Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF

[Alley]

Isnt that a possibility in RP?

a master password given via skype is not a rp possibility as there is no text on the forums that testify of a joint leadership or ownership transfer.

If that was done, you could have done this "sabotage" inRP without issues or if both sides agreed (that means john's agreement to RP a sabotage). There is nothing.

Members of the War Cabinet should have known better than anyone else that anything you want to use in a inRP way must be either written on the forums or have happened ingame preferably with a chatlog saved. Skype agreements have never been considered inRP for as long as I've been in this community and this is why they are afterwards rewritten in a communication channel thread once both participants have laid out the terms on skype.

---

Alley was right.

[Alley]

Actually let's make a useful double post.

It's like most of you have lost the basic understanding of how the server really works and are hiding in your little world of what is rp and what is not provided it suits your needs.

You all (Bretonian War Cabinet and jonnaffen747) are in the grey zone right now. None of you can claim ANYTHING because the destruction of the base has been done on OORP grounds so the funny bretonian guys that have been claiming for pages that this is completely inRP stop fooling yourselves because this is not.

This event is in the exact same grey zone as giving someone access to a shared ships account and he decides to movechar it to a personal account. It's a dick move, but it's outside of the admin team scope and there is nothing that will be done about it. YOUR STUFF IS YOUR RESPONSABILITY. WHO YOU SHARE IT WITH IS YOUR RESPONSABILITY AND YOUR PROBLEM. Admins have repeated it thousands of times just like us mods (current and former) did as well.

This also mean that cannon will probably not restore the base for that reason, and if he does well I'll be damned.

The only thing that comes out of this whole thing is that the bretonian cabinet players have been dicks and abused jonnaffen's trust, but it's not against the rules just like stealing a shared ship makes you a dick but can't be sanctioned. Expect fierce retaliation for doing this kind of crap though.

Seriously I hope this clear things up for both of you because 25 pages without anyone mentioning this is wow. A public apology from the Bretonian War Cabinet players would likely be most welcomed but if you want to be remembered as "these guys" and have every base owner in bretonia change their base password and potential future base builders go somewhere else because you have a stinky reputation it's your problem.

---

Alley was right.

[Oorn]

Sooo in the end whole base concept exploded into 25 pages of whine, trolling, hypocrisy and other interesting things. While the situation is tragic (how much time it took to set up base), it's by no means unique. Base griefing existed before, will probably exist after. What made this base explosion so big are but details:
1: Big official faction was involved
2: decission was made behind closed doors
3: admin was involved
4: boom involved backdoor
Similar cases existed since very introduction of bases. And there is NO WAY to stop them from poping now and then with base system as it is now.

C'mon, its a concept centered around GRIND with no player interaction. On server, where player interaction is everyting, such concept inevitably creates design paradoxes. Only concept, by the way, which you can actually LOSE. cap8 BSes, no matter how much someone else tries, will not be taken from you. Bases are stupid time wise. At BEST, 1/10 of the time you spend GRINDING base will be returned to you with RP. At worst (read usually) it will be 3 rp interactions max. Very few bases actually generate rp.

So, in perfect world i would like bases to be SRP, only creatable when tons of building rp and admin permission is in place, only destroyable in PvP events, not 24/7. Only then will bases be viewed as something other then just asset. Elitism, you say? Name a base, which doesnt constitute to those requirments, but still enriches server atmosphere.

Long story short: leave bases with exstensive roleplay activity as is, announce 1 month test time, after which OORP bases will be removed with cost returned to owners. Want ADMIN oppinion on this idea rly.

---

When "roleplay" around you seems to be diminishing... all you can do is be a new beacon of roleplay to light up everyone else's interactions.

[Cannon]

Thank you for patience of the people directly involved, the comments from the community and the generally civil discussion. After listening to the sides in this debate, here is the decision.

There will be no action taken against anybody involved in this situation.

The base will not be restored.

The Bretonian war cabinet must to role play this sort of situation better in the future. It is the responsibility of official factions to act as an example for all players and this wasn't a good example.

In the olden days (2008), often the discussion between people for strategy and policy was conducted in character on the forum. For decisions affecting other factions or player bases I suggest that people start doing this again.

As people have asked for clarification:
1) Roleplay agreements made in skype are not valid. Roleplay must happen on the forum or in game for it to exist. This means that people can't use skype chats as evidence of role play agreements or discussions.

2) Roleplay is required before seriously attacking or destroying a base. This should happen on the forum but it is reasonable for it to happen in game if it is part of a conversation with a base owner. This means that if you don't do this you might be in violation of rule 5.2

---

Proud member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"

Old Avatar #2 | Old Avatar #3

[Cannon]

I'm leaving this unlocked so people can continue discussing things -- as long as it says civil. It won't change the decision but people can ask questions about the policy statements.

---

Proud member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"

Old Avatar #2 | Old Avatar #3

[Oorn]

2) Roleplay is required before seriously attacking or destroying a base. This should happen on the forum but it is reasonable for it to happen in game if it is part of a conversation with a base owner. This means that if you don't do this you might be in violation of rule 5.2

There will be no action taken against anybody involved in this situation.

Basicly, there is now new rule about bases, but because destruction happened before rule introduction, rule will not be applied?
Why not restore the base on this special ocassion, as both sides are not happy with the result?

Other question: are there plans for groundbreaking changes with base system?

---

When "roleplay" around you seems to be diminishing... all you can do is be a new beacon of roleplay to light up everyone else's interactions.

[Jinx]

problematic precidence imo

it means:

- factions that claim space can legitimately force pob builders to share their master password with them
- they are also allowed to destroy the base from within as they see fit - provided that sufficient engagement notice was given

if a pob builder does not want to share his pw - the factions claiming the space can legitimately destroy any efford ( so far so good )

but does that not discourage the building of bases quite a lot?

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[Hone]

Thank you for patience of the people directly involved, the comments from the community and the generally civil discussion. After listening to the sides in this debate, here is the decision.

There will be no action taken against anybody involved in this situation.

The base will not be restored.

The Bretonian war cabinet must to role play this sort of situation better in the future. It is the responsibility of official factions to act as an example for all players and this wasn't a good example.

In the olden days (2008), often the discussion between people for strategy and policy was conducted in character on the forum. For decisions affecting other factions or player bases I suggest that people start doing this again.

As people have asked for clarification:
1) Roleplay agreements made in skype are not valid. Roleplay must happen on the forum or in game for it to exist. This means that people can't use skype chats as evidence of role play agreements or discussions.

2) Roleplay is required before seriously attacking or destroying a base. This should happen on the forum but it is reasonable for it to happen in game if it is part of a conversation with a base owner. This means that if you don't do this you might be in violation of rule 5.2

Hi, I think itd be a good idea to add that to the official rules eh? As many new bases are destroyed as soon as they are seen.

I would however ask what constitutes RP in destroying a base? For instance if i come across a base, and its hostile and shoots me, does that give me the right to destroy it?

---

User was banned for: Griefing others
Time left: (Permanent)

[jonnaffen747]

Thats crap.
I lost everything.
Noone helps great.

[Reid]

Thats crap.
I lost everything.
Noone helps great.

Don't give your password out next time

---