Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
There's nothing wrong with broad rules themselves, but if they become too cumbersome to enforce in a reasonable fashion, they shouldn't be executed at all. I doubt anyone can claim that there are lots of various factors other than the rules breach itself that heavily influence the outcome. I find this wrong. The exact allegory is letting one guy get off with theft and throwing another in jail for similar theft. The point is, if it becomes impossible to enforce a broad set of rules in a way where everyone gets treaten equally no matter if they're dumb, retarded, smell bad, or are not good friends with Assassin, there should be serious consideration on generating a rules set that is more reasonably enforceable.
By my original statements of lack of admin common courtesy I was refering to the fact that one planet gets closed for a breach while another gets away with it, solely because one of the people in question was dumber than the other. It's not like they both didn't sign the EULA and confirm that they acknowledge that sending in-game mails that suggest other players cheating is forbidden. What I'd hope to see more, is the common courtesy and the logical sense instead of this oddly rigid and complex thinking there's going on at the moment. This is where the "OMG NOOB" attitude has passed on to the administrators. An experienced player like myself would get off with such a minor breach, while an ignorant newbie may be closed very fast.
Edit: the counterproductive thing was aimed at this also: I'm not sure about the named case, but assume a new player who isn't familiar with the complex hair days of the multihunters, commits a minor rules breach. He talks to the multihunters, who act like police interrogators attempting to grill the confession from him instead of telling him what he did wrong (see: Ace - when the convict comes in, and asks what he did wrong, the first question issued by the multihunter - after the person in question got warned for abusive mail, which wasn't the case really - is "What do you think you did" instead of "See here you went wrong". The obvious follow-up is that the person breaching 18.6a might end up thinking he breached 18.4b instead; now, if the multihunter attempts to provoke him more at this state, it's understandable a careless, hasty, perhaps a new inexperienced player, might get annyoed), and issuing a punishment.
That's not quite what I think when I hear the words common courtesy.
How is an inexperienced person supposed to know what he has done wrong if he hasn't been swearing, tossing porn, or going on with abusive language?
If the person is stupid enough to fall to it, he gets caned, and is left with a bad feeling for sure. If he's clever (probably an older player), he'll get away with it and giggle.
I hope I have elaborated the game team's lack of common courtesy with valid case evidence and sufficient detail. And the counterproductivity of oddball rules.
Final edit (possibly): actually, it now strikes me as more amusing, as the automated mail Ace sent the guy accused of rules breach 18.4b instead of 18.6a. Is there a possibility to complain about being warned for something that obviously did not happen during the mails (abusive language), and which only happened after the rules enforcement team member acted in a provocative manner (the "wtf did I do" - "What do you think" -part?). So basically you got accused of something you didn't do, then you got provoked by a multihunter, and incidentally did what you didn't do earlier (abusive language), and after this you were told that "hey, actually, you didn't break 18.4b, you broke 18.6a - but now that you've broken 18.4b too we'll just slam you shut, donkeybrain". Gosh. This gets more and more intriguing. Maybe I should become a multihunter, I might be good at making people act so that they get themselves closed over silly barely excisting things.
|
The multihunters have a difficult job. Its the kind of job no one will thank you for. I think also, to be fair, the PAteam have taken on board some of the comments about this case. So its not all doom n gloom.
What I will say is - and its only a personal view:-
1. MHs while able to kick people out for being abusive, should refrain from doing so in any trigger happy way. It should be a last resort recourse.
2. MHs should not goad or initiate deliberately to get a 'response'. And certainly should check 1. again to understand the issue.
3. Admin's and MultiHunters should also be made aware that goading is an act of abuse. Its just innapropriate and should not happen.
4. Players should respect and treat the PAteam and multihunters in a reasonable way. Most of this comes from people being nice to each other.
Game notes:
1. When you had 200k people, perhaps it made sense. When you have a small pool of people, 2-3k, perhaps its seriously time people again looked at revamping or rethinking punishments, rather than closures.
In Bintara's case:-
1. Bintara was guilty of intent. But intent is not specified in the rules. Well, it is, but wait until the player commits the crime.
2. Bintara was not guilty of farming. Farming by the rules is set out, and requires two parties to agree, which was clearly not the case.
3. The target planet never agreed to his request
4. The target planet was going to muller his fleet
5. If players self police - see point 4, there is in fact no reason this case should have existed. By blasting his fleet out of the sky, its self policing.
Planetarion future
If you take a small pool of people, and habitually clip it, it gets smaller in an ongoing basis. While the small pool who remain may believe the current methods are good, there is a vastly larger pool that have voted with their feet. If someone has paid money to play, they make a mistake, a MH takes the hard line with them, and goads them, then kicks them out, you won't see them again.
While it was a free game, maybe, you could close people, and so what. But in a paid game, there are elements that you have to consider. In the end MHs or game policy that is wrong means Jolt and PA suffer long term trending wise. These people are ultimately players, but also paying customers, and if you do treat them like shit, even if you believe you are right, but people outside of that don't share that view, then its rocky ground.
At the end of the day, I don't have sympathy for Bintara. But here is the thing. Bintara as far as I know has been a multi-round player. If he is like many are in game, and he has friends, if he leaves, they might leave too. It might mean alliances or groupings of players cease or drop off. These cases are not singular in nature, they have a domino effect.
The game needs a form of justice, rather than arbitrary summary justice. Criminals need to be reformed, the PAteam and MHs need to work towards a game where blatant cheating gets stopped, but players and PAteam want a community of people in the end. One that is growing, rather than shrinking. Its now too small to have cases like Bintara's happening.
I believe given the info I gathered over the past few days that in fact, the time for closures is over. Period. You can create punishments that are just as decisive, and punitive in game. Further, no case should be closed, secretive. PAteam and the MHs should make each case a public one, on forums explaining the evidence, and outlining their actions, and punishments.