+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Community Feedback (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=627)
+--- Thread: Staff Feedback Thread (/showthread.php?tid=168272)
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Squad - 04-12-2021
(04-11-2021, 10:00 PM)The_Godslayer Wrote: Administrators and moderators use the powers given to them to do their duty to simply take shots at people they don't like, and defend it with false claims of benevolence. A little bit of lying isn't all that much, right?
If you have anything to submit with this, please do.
(04-11-2021, 10:00 PM)The_Godslayer Wrote: Of course, since it was someone critical of you in the past, you were happy to sanction away, using your server administration to control server roleplay, and when challenged to your face about the shoddy rule upkeep, you remained silent, having realized that having administration powers means that only someone else with administration powers can do something about you.
I understand you have issues with your particular sanction, but personally, I don't know/care to know who has a particular character in a violation report except to the extent that player has been previously sanctioned. Of course, if you'll have a look at the vast majority of IDs, they specify in what instances engagement is allowed in addition to those provided in the rules primarily as a method of informing players what they can expect when encountering a specific ID. The Researcher ID has no engagement lines and specifically removes a rule-provided engagement scenario by barring bounties. You then point to instances of rule-allowed engagement, which is fair.
The rules also provide definitions for "allies," which you'll find in 2.9. Of the four circumstances listed, which are based on the ID, none appear to apply, particularly as the Researcher ID has no listed allies. If you have information as to why this should apply under 2.9, by all means send it to me so we can revisit if needed.
(04-11-2021, 10:00 PM)The_Godslayer Wrote: New players that immediately cause problems are normally Slavic, and of course, most people would think "Oh, it's just those Russians again. Probably can't even speak English." But two harassment sanctions, each based off one word, against two long-standing Slavic players? Don't you think your intentions are starting to show through a bit?
I'm not sure why a new Slavic player would immediately cause problems. In any event, multiple OORP faction messages to poke at folks isn't something that should be encouraged. As I said previously, I don't know or really care to know who has a particular character in a violation report. I do expect "veteran" players to know better, and I think other players should expect the same. Whether a player decides to quit in response to a sanction or warning isn't something we can control, and speaking for myself, I am always available to discuss sanctions/additional information should someone want to. We're not perfect.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Couden - 04-12-2021
(04-12-2021, 12:55 AM)Squad Wrote: I'm not sure why a new Slavic player would immediately cause problems. In any event, multiple OORP faction messages to poke at folks isn't something that should be encouraged.
Russians are bad, for sure. that's not the English-speaking person or not the Snubwhore at all. Sad.
Squad Wrote:I am always available to discuss sanctions/additional information should someone want to
Tell me then why you rejected the LR- Requests? Just interesting.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Squad - 04-12-2021
(04-12-2021, 01:02 AM)Couden Wrote: Tell me then why you rejected the LR- Requests? Just interesting.
I'd assume for the reasons given in the PMs. If there's something not clear, please feel free respond to them.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Czechmate - 04-12-2021
LR- is kinda sad, I was looking into old OLD forum sections, and they are one of the very few factions that still existed from those days.
It baffling @"Rudy." would just force it to die even though Couden and maybe others wanted to continue it. I wish Admins would step in there, but suppose if the current holder of the passwords wants to kill it...it's hard to stop him without setting a dangerous precedent from the staff.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Skorak - 04-12-2021
It doesn't exist from back then. It was disbanded and remade over a year later.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Czechmate - 04-12-2021
(04-12-2021, 06:52 AM)Skorak Wrote: It doesn't exist from back then. It was disbanded and remade over a year later.Wait so people re-made it to continue the legacy?
And the same people will just block current active members wanting to do the same and continue said legacy? Disco baffles me sometimes... Maybe Admins could at least recommend it to the account holders to not forcefully kill it for good - as they just can't force them due to the outrage that'd cause.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Couden - 04-12-2021
(04-12-2021, 01:06 AM)Squad Wrote: I'd assume for the reasons given in the PMs. If there's something not clear, please feel free respond to them
Squad: LR- Tag request Wrote:Good evening,
We have discussed your request regarding the LR- tag. You're more than welcome to obtain it with permission or use a different tag.
Squad: LR- Forum Account Wrote:Good afternoon,
We have discussed your request regarding the LR- forum account. You may obtain it from others who have access, but we will not be giving you access at this time. You're more than welcome to create another account for another Rogue faction should you wish.
The thing is: @Rudy Isn't want to do anything and give me something, despite I made it for LR- and I went to you and I asked for the Faction Tag and Forum Account to continue what I've cared about last 6 months. Both your (Just rejecting ) and Rudy (Just ignoring and don't want to answer why he don't want to give me the tag)rejection just upset me. Why do you even need, if you can't help with that? The different tag wasn't an option, so the different Forum Account. This will be not the LR-, but something already not that.
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Czechmate - 04-12-2021
Admins can't just take people's access and give it to other people at will for subjective reasons - think about the precedent that would set. Sadly this one is on Rudy - and really I was reading about the faction from like 2009. It's sad he would block people from wanting it to continue, but there's not much Admins can do forcefully sadly I'd say
RE: Admin Feedback Thread - Hokan - 04-12-2021
You know. I might regret using my time on this but fook it I've started now...
(04-11-2021, 10:00 PM)The_Godslayer Wrote: you remained silent
&
²
Starting with the Taurus sanction as I think it would be longer. There are a number of assumptions/presumptions at work here in the rules that would be better changed to remove ambiguity when the rules come under scrutiny.
For those not aware, the Taurus convoy was intercepted by an individual. CD were fired, RP was made and the individual ended up dead by a member of the convoy who did not type any text.
One of the first presumptions on the server is that those you meet in game are also roleplaying, even if they have not typed. Those who trade are roleplaying traders, those who are tagged as a pirate are pirates. You don't need to type text to understand the role they are playing. This is because their is a lot of visual communication being fed to people for them to understand the situation around them. In other words, roleplaying isn't only text. (Like roleplaying with your guns
)Even in the message you get when you go to Conn it specifically states the removal of the requirement of roleplaying only for that system.
Quote: Connecticut uses a custom set of rules to the rest of the server:
- Roleplay is not required in this system.
- Do not attack other players without prior agreement.
- Be polite and do not taunt or ridicule other players.
- Return a player's dropped loot if they ask you.
It stands to reason that then when you're flying around and not saying anything you are still in-fact roleplaying. When it comes to Rule 2.2 however, this notion is tossed aside in favour of text being the only viable way to roleplay. Based on the need for evidence and the admins being able to look at chat logs, you can understand why. However the rule none the less states roleplay, not text, is required first.
This then presents two problems. First being that you do not require engagement lines to attack someone, which could lead to further problems. Two, the Admins sanctioning people where they reasonably ought not too, because of an assumption not stated in the rules. And this has lead to the sanctioning of a member of a convoy which was intercepted and attacked because he essentially didn't type "Red on scanners, engag al gun".
As far as I can see, the way around this would be to require text roleplaying in the rule and acknowledge that the context of the situation maybe used to dismiss a sanction based on fairness & justice rather than letting the sanctions become a method for players to take punitive action against other players when they fail to be aware that convoys require multiple players present.
Due to a misunderstanding, this part is irrelevant. I'll put it into a spoiler in case anyone was interested in what was said.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
SpoilerRE: Admin Feedback Thread - Enkidu - 04-12-2021
I just want to add that Hokan is not a member of Taurus and doesn't play with Taurus as far as I can tell, so this opinion is entirely his own and wasn't prompted by me.
I do agree with it, though. Thanks.