Who watches the Watchers?

[wakey]

You should all be ****ing ashamed of yourselves (Achilles especially who is so bitter he will find anything he can to start a hate mob against remy, even if it means doing something which he got upset about when he misinterpreted something I said on another thread)

We have a game where no matter what the rules are people will try and abuse them which means rules can never be fully black and white (yes some parts could be laid out better but you cant ever just have a list of whats acceptable, there needs some wriggle room) and when some people partake in actions that can be seen as somewhat suspicious and action is taken against them so as not to give everyone in future a 'get out of jail free card' you turn on those enforcing the rules, not just once but on multiple threads, each time getting more and more personal until they drive theses unpaid helpers away.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

that alliances arbiter had planet and channel intel about other alliances that cannot be obtained prior to PT 72 under normal circumstances

Hang on, how do you know that? You find it believable that you could see the contents of another alliance's intel, yet inconceivable that the same alliance could have figured out who some of your members are?

CT's channels leaked very early on after someone noticed that the relay channels that the CT bot was sitting in were not set +s, and thus showed up on a /whois of said bot, visible to the whole world. This was probably temporary, but it lasted long enough for someone to notice it.

[ComradeRob]

Also, to address the key point: I have a personally low opinion of Remy, for reasons which should be apparent to anyone who has read this thread. However, even if Remy is a total **** that does not preclude the possibility that he could still be an effective multihunter provided that his role consists of uncovering evidence that proves clear and unambiguous breaches of universally-accepted rules. As it stands, all of the multihunters are in a position where they must exercise considerable judgement about who to close and why. They are not simply searching for evidence, they are deciding what that evidence means and how the rules can be interpreted to fit the evidence.

The multihunters do not have to be corrupt, incompetent or malicious; the system itself will cause unfairness and inconsistency. It is not a personal attack on the personal integrity of the multihunters. They are simply placed in a position where they must make too many decisions. Likewise, the players are placed in a position where they must try to guess what the multihunters will think of their actions, instead of being able to read clear and unambiguous rules stating what will happen.

That was what happened in my case. I had no intention to 'cheat'. I've never been deleted before, in 6.5 years of playing PA. I was clearly not intending to break any rules (if I had been trying to break the rules, I certainly wouldn't have joined the Descendancy tag!). I was deleted because my interpretation of the rules was different from Remy's. In my opinion, that's an unacceptable situation to have. If it had been clear that scanning for a different tag was against the rules, I would not have done it.

A side-effect of this confusion is that if a multihunter is corrupt, they have considerable scope to abuse their position without challenge. I personally doubt that this happened here, but it's certainly plausible.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Hang on, how do you know that? You find it believable that you could see the contents of another alliance's intel, yet inconceivable that the same alliance could have figured out who some of your members are?

CT's channels leaked very early on after someone noticed that the relay channels that the CT bot was sitting in were not set +s, and thus showed up on a /whois of said bot, visible to the whole world. This was probably temporary, but it lasted long enough for someone to notice it.

Those were the channels from last round

That said I have to disagree with Angryduck, there are lots of ways to get that kind of intel that do not involve getting privileged information. I still believe that Asc just contains some clever members who work hard to expose people.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

I was deleted because my interpretation of the rules was different from Remy's. In my opinion, that's an unacceptable situation to have. If it had been clear that scanning for a different tag was against the rules, I would not have done it.

A side-effect of this confusion is that if a multihunter is corrupt, they have considerable scope to abuse their position without challenge. I personally doubt that this happened here, but it's certainly plausible.

Your interpretation shouldn't have been different though as it was made clear by Kal that when the alliance fund and the limit raise happened it was so alliance had to have their scanners in tag (One of the reasons also why the system only had the top60 counting, admittedly that has since been dropped). For new players id give you it would be confusing as while it was stated at the time it hasn't be repeated buy in your case Rob you were around and should have known imho

[K-W]

Originally Posted by wakey

You should all be ****ing ashamed of yourselves (Achilles especially who is so bitter he will find anything he can to start a hate mob against remy, even if it means doing something which he got upset about when he misinterpreted something I said on another thread)

We have a game where no matter what the rules are people will try and abuse them which means rules can never be fully black and white (yes some parts could be laid out better but you cant ever just have a list of whats acceptable, there needs some wriggle room) and when some people partake in actions that can be seen as somewhat suspicious and action is taken against them so as not to give everyone in future a 'get out of jail free card' you turn on those enforcing the rules, not just once but on multiple threads, each time getting more and more personal until they drive theses unpaid helpers away.

The rules should be spelled out as specifically as is possible. Of course the rules will have to be adjusted and changed, but the scanning thing is absolutely ridiculous. For rounds scanning is not considered an illegal support activity because that is how the MH's interpret it and now MH's interpret the exact same rule in a different way. Meanwhile people playing the game have to find MH's to explain the rules to them because they are not posted anywhere.

ComradeRob just wrote basically the same thing I was about to write:

The multihunters do not have to be corrupt, incompetent or malicious; the system itself will cause unfairness and inconsistency. It is not a personal attack on the personal integrity of the multihunters. They are simply placed in a position where they must make too many decisions. Likewise, the players are placed in a position where they must try to guess what the multihunters will think of their actions, instead of being able to read clear and unambiguous rules stating what will happen.

The rules of the game are a major part of the game design and should be made by PA crew, not require massive amounts of interpretation, and published before tick start every round.

[ComradeRob]

Originally Posted by wakey

it was made clear by Kal

Where?

As you point out, I should have known that the rules had changed. But I didn't, and I can't find any clear explanation anywhere stating that the rules had changed. And, in the circumstances, it might have been nice simply to have been warned for the first offence, given that the rules were somewhat unclear

[K-W]

Originally Posted by wakey

Your interpretation shouldn't have been different though as it was made clear by Kal that when the alliance fund and the limit raise happened it was so alliance had to have their scanners in tag (One of the reasons also why the system only had the top60 counting, admittedly that has since been dropped). For new players id give you it would be confusing as while it was stated at the time it hasn't be repeated buy in your case Rob you were around and should have known imho

Rob should not have to sort through statements by PA crew to decipher their intent and then pursue multi hunters to figure out their interpretations of that intent to know what the rules are. They should be clearly written and provided to the players.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Where?

As you point out, I should have known that the rules had changed. But I didn't, and I can't find any clear explanation anywhere stating that the rules had changed. And, in the circumstances, it might have been nice simply to have been warned for the first offence, given that the rules were somewhat unclear

I personally saw him mention it in various IRC channels (#planetarion and #alliances) and im sure it was on the forums also. If I had the time to read everyone of Kals threads id find it for you

[ComradeRob]

If I had the time to read every one of Kal's threads, I would have seen in myself. Which is kinda the point

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Wakey

I personally saw him mention it in various IRC channels (#planetarion and #alliances)

You are one of the most unbelievably stupid but unfortunately still literate people I have ever come across in any walk of life. Are you honestly saying that players playing the game have to log and then read every official PA channel, including one they don't have access to, in order to know the rules?

What the **** is wrong with you?

[shibaMac]

Originally Posted by Ceadrath

Yes. I do. Of the 2500 accounts that are signed up at the moment how many of them do you think lack faith in the MH's? Or actually care? A vocal minority is all. The vast majority of players don't put themselves in a position whereby they could possibly be closed, and have absolutely no interaction with the multihunters. As such, they don't give a shit.

You're right. Most people won't be too upset unless they, or someone they know, is directly impacted by an abuse of power. Do you think that makes abuse of power ok? That's not even a reasonable arguement for PD.

Originally Posted by Ceadrath

What evidence are you talking about? That he has some grand connection to ct? People in a position to know have stated that he has no untoward involvement, and thats good enough for me.

The evidence that was used to close Achilles. The incorrectly interpreted, whether through incompetance or bias, evidence.

Originally Posted by Ceadrath

People in a position to know have stated that he has no untoward involvement, and thats good enough for me.

Well, it's not good enough for me. This kind of gullible attitude speaks to laziness and a lack of willing to think for yourself. But hey, ignorance is bliss I guess.

Originally Posted by Ceadrath

As to him having some hatred for a certain alliance, i'll say the same thing i said earlier. He's more than entitled to his own opinion, but it doesn't effect how he carries out the responsibilities of his position.

Well, the arguement is actually about the issue of whether it does or not. So stating your position is just stating your position. Anything new to add?

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by wakey

I personally saw him mention it in various IRC channels (#planetarion and #alliances) and im sure it was on the forums also. If I had the time to read everyone of Kals threads id find it for you

Oh, stupid us, we must have thought we could find the rules in the EULA, for example --->RIGHT HERE!<---

We're clearly too stupid for this game

[robban1]

Originally Posted by wakey

I personally saw him mention it in various IRC channels (#planetarion and #alliances) and im sure it was on the forums also. If I had the time to read everyone of Kals threads id find it for you

and here i thought we got the portal for that stuff 0.o nono i have to look after some odd post in a unnamed tread

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by ComradeRob

Hang on, how do you know that? You find it believable that you could see the contents of another alliance's intel, yet inconceivable that the same alliance could have figured out who some of your members are?

CT's channels leaked very early on after someone noticed that the relay channels that the CT bot was sitting in were not set +s, and thus showed up on a /whois of said bot, visible to the whole world. This was probably temporary, but it lasted long enough for someone to notice it.

umm, no, they were not, some clown found last rounds relay channels that had long been left to die, with info from an old defense bot that we no longer use

it's like finding a treasure chest full of shit... useless

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by K-W

Those were the channels from last round

That said I have to disagree with Angryduck, there are lots of ways to get that kind of intel that do not involve getting privileged information. I still believe that Asc just contains some clever members who work hard to expose people.

and telling ppl who join a galaxy channel after PT 36 under a fake nick, what their real nick is, when they have their hostmask hidden and use a seperate client, and have it set up in such a way that there is no visible way to connect them....isn't being clever, it's having an inside source

[Gary]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

and telling ppl who join a galaxy channel after PT 36, under a fake nick, what their real nick is, whn they have their hostmask hidden and use a seperate client, isn't being clever, it's having an inside source

Yep. Because theres no other way then could know. Nail and head there.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

and telling ppl who join a galaxy channel after PT 36, under a fake nick, what their real nick is, whn they have their hostmask hidden and use a seperate client, isn't being clever, it's having an inside source

Remember when I screenshotted jenova's arbiter to show you elviz was down as napped? Maybe that's not the only thing I can see

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Nadar

Oh, stupid us, we must have thought we could find the rules in the EULA, for example --->RIGHT HERE!<---

We're clearly too stupid for this game

(f) Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific
and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a
planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

That covers it and as people find new ways to abuse the rules each round actions that are deemed to give an unfair benefit are clarified through PATeam statements and MH's setting precedent.

And the simple fact is unless we have a game where the rules are set out at the start of a round in a clear list of whats acceptable which would see widely known cheats ruining the round as nothing could be done of them until the round had ended then we will have situations where people get closed for an 'exploit' that they thought was fine

[furball]

Originally Posted by wakey

And the simple fact is unless we have a game where the rules are set out at the start of a round in a clear list of whats acceptable which would see widely known cheats ruining the round as nothing could be done of them until the round had ended then we will have situations where people get closed for an 'exploit' that they thought was fine

Then how about a warning prior to closure?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by aNgRyDuCk

and telling ppl who join a galaxy channel after PT 36 under a fake nick, what their real nick is, when they have their hostmask hidden and use a seperate client, and have it set up in such a way that there is no visible way to connect them....isn't being clever, it's having an inside source

It's amusing when people connect/disconnect at exactly the same time as their fakenicks consistently over a couple of days. Bit of a giveaway.

[K-W]

Originally Posted by wakey

That covers it and as people find new ways to abuse the rules each round actions that are deemed to give an unfair benefit are clarified through PATeam statements and MH's setting precedent.

And the simple fact is unless we have a game where the rules are set out at the start of a round in a clear list of whats acceptable which would see widely known cheats ruining the round as nothing could be done of them until the round had ended then we will have situations where people get closed for an 'exploit' that they thought was fine

Scanning is not new Wakey.

In any sanely run game there would be a clear list of rules and this would not prevent them from changing the rules to account for newly discovered methods of cheating.

[Red-]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

It's amusing when people connect/disconnect at exactly the same time as their fakenicks consistently over a couple of days. Bit of a giveaway.

Tick 30ish isnt over a few days - Besides how on earth would you have access to everyones priv channels etc. - We talking people not idling in #planetarion etc. or public channels...

Ofcause you lot abused c-service and that alone should have gotten ya closed + the non corrupt c-service people should tear yer source a new one and kick him to the curve with a promise to never let anyone in again like that.

[aNgRyDuCk]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

It's amusing when people connect/disconnect at exactly the same time as their fakenicks consistently over a couple of days. Bit of a giveaway.

sure over a coupledays, I'll give you that..maybe your players are very alert and happen to be sitting in all channels that the person caught is in...stretch, but ok.... but NOT at PT 36 when you join a galaxy channel for the first time and have yet to disconnect

[robban1]

Originally Posted by Red-

Tick 30ish isnt over a few days - Besides how on earth would you have access to everyones priv channels etc. - We talking people not idling in #planetarion etc. or public channels...

Ofcause you lot abused c-service and that alone should have gotten ya closed + the non corrupt c-service people should tear yer source a new one and kick him to the curve with a promise to never let anyone in again like that.

can i have some of the mushrooms you have eaten? seems like you have it all figured out m8 already

getting intel isnt that hitech you know, you dont need c-service for intel then you got some spies that leak intel in the start

[Nadar]

Originally Posted by wakey

That covers it and as people find new ways to abuse the rules each round actions that are deemed to give an unfair benefit are clarified through PATeam statements and MH's setting precedent.

I think you misunderstood me. The point of my reply to your post was that you sounded like Rob should have gained information about the rules from a hidden thread with a post by Kal in it, not from the EULA itself.

[Red-]

Originally Posted by robban1

can i have some of the mushrooms you have eaten? seems like you have it all figured out m8 already

getting intel isnt that hitech you know, you dont need c-service for intel then you got some spies that leak intel in the start

Lies.

Mapping an entire gal in 1 tick after tick 36 on people who fakenicks are set mode +x etc. - Its impossible unless you got inside information.

[lokken]

The point that I made in the other thread, is that the rules let you make up your own rules pretty much, so really there aren't any rules at all on this issue.

[Talin]

Originally Posted by wakey

That covers it and as people find new ways to abuse the rules each round actions that are deemed to give an unfair benefit are clarified through PATeam statements and MH's setting precedent.

I'm convinced by now that you are purposefully trying to ignore the point here. I don't know why, and I couldn't care less. Allow me to put it in a more direct and internet-debate-compatible manner.

Scanning out of tag is not unfair, and it isn't abuse. The support planet rule is a joke, and we are all aware how it came to exist in the first place (which is also a joke). You can claim that someone scanning out of tag is a cheater all you want, but no one with common sense will take that seriously.

Finally, for everyone who gets aroused by screaming "cheaters", "unfair", "abuse" at every chance they get, rest assured that the support planet rule will get "abused" and beaten until it finally meets its deserved end.

If anyone wants to waste their time and energy defending that useless piece of text and all this "let's be stubborn try to balance something we have no control of whatsoever" conception of PA that the people in charge seem to have, be my guest.

Alliances control the game, not the other way around.

[Fiery]

This is going to be short and to the point.

If you disagree with a ruling, that is your right and you are free to take it up with me.
If you feel that a multihunter is cheating or biased and you have actual proof then by all means, i want to see that proof and I will most certainly take the appropriate actions to resolve the issue. However, if you are going to come on the forums to sling mud and make accusations without proof to back your claims up, I am going to see it as nothing more than an attempt to garner public support in the hopes that if enough people start complaining then you'll get your way.

In regards to the accusation that Remy is cheating. Remy asked PA Team if he could be allowed to host the CT tools. PA Team gave him permission to do so. He is not doing anything other than hosting the tools and restarting the server when needed and fixing the techy crap when it needs fixed. If we didn't trust Remy, he wouldn't be allowed to do so. And if I didn't trust remy, he wouldn't be a multihunter.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by Fiery

If you disagree with a ruling, that is your right and you are free to take it up with me.
If you feel that a multihunter is cheating or biased and you have actual proof then by all means, i want to see that proof and I will most certainly take the appropriate actions to resolve the issue.

You really shouldn't make such grandiose claims when the reality is you simply haven't been available during the 10 days this stretched on for. I accept that you may well have had more pressing concerns outside of Planetarion but that does not allow you to come on here and pretend like you were fully available. Furthermore, as regards dealing with the situation, I did come to you and you didn't even have the decency to get back to me at any point to tell me my appeal had failed, despite assuring me several times you'd keep in touch. So I was forced to wait the full 10 days before I could sign up a new planet. If you think this is any level of customer service to offer then I fear you are sadly mistaken.

However, if you are going to come on the forums to sling mud and make accusations without proof to back your claims up,

I gave proof for every revelation I made. My points were very legitimate and each was checked by Appocomaster and later verified by Conspiracy HC. Or did you not bother to read my posts and just decide to have a quick rant instead?

Whether you like it or not the Multihunters should be held to the highest standard. There should be no question of their integrity. They should not be slagging off alliances, doing tools, having questionable access to channels and otherwise carrying on in a manner that is not transparently honest and above reproach. They should also not have powers as broadly sweeping as they do now. It is not acceptable that the sole arbiter of justice in Planetarion is someone's opinion. It is not acceptable that this opinion can change at any time, without warning and leads to people being closed when they genuinely don't understand why and had no way to avoid it. It is also not acceptable that prior to Rob's case you had lied to JBG about staying in communication and being upfront if lines were close to being crossed. Why say you would do something if you didn't mean it or thought it unacceptable? If you think this is any level of customer service to offer then I fear that once again you are sadly mistaken.

I am going to see it as nothing more than an attempt to garner public support in the hopes that if enough people start complaining then you'll get your way.

This is exactly what I am attempting to do. It is the entire point of the thread. Hopefully the reasons above will help you understand why. Reading the thread in the first place would also have helped.

Remy asked PA Team if he could be allowed to host the CT tools. PA Team gave him permission to do so.

Then why did Appoco know nothing about it when I brought it up with him first? I really hope you aren't just making stuff up to cover for your boy here.

If we didn't trust Remy, he wouldn't be allowed to do so. And if I didn't trust remy, he wouldn't be a multihunter.

You see, this is where you and I disagree more than anywhere else in what we believe. I don't think the Multihunters are more important than the people who pay for and play this game. Whether we the players trust Remy is important too and if you read this thread you will see that I am very far from alone in not doing so.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Achilles

To Jenova and Vengeance: I believe you have also had scanners closed. Perhaps you should inquire as to how many Conspiracy planets this has happened to. I could tell you but I'm sure the answer is obvious.

I remember enlisting a certain pair of cases with B|nTaRa and Arc involved, with bi-Ace-d multihunters only caning the other. I guess, it's easy to throw on dirt for Conspiracy bias, but, hey, there's no denying there was an 1up-bias too (hi Assassin).

[Jester]

Originally Posted by wakey

MH's setting precedent.

No. You see the Multihunters don't actually set precedent. They enforce the rules, and if they **** up it doesn't affect later cases. There is no such thing as precedence when it comes to the MHs.

[Red-]

Actually there is.

A great deal of the EULA leaves room for interpertation as its impossible to write an EULA covering all the exploitation idears people will come up with.

So when someone tries to exploit new changes to PA or circumvent the rules as intended the MH must set precedence for how to act upon it.

Which i believe is exactly whats happend now.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Red-

Actually there is.

A great deal of the EULA leaves room for interpertation as its impossible to write an EULA covering all the exploitation idears people will come up with.

So when someone tries to exploit new changes to PA or circumvent the rules as intended the MH must set precedence for how to act upon it.

Which i believe is exactly whats happend now.

This is then a question of belief and opinion and is wholly subjective. The rules did not previously ban out of tag planets for performing a lot of jgps for another tag's members. How then could they have been intended to do so this round? To be quite honest you could close anyone presuming they interacted helpfully more than once with an alliance that wasn't their own.

I didn't want to break rules this round but when I tried to find out what the rules were because I didn't understand the EULA nobody could tell me.

[ComradeRob]

I am going to be very generous and assume that what Red- and wakey mean is this:

Sometimes, players figure out ways of exploiting the rules by carrying out certain actions which were previously not banned, or which were previously interpreted as fair. The multihunters decide that this is abuse of the game, and take action against those planets. This is a good idea because it prevents the use of 'loopholes' to gain an advantage.

If this is what they mean, then I agree with them. We do have to allow for the possibility that new offences will be created over time.

However, the point is what should be done when this happens. I believe that the EULA itself should be amended to show the new rules, particularly if players have become accustomed to the idea that certain activities (e.g. scanning) are allowed. It needs to be made entirely clear to all players that this is not allowed any more. In the case of scanning, this was not done.

In my opinion, when the rules change then the EULA should change to reflect this. If this happens during a round, all planets should be mailed to inform them of the change. A forum or portal post is not enough, especially if the EULA stays the same.

[Red-]

No need to be generous thats exactly what i mean.

However i dont find it needed to update EULA midround, MH team is there to cover the holes between rounds.

That said i agree the EULA needs updating / clarification in general.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Fiery

If you feel that a multihunter is cheating or biased and you have actual proof then by all means, i want to see that proof and I will most certainly take the appropriate actions to resolve the issue.

Last round, I reported a certain Ct player whose "cousin" was playing an out of tag planet pumped with harpies (known as a fast anti-frigate). Ace failed to react to a numerours reports (several occasions of the give planet defending Conspiracy players with the given harpies out of tag, out of galaxy, out of cluster). Only after I took the matter forward to Myk accusing Ace of bias favoring Conspiracy Theory was something done to the matter. Meanwhile, the planet was allowed to defend Conspiracy planets out of tag, out of galaxy, out of cluster, for a matter of not just days, but for more than a week with indisputable, blatant evidence available.

Later, it turned out that the given Conspiracy player was indeed a holder of multiple planets. How Ace managed to turn the blind eye on this all before I made a shout of it, is beyond me. Saying that Ace had no ability to close a planet is just avoiding responsibility, as Ace would have, equally as myself, the ability to take the matter to Myk, or anyone in the Planetarion team. I'm totally baffled by the fact that a "cousin" was allowed to repeatedly send out of tag/cluster/galaxy defences, even if reported, and when reported, the multihunter to which the incident was reported to failed to check the defended planets which I reported with technology, news and jump gate scans as evidence for possible multiple planet holders.

To me it strikes as an incompetence beyond forgiveness or blatant bias. The accusation can be alleviated by the fact that the given person is known to be a founding high commander of the alliance I am claiming he favours. I'm definately not happy with the feeble explanation I was given about Ace not having rights to close planets, as it did not take me long to contact a person with the rights to do so.

This isn't very uncommon. If we take a brief look at Assassin, who was multiple times accused of bias favoring 1up (he wrote a midround rules change to help 1up fight against eXilition; whereas the viper planets as we know of were not banned pre-round any more than the corsair planets of LDK round 9.5; thereafter he failed, under similar circumstances (I admit this is arguable, but the whole viper-support-planet incident remains very arguable, so it's a little silly to challenge me over this) to punish 1up for use of support planets). He admantly denied any connections to 1up, but instantly after he quit his job as a chief multihunter, he joined the ranks of 1up.

Originally Posted by Fiery

In regards to the accusation that Remy is cheating. Remy asked PA Team if he could be allowed to host the CT tools. PA Team gave him permission to do so. He is not doing anything other than hosting the tools and restarting the server when needed and fixing the techy crap when it needs fixed. If we didn't trust Remy, he wouldn't be allowed to do so. And if I didn't trust remy, he wouldn't be a multihunter.

Strangely enough, isn't the NDA signed between Jolt and the multihunter? Does this not, legally, mean that you would have to have a Jolt staff member grant a special permission to breach the NDA, or does the Planetarion team actually have the power to grant it's own members the ability to break the NDA? If so, it definately beats the purpose of the NDA, which is, as it appears to me, for Jolt to supervise that the Planetarion team itself remains unbiased. I'd like to know if or not Planetarion team is allowed to grant permissions for it's members to breach the NDA. Otherwise, it's as good as filing a report for Remy (and the Planetarion team member granting the permission) breaching the NDA.

What comes to midround rules changes and the scenario we're currently at, I guess it's sufficient to say it wouldn't be (even during PAX period) the first time to issue a midround change in the EULA. Given, the EULA allows itself to be altered midround, so what's preventing it from happening?



Lastly, my name mentioned under the development debate. Having been politely asked to leave the development forums after an incident concerning Monroe not answering few questions, and instead pasting his own post, deleting his own thread, and creating a new twin for it, I'm not hence by any official stance a member of the planetarion development, and being what I am nowadays I'm also not a representative of any alliance, thus not a representative of any instance given. I've discussed it with Appocomaster, and I've told him that we'll look into the ship statistics with toot, and see what comes down. (I'll probably post a thread regarding the issue on SD soon enough).

[Talin]

Originally Posted by Red-

its impossible to write an EULA covering all the exploitation idears people will come up with.

That depends on what you want to do.

It's very possible to write a (more or less) precise EULA against multiing, account sharing, and to an extent against farming, abusive language, and many other things.

However, it's not possible to write a clear EULA rule that will limit the size of alliances and what people can do with their fleets. Therefor people shouldn't even be trying to write such a rule.

Any such rule will painfully fail, just like this one is failing. And it should fail. It's pointless and stupid, and dozen of very valid arguments have been given to point that fact out, whereas no serious counter-arguments have ever been made.

[Red-]

No its not pointless and stupid - its good and intelligent!

Equal competition is great!

Limiting alliance memberbase gives other alliances a chance of having some skillfull players too instead of them amassing in a few top allys.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by Red-

Equal competition is great!

Indeed! All praise equal competition.

Limiting alliance memberbase gives other alliances a chance of having some skillfull players too instead of them amassing in a few top allys.

Sure you're not contradicting yourself? Isn't it, in terms of equal competition, up to the competence of the officers and high commanders in the alliance, to ensure that the alliance is attractive to draw skilled and experienced players too? Isn't it stupid, and against terms of equal competition, to limit alliances to a given amount of members, so some people would have to join the alliances they find incompetent and unpreferable, because the command staff of these alliances has failed to create an alliance that attracts those skilled individuals?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Red-

Limiting alliance memberbase gives other alliances a chance of having some skillfull players too instead of them amassing in a few top allys.

The idea that planetarion is a game of skill has provoked much hilarity over my way. It's overwhelmingly a game of numbers and activities. Every single bit of this game that can be called skill seems to get coded out each round.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Fiery

This is going to be short and to the point.

If you disagree with a ruling, that is your right and you are free to take it up with me.
If you feel that a multihunter is cheating or biased and you have actual proof then by all means, i want to see that proof and I will most certainly take the appropriate actions to resolve the issue. However, if you are going to come on the forums to sling mud and make accusations without proof to back your claims up, I am going to see it as nothing more than an attempt to garner public support in the hopes that if enough people start complaining then you'll get your way.

In regards to the accusation that Remy is cheating. Remy asked PA Team if he could be allowed to host the CT tools. PA Team gave him permission to do so. He is not doing anything other than hosting the tools and restarting the server when needed and fixing the techy crap when it needs fixed. If we didn't trust Remy, he wouldn't be allowed to do so. And if I didn't trust remy, he wouldn't be a multihunter.

Dear Fiery,

I previously wrote in these forums that one of the missing features of the MH investigations is the open transparent information about 'cheating'. I also stated that it would be a worthwhile thing that if someone was found to be cheating, some public release should be done.

The reason why I say this is:-

Public info about player actions can show why someone is closed.

The evidence is transparent and public, thus, we and you can then see why someone is closed.

Evidence that has to face the public gaze would have to be non flimsy, and would reduce the cases where MHs face backlash, AND would mean a MH has to be doubly sure of making the case for closure.

And most importantly, Players and Alliances, AND PA team can get a feel for the shifting sands in terms of the rules.

I will also say, AGAIN, as I keep saying, PA should not close people as it is doing now. It is high time something else took place. Why don't you guys have a two strike rule where people who bend the rules are warned and suffer a punishment (The punishments would be published.) then closed if they persist.

This could be handled in a public punishment and closure thread.
Also, as I have said before, as MUCH as possible should be coded out of the game in terms of things people should not be able to do, and the scope of play and MH - should be reduced.

Lastly, you cite that others should produce evidence, 'actual proof', something which the non open transparent, monitoring and arbitrary justice carried out from the MH method used in PA (And I mean no offense in what I say here) does not tend to live by. Is everyone round here going to operate by secret tools and backdoors, friends in high places, and allied to dark corners of IRC, or are we going to move to open, transparent, game and community friendly methods?

I will say, that I found this whole thread disappointing.
Players arguing amongst themselves.
Alliances operating politics
And everyone playing dirty tricks to further their own aims and ends.

You are all playing divide and conquer, and the only losers are all of us.

[Tietäjä]

Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n

Public info about player actions can show why someone is closed.

The evidence is transparent and public, thus, we and you can then see why someone is closed.

A good one.

Fits the topic of the thread like a fist in Alki's arsehole, too.

Uhm.

To present an allegory, think about the European Central Bank. The ECB has a wide degree of independence to it's actions - in fact, there's no real single entity that could challenge the ECB accountable of something. To add to it, the vagueness of the Maastricht treaty has allowed the ECB to pretty much determine what it can be held accountable of and what's out of it's area of work. To compensate for this, the ECB has built an "internal" control. Even the most trivial ECB procedures are well-informed of, and reading the monthly bulletin you can get a good clue of what's going on, and why. Reading the reports you can go to detail about it. There's little reason not to publish the details on whys and whynots of closures. I'm definately for this idea. Edit. Ie. give a period of time to complain, a week or so, and after that, once the case is finally resolved, make it public. Say, "Planet on coords yy:xx:zz was closed due to cheating. The planet was found to be under the control of the player playing y2:x2:z2, making it a breach of the multiple accounts -rule. The latter planet was closed for the same reason given."

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by wakey

That covers it and as people find new ways to abuse the rules each round actions that are deemed to give an unfair benefit are clarified through PATeam statements and MH's setting precedent.

And the simple fact is unless we have a game where the rules are set out at the start of a round in a clear list of whats acceptable which would see widely known cheats ruining the round as nothing could be done of them until the round had ended then we will have situations where people get closed for an 'exploit' that they thought was fine

You quoted the stipulation about the EULA. The same EULA that sets out a rule premise then goes on to state organisations, and specifically states Galaxies and Alliances. That EULA?

[Alki]

Originally Posted by GJN

Well now you know why we kicked Alki from our galaxy shortly after the protection period. Good riddance.

I would actually like proof of this accusation.

Anywho with regards to all the arguments about remy being ct, that is not the point in question, the point in question is remy as a mh. remy having access to ct channels shouldnt have even been brought up, yes it does add a strong case, but it is not even needed, and distracts from the original topic.

[Heartless]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

I liked the way in which Greenhills won, it was new [...]

No it wasn't. Now let's get back on topic.

This issue certainly needs to be adressed, and I do also like the idea of publishing a list of who was closed for what reason. It would be sufficient to list it as "coords - reason" listing, without any further details.

[AdmV0rl0n]

Originally Posted by Heartless

No it wasn't. Now let's get back on topic.

This issue certainly needs to be adressed, and I do also like the idea of publishing a list of who was closed for what reason. It would be sufficient to list it as "coords - reason" listing, without any further details.

The current system is unjust.
Hence what I said was players should get a public warning, and the reason should be show, with evidence. If repeated, then they get closed, and evidence disclosed.

You could also dock score from alliances if step two is reached (IE, the alliances are warned as well, if the behaviour persists, they lose something on the closure)

With a community of only around 2k, you are killing each other with closures over rules that are unclear and have a element of un-fathomable interpretation.

[Coltaine]

If you think about the whole "make things more public and transparent" thing from a different perspective...
Wheres the disadvantage of doing so and if theres any, for whom would it be a disadvantage?



While i do see only one group of people having a disadvantage from that ('cheaters'), i see several advantages for all other groups of involved people.

First of, that one disadvantage for those being convicted - being publicly branded - would be an advantage to all others again.
It would continuously show, remind and give practical examples/cases of what is allowed and expected and what is forbidden and not tolerated.
It would make the actions of multihunters more transparent and give less room to rumours, conspiracy theories, hate spirals and such, but also to abuse and bias, which again is good for both, the authority of multihunters and players.
It would give constant occasion to discuss cases, get and give feedback on the rules, how they are and how they should maybe change.
It could be combined with workflows, presenting an investigated case on the boards, before any deletion or even closure happens.

I think transparency and communication is what the whole community benefits from, be it player or staff.
Theres so much potential in this. So as long as I don’t see any grave disadvantages, I’d say lets go for it.

[Kal]

I'd like to say a few words on NDA'd PA staff hosting things for people.

1) Ever since I left NoS I continued and still do control the DNS for e-illuminati.org
2) I host numerous web sites on behalf of friends - for all I know they use them for PA stuff.
3) If an NDA'd person is invovled with public projects prior to signing an NDA and wishes to be involved with them while under the NDA I am fine with that as long as PATeam and Jolt are told beforehand