ADMIN NOTICE : OFFICIAL FACTION RIGHTS

[Dieter Schprokets]

It was predicted that the battleship licence right would be the most controversial.

In Sirius, they came first for the liners, And I didnt speak up because I didn't own a liner;
And then they came for the battleships, And I didnt speak up because I didn't own a battleship;
And then they came for the destroyers, And I didnt speak up because I didn't own a destroyer;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

This is a bit melodramatic. In reality, this proposal is only about those ships that require a battleship licence. I don't know how control of other ships is even practical. And I don't think its desirable to go that far.

Xoria, if you told me there was a problem with badly played Spyglasses running rampant in Vespucci, Cortez and Magellan, Id take your word for it. Other people tell you there are problems elsewhere. Can you not take their word for it? You also see the same sanction reports other Admins do.

Your critique of the battleship licencing idea is predicated on 2 assumptions:

1) Official Factions will fail to objectively evaluate the licence application.

2) If the Official Factions do fail to objectively evaluate the licence application, the harried Admins will be too busy, and disinterested to intervene.

Those assumptions are pessimistic.

I for one am optimistic that the opinions of faction leaders about the ability of a player to RP well, and understand the rules, will be sound. This is not rocket science. A good application for a battleship licence would demonstrate a good understanding of the faction diplomacy and RP, an interesting backstory for the vessel, and a good understanding of the server rules.

Precisely the same sort of thing official factions look at in prospective new members, regularly, when they assess those prospective members through their recruitment process.

Everyone knows what a poor application would look like. I want to get a battleship because I want to pwn piratz. It will be objectively and demonstrably poor.

You speak of Admins having to wade through evidence of unfairness, which likely won't be available anyway, because it will all be buried in secret Skype chats, etc. That is wrong. The only "evidence" needing review will be a perfectly good application which got denied anyway, for no good reason. That's it.

We have application processes for all sorts of things here.

-Want to join an official faction? You have to apply.
-Want to start an official faction? You have to apply.
-Want to buy a system? You have to apply.
-Want a terrorist ID? You have to apply.

So now, you want to fly a battleship? You have to apply. That's all there is to the proposal, in a nutshell.

I have said this before, and I'll say it again. I am not worried about this proposal not "working", in the sense of keeping bad players out of battleships.

I AM worried about it being divisive, and this thread is partially meant to measure that. So please keep it coming, but could all concerned just watch the temperature?

I have said in the Admin forums and still believe that Right Number 5 should be subjected to a community vote, and only implemented if it got very strong backing. In my opinion, 60% in favour wouldn't be enough. Nor likely 70%. Would have to be very strong indeed.

Democracy shouldn't be about 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I respect the opinions of those who have posted their disagreement with rule 5.

But what I would like to see is those people suggest another alternative.

For instance, I've seen a few "The Official Factions should have the power to remove battleship licences from abusive players." We have that now, in the form of the "harming server gameplay" rule. But it's weak in the sense that it's hard to file a sanction report with evidence of that.

That suggestion is about better methods of reporting abuse rather than restricting people. I'm all for that, if we can firm it up somehow.

In other words, if not Right 5, then what other ideas are out there?

---