this issue, there is nothing clicking inside your mind telling you "wait, I just closed a scanner, there must be something really wrong here"?

[Remy]

Achi,

If you want to discuss your case with me, thats fine. I will not in public go into details of course, as im not allowed that. If you chose to publish such stuff that is your decision.

I have already gone further then i normally would on these forums, so again i say: i will talk to you, not the general public.

On a personal note:

To the others posting here: i dont give a shit what you think, this is between me and achi. It is also useless for me to post here, since i could never defend myself publicly because of the NDA restrictions.

So expect no further postings on this matter from me.

[Remy]

Originally Posted by Talin

.. Second is your completely overblown interpretation of that rule ..

Ok, one more reaction then.

Not my overblown reaction, but the much-discussed interpretation of the rules within the complete MH team.

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Remy

Achi,

If you want to discuss your case with me, thats fine. I will not in public go into details of course, as im not allowed that. If you chose to publish such stuff that is your decision.

I have already gone further then i normally would on these forums, so again i say: i will talk to you, not the general public.

On a personal note:

To the others posting here: i dont give a shit what you think, this is between me and achi. It is also useless for me to post here, since i could never defend myself publicly because of the NDA restrictions.

So expect no further postings on this matter from me.

you m8 should stop beeing an mh as incompitance isnt a merit nowadays

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Remy

I incidentally scanned for friends, yes, please observe the word: incidentally. Next time you post, say something usefull

The question here becomes one of intentions then. And to what extent can we legislate based on intentions when none of us are really aware of what the intentions of others are?

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Remy

If you want to discuss your case with me, thats fine.

I have no interest in discussing anything with you because you are biased. I have already asked Fiery to look into this case and if necessary I will push Jolt for arbitration. Assuming that the most likely result occurs and I am deleted then I will start a new planet. Which will operate exactly as my previous one did.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

The rules, as I am getting tired of repeating, merely refer to 'unfair actions' with no definition of what these are. The past consensus was that scanning was not considered to be an unfair action.

(Disclaimer: this post is aimed to again underpin the rules interpretation, not to comment on whether not it's reasonable).

Cheating, as in repeated actions by a planet to allow a faction to gain an unfair benefit (hereby: support planet) are vaguely defined. It's up to the hair day of the multihunter to decide what sort of actions can be characterized as leading to unfair benefit. Whether a scan or fourty consist of that, is secondary to the de facto unlimited ability to refer to the famous rule under given circumstances. Refering to past concencus is a poor argument, because we could also state that support planets through fleet dedication haven't always been forbidden either: the most evident case reminds me of LDK corsair planets round 9.5. It seems that pre-emtive rule creation is inexistant, and issuing a ban on an action always requires the "first time a multihunter has a bad hair day" -concencus (Achi's case) or a reasonable amount of influential propaganda (the eXilition case).

It is, I repeat de facto, totally up to the multihunters to decide which out of tag/galaxy/cluster actions constitute as cheating as by the support planet rule, and which don't. It's very normal for the rules to change midround, or one thing to be allowed for one round and denied the following (the 1up round 17 case).

And to Remy: this thread evidently isn't a call for you to defend yourself against the more or less idiotic descisions, or anyone in the multihunter team to defend any idiotic descisions made now, in the past, or that will be made in the future. For what I can tell, this is a call for players that agree with the concencus (hereby: rules enforcement being blatantly moronic) to openly protest about it in order for things to change.

[shibaMac]

Originally Posted by Remy

To the others posting here: i dont give a shit what you think, this is between me and achi. It is also useless for me to post here, since i could never defend myself publicly because of the NDA restrictions.

You don't give a shit what a sizable portion of the players think? Nice, real nice. I despair to think what criteria are actually used to pick MHs if this is your attitude.

The reason people care here, apart from a sense of fairness, is that it could happen to them too. So it's not just between you and achi. You've been accused of abuse of power, or at the very least, serious incompetence. You better defend yourself publicy, or Jolt better make some kind of statement, or this is going to seriously damage the game.

[Alki]

For Achi I Fall

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Smudge

Granted this round is a free round and we're greatful for that, but come on PA Team, pull your sleeves over your shoulders and get rid of Remy

Fixed

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Remy

I incidentally scanned for friends, yes, please observe the word: incidentally. Next time you post, say something usefull

Can you quantify "incidentally"? Is that 10%, 20%, 30% or 70% of your scans for friends? Does it even matter? Does it just depend on how you feel on the day?

[Luckyiam.PSC]

Remy, u should do standup o.O

[Kargool]

Not that I care or can be bothered, but surely having this huge thread complaining about this matter will achieve absolutely nothing?

While I tend to throw people the random insult from time to time, do we really need another whine about multihunters? If you want to raise this problem, raise it with Biffy at Jolt as it seems clear to me that the pa team have decided to sit on their hands on this occasion, if Biffy or Jolt decides to not do anything (which is most likely, but pink rabbits have been spotted before) then you can feel as unjustly as you want and quit the game or whatever you feel like.

Slagging people in threads is so pre r20

[Talin]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Not that I care or can be bothered, but surely having this huge thread complaining about this matter will achieve absolutely nothing?

It will (or is meant to) achieve a reduced financial income from Planetarion, until the whole issue about support rule is resolved. That might be "absolutely nothing", or it might not be, depends how it plays out I guess.

As for the thread, it's nothing to do with "slagging people", it has to do with fixing the mess that this particular rule and the way it's enforced created. People have been pointing out this issue for several rounds now, in every possible manner. Absolutely nothing was done to fix the problem, and the actual interpretation of the rule broadens from round to round.

Now that the people can be closed for scanning, it's just too much. And it's not only scanning, MHs can easily find an excuse in the support planet rule to close at least 70% of accounts in the game, one way or the other, whenever they feel like.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Talin

It will (or is meant to) achieve a reduced financial income from Planetarion, until the whole issue about support rule is resolved. That might be "absolutely nothing", or it might not be, depends how it plays out I guess.

And as was proven in another similar thread a couple of weeks ago, the real people you need to reach is not reading this forum, ergo your huge crusade will be read by absolutely nobody of significance. Write a detailed email to jolt, and they will most likely do something about the issue.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Slagging people in threads is so pre r20

Are you trying to hint that I need to find a new hobby?

[SepH]

Signed

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Are you trying to hint that I need to find a new hobby?

Nope, just out of fashion

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by shibaMac

You don't give a shit what a sizable portion of the players think? Nice, real nice. I despair to think what criteria are actually used to pick MHs if this is your attitude.

The multihunters are not the people who make the rules, so no, our opinions should not matter to Remy. In fact, if they did, he'd be even more biased.

Instead, the people who make the rules should take notice of what people think (all of us, not just the ones who post here), and act with that in mind (which isn't the same as blindly following the majority).

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

The multihunters are not the people who make the rules, so no, our opinions should not matter to Remy. In fact, if they did, he'd be even more biased.

Actually, that'd be incorrect. I've always lived under the conclusion that the multihunting team comes up with the rules setups, which are mainly just confirmed by the game team. At least Assassin has written (and represented on forums) some sets of the EULA rules aspect.

[wakey]

I cant help but think this whole situation is all just a ploy by Asc to push through their demands to have the alliance limit dropped completely. Perhaps I'm just being overly suspicious but its much like the situation we had back in r3 when certain alliances wanted to be able to pick their galaxy mates so went out of their way to try and break the rules in a way where if they got away with it it would help their cause and if they got punished the out roar would again help their cause.

Even if that wasnt the case no-one connected to *sc is so dumb that they didnt realise they were pushing their luck and had to be careful, just like those alliance who apparently have 10+ OOT members are pushing their luck also. If you push your luck and bait the MH's in the way your doing it your asking to be closed. It would be much easier just to play it safe when it comes to the Support Planet rules (which as me and Kargool stated last round in #alliances are vaugue and need to be better defined but which at the time every other alliance plus Ace and Phil decided to just use it to once again personally attack us)

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Not that I care or can be bothered, but surely having this huge thread complaining about this matter will achieve absolutely nothing?

While I tend to throw people the random insult from time to time, do we really need another whine about multihunters? If you want to raise this problem, raise it with Biffy at Jolt as it seems clear to me that the pa team have decided to sit on their hands on this occasion, if Biffy or Jolt decides to not do anything (which is most likely, but pink rabbits have been spotted before) then you can feel as unjustly as you want and quit the game or whatever you feel like.

Slagging people in threads is so pre r20

Originally Posted by Me

Now, on to the point of this post. I would like to propose that unless serious restructuring is done to the EULA regarding the support planet rule and a review is carried out into the integrity, impartiality and competence of the Multihunter Team players would refuse to sign up a paid account for next round. Transcendancy will most definitely be playing this way and I will be actively meeting with and encouraging other alliance HC's within the intervening period.

Can I count on your support Kargool or are you one of those who just likes to moan?

To answer your points though, I have already emailed Jolt, no response so far. I will be taking this as far as I possibly can until the people who run this realise that they can't treat this players like this. The Admin team should be accountable to the player base. They should have to explain their decisions properly and actually have good evidence when they act. You know these things aren't true now dude. I'm making a stand the only way I can, it's up to you if you want to support that or not.

edit. mz, Keizari is correct. The current EULA setup as regards the rules was drafted by MH's and as far as I'm aware is maintained by them.

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally Posted by Tietäjä

Actually, that'd be incorrect. I've always lived under the conclusion that the multihunting team comes up with the rules setups, which are mainly just confirmed by the game team. At least Assassin has written (and represented on forums) some sets of the EULA rules aspect.

Originally Posted by Achilles

edit. mz, Keizari is correct. The current EULA setup as regards the rules was drafted by MH's and as far as I'm aware is maintained by them.

Then that's not exactly something I'm happy with either. There's a reason why the people who make the laws are not the same people who enforce the laws. Then again, considering the fact that PA Team generally doesn't have much of a long-term vision, there is no one who I'd consider able enough to set up the rules, so I guess we'll have to choose the least of the various evils.

[shibaMac]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

The multihunters are not the people who make the rules, so no, our opinions should not matter to Remy. In fact, if they did, he'd be even more biased.

At the end of the day, Remy is representing Jolt. Jolt should be picking people who will do that intelligently, and not make them look bad. Telling people with legitimate concerns about the direction the game is going in that he dosen't give a shit about what they think is just unprofessional. I know that using that word about people who work for free on an internet game is a little dubious, but the other MHs seem to live up to it, whether you agree with every decision they make or not.

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Can I count on your support Kargool or are you one of those who just likes to moan?

To answer your points though, I have already emailed Jolt, no response so far. I will be taking this as far as I possibly can until the people who run this realise that they can't treat this players like this. The Admin team should be accountable to the player base. They should have to explain their decisions properly and actually have good evidence when they act. You know these things aren't true now dude. I'm making a stand the only way I can, it's up to you if you want to support that or not.

edit. mz, Keizari is correct. The current EULA setup as regards the rules was drafted by MH's and as far as I'm aware is maintained by them.

I can agree with you on one thing, the EULA needs to be upgraded.

But as far as it goes with the interpretation of the rules that ascendancy have tried to change a fair deal over the previous rounds by trying to circumvent them in the game to great annoyance for the ones that decided to play with the hand that got dealt them I cannot agree nor sign.

Good luck in trying to make your case with Jolt though, they have the astuteness of a belgian on acid and George W. Bush's reasoning.

[shibaMac]

Originally Posted by wakey

I cant help but think this is all just a ploy by Asc to push through their demands to have the alliance limit dropped completely.

It's all a conspiracy. Tin foil hats at the ready!

Originally Posted by wakey

If you push your luck and bait the MH's in the way your doing it your asking to be closed.

No, if you break the rules you're asking to be closed. Annoying a multihunter shouldn't be a basis for closure. It shouldn't make any difference at all, if he's being fair and impartial.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Kargool

But as far as it goes with the interpretation of the rules that ascendancy have tried to change a fair deal over the previous rounds by trying to circumvent them in the game to great annoyance for the ones that decided to play with the hand that got dealt them I cannot agree nor sign.

Do you care to enlighten me as to what rules ascendancy attempted to circumvent?

Surely though even you can see that we're not actually doing this out of self interest? Ascendancy are in 12th (?), descendancy 20 something. Maybe we actually think this would be good for the game?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Do you care to enlighten me as to what rules ascendancy attempted to circumvent?

Surely though even you can see that we're not actually doing this out of self interest? Ascendancy are in 12th (?), descendancy 20 something. Maybe we actually think this would be good for the game?

Oh, yeah, you are ranked 12th, no threat there. Round 16 anyone?

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Oh, yeah, you are ranked 12th, no threat there. Round 16 anyone?

Paranoia, by any chance?

[Kargool]

Originally Posted by Heartless

Paranoia, by any chance?

Lou Reed says it best: You're going to reap Just what you sow

[wakey]

Originally Posted by shibaMac

It's all a conspiracy. Tin foil hats at the ready!



No, if you break the rules you're asking to be closed. Annoying a multihunter shouldn't be a basis for closure. It shouldn't make any difference at all, if he's being fair and impartial.

This isnt a case of annoying a Multihunter though, its actions where people are pushing their luck either intentionally or through stupidity and who as such seem like they are cheating

[Furyous]

Originally Posted by Remy

2 small things: nowhere did we express the % of scans you need to do before being seen as a support planet, so maybe 50% was enough, or 30%, or 80%? Did you care to ask?

Does it even matter what percentage? It was very clear to everyone that scans were publically available to everyone from Achilles and co. Just because more ascendancy players may have taken up the kind offer does not mean that he is intentionally supporting ascendancy. In fact, I imagine most the time he didn't even think about the alliance of the person requesting the scan. If 30% were for Jenova, or anyone else, would he have been closed?

Come on Remy. Don't take the piss.

Signed, alex.

[Red-]

It was very clear to everyone that scans were publically available to everyone from Achilles and co.

That didnt start till after they got in troubble.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Red-

That didnt start till after they got in troubble.

Surely even you can see how self-evidently stupid this piece of reasoning is? If he got in trouble (ie warned or whatever) beforehand this wasn't sufficient to close him then clearly he was closed for actions which happened afterwards. If you cannot see this then I do not know what to say.

[Chika]

Achi getting closed is the highlight of the round.

[Smudge]

Originally Posted by Kargool

if Biffy or Jolt decides to not do anything (which is most likely, but pink rabbits have been spotted before) then you can feel as unjustly as you want and quit the game or whatever you feel like.

This isn't the Multihunter you are looking for

[Gio2k]

So let me get this right. Remy closed Achi bc almost all the jgp scans he did were for Asc, while he himself is Transc?
No comment.

[shibaMac]

Originally Posted by wakey

This isnt a case of annoying a Multihunter though, its actions where people are pushing their luck either intentionally or through stupidity and who as such seem like they are cheating

And yet you still have to have evidence to close someone. So far, the only piece we've seen (and afaik the only piece at all) has been shown to be at the very least dubious.

The question still has to be answered. Why was Achi closed? And "he pushed his luck" isn't good enough.

[shibaMac]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

So let me get this right. Remy closed Achi bc almost all the jgp scans he did were for Asc, while he himself is Transc?
No comment.

So let me get this right. You misstate the facts. Then make "no comment".

Is there some sort of award for making useless posts?

[gmufc]

First everyone complains about ascendancy, descendancy, covops and "supportplanets",
then when multihunters try do something about it and close one of those planets many people been complaining about a lot of the same people now turn against the multihunters instantly before even hearing his side of the story.

People will never be happy.

Wont support any of the sides here as I understand both Remy and Achilles points... we should probably just get a bit clearer rules and either allow bigger alliances and let eveyone have scanenrs out of tag or in another tag or ban it completely so theres no doubt.
Personally I think scanners should be allowed out of tag but cov opers who ruin things for enemies should always be in tag of the ally theire working for.

(Didn't read all the posts in this thread so might have missed a few points btw)

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by shibaMac

So let me get this right. You misstate the facts. Then make "no comment".

Is there some sort of award for making useless posts?

Originally Posted by Achilles

Upon speaking to Fiery I was told that I had been closed because 90% of my scans were done for the benefit of Ascendancy. I knew this was absolute bullshit and so asked for and was given a list, annoted by Remy with supposed violations.

Looking at that table, and ignoring all other type of scans (because it's practically impossible to tie some scans to the alliances that request) i see that almost all jgps have been done for Asc people. How am I misstating a fact?
And the fact that you replied to my post is proof enough that you understood my 'No comment' perfectly.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by shibaMac

The question still has to be answered. Why was Achi closed? And "he pushed his luck" isn't good enough.

I was closed for reasons only known to Remy. It was his claim that 90% of my scans were for Asc and that I should be closed on this basis.

By his own admission this is a lie. If people care about nothing else they should be very concerned that multihunters lie to justify their actions and that when this is pointed out to their chain of command you meet only silence. If that doesn't trouble you then I really don't know what more to say.

[jupp]

The question that comes to my mind is " Would he still have been closed if he was a member of Ascendancy or another alliance and didnt form his own tag for his idea to give free scans for people who have no access to alliance-scanners?"

the game really needs people like Achi, dec, mz & co - they did it maybe in a borderline (for them funny) way but if you just spend an hour in #transcendancy you will see that a lot of random people are very happy for what those people do and most of them are not Ascendancy or Transcendancy i believe ...

closing someone directly is only justified if his action damage the game a lot by exploiting bugs or if an action has to be stopped ASAP. A couple of scans being made are really not that of an issue imo. i guess if you tried to talk this through with the persons involved before closing them we wouldnt have this "situation" now.

[gmufc]

Yeah, what the guys are doing in #transcendancy seems like a good idea and will only help the game grow (for those who want that to happen).
The cov op thing really annoyed quite a few people in start of round, but aslong as they make clear rules for what is allowed in the future and if or how people out of tag can help another ally it will be easier to sort these problems later.