| Author |
just being xTx |
xTx
Chief Marshal
Joined: September 10, 2005
Posts: 101
From: Canada
|  Posted: 2008-02-03 22:37
after reading all the replies to my posts i still do not see any logical reason why the names of people who abuse the ROC are not made public, is the strongest opposition coming from the abusers?.................MAYBE SO.
_________________
|
Phellan
Grand Admiral
Joined: February 27, 2007
Posts: 220
From: Red Light District
| Posted: 2008-02-03 23:47
could be...could be...
_________________
Noob you say? I may fly an escort destroyer...but I just stayed at a Holiday Inn.
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-02-03 23:59
No, the strongest opposition is coming from the staff.
Unless you were implying something.
The logical reason is that it would likely only serve to increase ostracism and petty behavior; it might subject the staff to "quota" pressures or otherwise earn them heat for laxity in "punishing wrongdoers" when there are other better methods to handle problems, and because Palestar has a policy of not sharing such information. The policy is based upon principles such as those enumerated above, plus general privacy concerns.
And not to say that just because others do things means they're good to do, but where else do you know where such information is publicly posted?
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-02-04 00:01
He learned kinda late about 3.2.5, don't you think so? Be a shame if it happened to you, xTx
on a related note...
Quote:
|
after reading all the replies to my posts i still do not see any logical reason why the names of people who abuse the ROC are not made public,
|
|
Not worth my time to answer when it's been answered over nine thousand times by fifty different people in varying degrees of power.
Quote:
|
is the strongest opposition coming from the abusers?.................MAYBE SO.
|
|
Pointless Speculation? Or can that fall under scare mongering?
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2008-02-04 00:26
Quote:
|
On 2008-02-04 00:01, His Excellency Marquis Fattierob wrote:
![]() http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/684/burningke0.jpg
He learned kinda late about 3.2.5, don't you think so? Be a shame if it happened to you, xTx
on a related note...
Quote:
|
after reading all the replies to my posts i still do not see any logical reason why the names of people who abuse the ROC are not made public,
|
|
Not worth my time to answer when it's been answered over nine thousand times by fifty different people in varying degrees of power.
Quote:
|
is the strongest opposition coming from the abusers?.................MAYBE SO.
|
|
Pointless Speculation? Or can that fall under scare mongering?
|
|
You're reasoning with an idiot, you have to speak his language. Logic doesnt work!
-Ent
[edit- really not necessary to quote pictures..]
[ This Message was edited by: Shigernafy on 2008-02-04 04:05 ]
_________________
|
Phellan
Grand Admiral
Joined: February 27, 2007
Posts: 220
From: Red Light District
| Posted: 2008-02-04 01:03
Perhaps I didnt read all the posts enough but I agree; there was very little actual reasoning in the answers. Mostly there were hostile answers, agreement with hostile answers, and the ocasional quoting of the rulebook. The rulebook does not constitute a reason, just a barrier to be upheld with logic or changed to something better. The only good reason I saw was that it could cause flaming of players but as it is players suspected by other players of breaking rules are ostracised anyway. At least this would clear things up. I myself am constantly attacked with accusations of cheating, and I would like to once and for all be able to point to a page and say look, the admins are on my side! As for the ones who actually did something, I cant honestly see anyone treating them worse than they already are. I mean common, we know when someone cheats, we dont need the mods to tell us, it would just be cleaner. As for it giving the admins and mods more work, thats their job! Theres obviously a problem that your way of doing things isnt fixing, so get more mods or try something differant. If there were indeed better reasons somewhere in the pages of xtx's last posts I appoligize for not having the time to catch them. Still the primary rule of diplomacy is that if you give a reason for declining a request and the other party still fights for it, you havent explained yourself well enough. So while you may choose to think he is immature for pursuing this, consider that maybe you just arent expressing yourself well enough, aside from hostile illustrations.
[ This Message was edited by: JWA8402 on 2008-02-04 01:06 ]
_________________
Noob you say? I may fly an escort destroyer...but I just stayed at a Holiday Inn.
|
-Daedalus-
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 26, 2006
Posts: 549
| Posted: 2008-02-04 01:28
Of course. They can't think of a valid reason for the policy so they hide behind the policy.
Maybe the cheaters wouldn't cheat soo much if everyone was watching them and there double jump drives and jumping in and out of SY's to avoid being killed.
_________________
|
Rogue Spear
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 20, 2002
Posts: 848
From: Texas
| Posted: 2008-02-04 01:40
God I love this game.
_________________
|
Phellan
Grand Admiral
Joined: February 27, 2007
Posts: 220
From: Red Light District
| Posted: 2008-02-04 02:07
Quote:
|
On 2008-02-04 01:40, Rogue Spear wrote:
God I love this game.
|
|
I maintain that having Rogue Spear on one's team is an exploit in itself.
_________________
Noob you say? I may fly an escort destroyer...but I just stayed at a Holiday Inn.
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-02-04 04:40
Ok seriously.
I can understand the theory of "continued attention means it wasn't explained well enough the first time," but now we have people reposting the same arguments from earlier threads as if this stuff was not even talked about already. Not to say that all the previous posts put every issue to rest, but I get the impression that this thread is pretty much a place to post a grievance, ignore any factual backing, and then move on.. only bothering to read the forums again when another thread comes up where you can post the exact grievance again.
Now, I grant you that there were hostile answers, there was mockery, and there were funny but unhelpful pictures. However, there were useful answers in all three threads.
Fattierob gave an answer in the first thread; Enterprise backed it up with some reasoning and support. I posted further in support of both of their ideas and with a bit of staff viewpoint as well (after Mersenne quoted the RoC, if you want to count that).
The second thread immediately descended into chaos, though humorous chaos.
The third thread complained that the staff had successfully diverted attention onto "minor infractions" and away from xTx's real point - which was never, to my mind, clearly stated. I'm still not entirely sure he wants posted, though I am also still fairly convinced that publicly posting staff actions will be unproductive at best.
Anyway, I admit that in the second thread I posted but wasn't saying anything productive. However, I also don't think that the posts were intended to cleverly divert attention from the real issue - I think that most forum patrons felt the first thread was sufficiently dealt with and proceeded to take the second lightly. That's just my interpretation.
However, the third thread also had some valid replies in it. Fattierob pointed out that accusations without backing aren't worth much. I said much the same as I did above; namely, that I don't know what xTx is looking for, don't put a lot of stock in public lists of misbehavior, and that I'm open to constructive suggestions. Daedalus posted in such a manner that leads me to believe that he thinks that anything less than a ban is malfeasance [or, technically, misfeasance] on the part of the staff (though that, like a few other lines here, is just my personal interpretation). Ospolos followed up that posting with another one in support of the original explanation given in the first thread as to why records aren't posted. Feralwulf posted a staff member's view of staff activity in an attempt to counter Daedalus' perception. Backslash gave a reason. kenetiks supported that reason and gave some details.
And in this thread, I have already posted another interpretation of the reason for the policy being in place.
So, with all that in mind (tl;dr: there are a lot of examples of answers being given, and good ones), how is it that we already have four more posts saying that:
1. The issue is still outstanding;
2. Nobody has given a reasonable explanation why it can't be in place;
3. Staff are stupid gits
?
Again, I'm falling back to my interpretation of selective reading. You don't WANT to see reasons why it is being rejected by the staff (and, largely, community), so you ignore all the posts but the angry eagles and just complain about spam in your well-intentioned and helpful threads.
If you want to have a discussion on this, post something meaningful. Arguments have been provided against your point - by Fattierob, Enterprise, Feralwulf, BackSlash, kenetiks, Ospolos and myself - but I haven't seen much in favor beyond "the staff are diverting attention," "the strongest opposition comes from abusers," and "oh the staff just don't want us to know how little they work." The only real arguments in favor was in the original post, in the form of "the Canadian government does it," one about how if cheaters were posted, people could keep a better eye on them, and one about how if cheaters were posted, Non-cheaters could prove that they haven't been busted.
This to me reveals a few things, though:
First, because someone else does it doesn't mean that its inherently good. You know all the hackneyed "jump off bridge" things here. If the Canadian government is doing it, tell me WHY they came up with that policy, and if the reasoning seems convincing, it will be considered. But if you're going with the argument of "so and so does it," there are plenty of "so and so doesn't do it" that I can throw right back at you.
Second, the fact that people could watch the cheaters is somewhat good in that we already encourage a certain level of community self-patrolling; however, the phrasing involved seems to imply a certain level of community vigilantism. People shouldn't feel afraid to go in the MV because they know they will be the center of everyone's attention because of any certain past incident.
The third argument in favor dovetails nicely with the second and seems like support for it - JWA says that he is already accused of cheating and kept and eye on, and that's with not doing anything. While having his record be public might give him less attention, the very fact that he doesn't like such attention makes me worry about what would happen if he had more - which is exactly what Daedalus is advocating.
Plus, JWA says in his own reply that the system isn't really needed except for making things "cleaner" (which I interpret to mean "less uncertain"), because everybody already knows who all the cheaters are. Then the argument is extended that if our current system of keeping histories private is not deterring cheating, making it public will - while explicitly admitting two sentences earlier that everyone already knows. If everyone knows, then by definition the knowledge is public, and thus there's no gains to be made from the posting.
Hopefully this reply will count as something being said on the topic.
Quick summary: First of all, we have privacy issues, much like every other game, community, and association which precludes the release of personal information.
Second, having people's histories in public will, I sincerely believe, expose them to more ostracism, negative attention, abuse, and harassment. The punishment they get from the staff should be sufficient for their rule breaking.
Third, having the histories public puts unwanted pressures on the staff - either criticism for being too lax, criticism for being too harsh, or other accusations resulting from whatever we decide to post. In the absence of complete information, some of which is more personal than where they were in the MV when and thus can't be given out, the Staff would have to constantly defending itself from the community trying to judge the actions.
Fourth, having such information public would, I believe, focus the community more so on the negative aspects of the game and community, adding to whatever negative feelings would be created by, again I believe, the harassment stemming from such public information. This creates a downward spiral of morale, morals, and behavior.
Fifth, I really don't think its an effective deterrent.
Also, while there may have been community members who questioned staff policies in the past, everyone in the staff is basically in agreement with them. Certainly some of this can be attributed to acculturation, but I believe that its also because once someone is able to see what goes into being staff, sees both sides of the abuse/policing split, and understands the difficulties of enforcement that they come to support the existing system. We don't actively try to stifle innovation, dissent, or change, but generally we have found that the system works. Changes are considered, and sometimes implemented. But on the whole, things work as they are.
Is that a sufficient reply?
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Sanity Assassin (K'Luth propaganda)
Grand Admiral
Sanity Assassins
Joined: February 19, 2006
Posts: 919
From: Pittsburgh PA, USA
| Posted: 2008-02-04 05:54
I gotta say. Things do seem bias at times. Especially when a faction has an Admin on thier side when players on their side are beacon spamming and drilling people at 250+ sigs with nothing being done about it. But, I guess things can't be prefect now can they.
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-02-04 07:02
Quote:
|
On 2008-02-04 04:40, Shigernafy wrote:
|
|
Somewhere, Demorian is smiling.
_________________
|
GothThug {C?}
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 29, 2005
Posts: 2932
| Posted: 2008-02-04 08:17
somehow i think xTx somewhere didnt read the RoC thorough enough....and honestly i dont think your Infractions should be public....but thats just me 
_________________
|
Nat
Marshal
Joined: November 02, 2002
Posts: 306
From: Adelaide, Australia
| Posted: 2008-02-04 08:42
Since Shig answered the post entirely with his reply and the RoC specifically forbids any dessemination of private player information (including player history) any further "discussion" of this topic is pointless and will only lead to flame-wars.
Therefore
Locked
_________________
Grand Admiral Nat
Darkspace Moderator/Developer
Commander Colony Excalibur
Captain Siphon Australis
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-02-04 12:25
To quickly respond to Sanity's post:
Admins, in their admin accounts anyway, don't go in the game for kicks. They go in if there are problems reported, or problems noticed. Thus, if you see an admin in on, say, ICC, its probably because Exathra has revolted, ICC is complaining about enemies in reports and thus we want to see what they see, or everyone else is complaining about ICC, so we want to see what ICC is up to. It doesn't mean we're in there to "rally the troops" our support our exploitative friends.
So say you get beaconed to 204 sig, and report that (ignoring the fact that there is a planet with a sensor on it nearby, and you're going 16 gu/s, and your SI is recharging). An admin may login to ICC and watch the play a bit. We're not just going to be sitting in the lobby and automatically banning anyone who is reported; we have to have conclusive proof provided via screenshot or witness something illegal. But JoeBob, the player you reported as beacon spamming, only has one beacon on his ship, and while you're in the MV for 30 minutes, you don't see him fire it, nor do you get any further reports about people being spammed. So, not really a lot of reason to ban him.
Or, say he does use beacons a few times. You can still hit a ship with 5 level 10 beacons without any problems, and more if you don't upgrade them. So in watching the battle, you see a few beacons fly, and you see a few beacons on enemy ships - but one or two red rings and no perceived malice from the ICC players - they just want to prevent cloaking, which is reasonable. Is that really something that needs to be banned for?
Or, say you get another report on the same player.. or even that he has two beacons on his ship. You tell him to turn off his beacons, tell him to remod his ship and drop the second, or tell him to not beacon so much. He apologizes and seems to not beacon much while you watch for the next while. Does that also require a ban?
Not every offense you see gets handled the same way, or should be. And not every offense you report will result in a ban. Just because you see an Admin in on a team doesn't mean he's doing something to help them, and just because you still see someone in the MV doesn't mean they weren't talked to or even that their Scouting prestige wasn't edited for carrying too many beacons.
Don't assume because you didn't see something happen that nothing did.
Also, we tend to operate under the spirit of the law, more than the letter. 208 sig is the letter, while 280 is the spirit. Don't freak out as soon as you hit 200. Just request the beacons be turned off, or notify the other team that you are, in fact, already beaconed and more will push you over the limit - look, a polite warning to chill out. I know it may be frustrating to never be able to cloak, but in most cases players aren't beaconing you to crash you; they're beaconing you to be sure you won't disappear one way or another.
If you tell them and then four more beacons immediately fly your way, that's more of a problem.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
