Administrators: Server Rule 1.2.

[n00bl3t]

2. A discussion of a rule that is concerning enough to create a thread about while remaining vague about the reasons that led to the creation of the thread, giving the general impression that something that ain't broke suddenly needs fixing...without offering solutions to the perceived 'issue' really just smells of complaining.

I clarified the reason for creation of the thread earlier, as well as why I asked my question. Feel free not to accept it, but do not label it differently when I have already explained myself.

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[Dieter Schprokets]

I'll be brief.

1.2 gives us the ability to stop things that anyone in their right mind would know needed stopped. We don't use it unless all Admins agree.

Another point that I feel I need to make because it seems such a common misconception:

This is a videogame. And too many people think the Admins, and the rules in general, have to be held to the same QA/QC standards as an ISO 9001 company, or a modern Democratic government, complete with the rules which act as our constitution.

It's a videogame. We simply don't have to take it that seriously. Think about it. You can trust the Admins to decide what is fair and reasonable with respect to applying 1.2.

And if the Admins did screw up the application of rule 1.2, the only thing that would happen is somebody's ability to play a videogame would be hampered, perhaps for some time, perhaps not.

Nobody would go to the gulag. Don't take it so seriously.

Oh and incidently:

1.2 Server administrators will impose sanctions on players for violating server rules and for any actions that harm server gameplay.

What this actually means is that you have to send Dieter real money at his home address, in order to not be banned. Otherwise you are harming server gameplay. I'll decide.

:)

---

[Hawkwings]

We'll all do that once you provide your real address;)

---

|| Join the Kusari State Police || KSP Internal Affairs || KSP Message Dump || KSP Feedback ||
||Kusari Criminal Database || Kusari Legal Codex || Kusari Bounty Board ||

[Turkish]

Is beer an equal and acceptable substitute?

---

I have a fetish for all things Norse.

[Marburg]

The above uber true statement from Dieter is one of the reasons he rocks like a $2 dollar ho on dollar night:D

(Do you accept payment on the gold standard, or just the Canadian Dollar?)

Anyhoo, imho, trying to get a concrete answer on a designed fluid rule in the coveted green color would be akin to getting a concrete answer to why 'god' (or whatever mystical sky dude floats your individual boats) allows bad things happen to good people.

It is what it is, & it's there is a reason for it being there...you may like it (or not like it) but in these parts, it's Igiss's Law.

I saw a reference in the OP's 1st post on the end in parentheses that I didn't notice before the 9th page was created, so if it was there from the get go, then I'll rattle off the whole mea culpa mantra...but I could ::almost:: swear that part was added later on without edit-credit. (although, I did, in fact overlook the short hoodlum post on page 5 or so)

I'm not an archiver, so I'm not really sure honestly.

Anyhoo, since there is only one example of "threat" does only one single example prove power drunkeness?

I think not

I actually took the time to read the whole linked sanction thread, what I saw was a guy that broke the rules & took it far too seriously & personal.

If ya can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I'd love to continue the discussion on this issue. If it really is an issue, then it needs more examples, then we could present remedies to it.

---

[n00bl3t]

I saw a reference in the OP's 1st post on the end in parentheses that I didn't notice before the 9th page was created, so if it was there from the get go, then I'll rattle off the whole mea culpa mantra...but I could ::almost:: swear that part was added later on without edit-credit. (although, I did, in fact overlook the short hoodlum post on page 5 or so)

I'm not an archiver, so I'm not really sure honestly.


Anyhoo, since there is only one example of "threat" does only one single example prove power drunkeness?

I think not


I'd love to continue the discussion on this issue. If it really is an issue, then it needs more examples, then we could present remedies to it.

My first post has not been edited since any of your account(s) came into this thread.

It was one recent example that stuck in my head, since 1.2 is meant to be heavily discussed and all that. (I assumed this to be the case even before responses were made here.)

As for power-drunkedness, bias, negligence, conspiracies, et cetera, that is not my point. Just a discussion about the rule, how it has been used, how it will be used and the community's thoughts on anything relevant to it.

Remedies are un-needed. I just want to broaden my understanding of 1.2, for now.

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.

[Marburg]

My first post has not been edited since any of your account(s) came into this thread.

It was one recent example that stuck in my head, since 1.2 is meant to be heavily discussed and all that. (I assumed this to be the case even before responses were made here.)

As for power-drunkedness, bias, negligence, conspiracies, et cetera, that is not my point. Just a discussion about the rule, how it has been used, how it will be used and the community's thoughts on anything relevant to it.

Remedies are un-needed. I just want to broaden my understanding of 1.2, for now.

Honestly, no worries. I've seen non-issues morph into hot buttons with little effort for years now & with as many pages as this thread has generated so far...I can't help but say: "I hear what's bein' said, but what's the point?"

It's already been made clear most eloquently by others ::albeit without the desired magical green color:: that the rule is a basically a catch-all...so now that it's stated & understood, why continue to beat a dead horse? if it's an actual problem worth discussing, then it should have some solutions presented, otherwise, the thread is just spinning its wheels.

---

[Rudo]

1.2 has always been my favorite part of the discovery rules. It just covers all the holes otherwise left in what is already an oversize and unwieldly set of regulations for a video game mod server.

Really, if people here accepted a bit of opaqueness and just applied a bit more consideration and common sense to their behavior, 1.2 would be all we need.

But I've always been a "spirit of the rule" kind of guy rather than the "letter".

---

[Athenian]

What disturbs me more is this about the rules;

"No you cannot see the evidence put against you unless the sanction reporter agrees on".

Hmm i kinda don`t like this rule because there is too much players with "Connections" with Admins or at least they know someone who is "Good" with `em...

Better way to stop players using holes in server rules is to make more rules which will patch that holes...

This new rule kinda scare me to interact with anyone...So i guess it suck if ya ask me...And i know that none is asking me so there is no point of this thred, until someone make batter server than this one we can all take it or leave it and accept every rule our great gods put on our head...

Both of you are a little off. That one case you mention was where the reporter' screenshots were no longer available on a file storage facility - hence he would have to be asked to provide them again. In my experience of sanctions the evidence has been available pretty freely.

As for 1.2's past, present and future: well the thread began with it being described as a "we can do what we want to" rule. Which is partly true. I'd replace the "what we want to" with "whatever may be necessary to make things run more smoothly".

It is not used or even referred to all that frequently. The thread begins by suggesting that it is used "these days" - the most recent example of its threatened use was six weeks ago.

If you want to check your understanding of Rule 1.2, look at its use in the past before that example.

It allows Administrators to sanction people for things detrimental to the collective experience of the game that may not becessarily be covered by the many other rules that are designed with specific game mechanics in mind. Of course that raises the question : "what do we mean by collective experience of the game", but the semantics could go on until the cows come home.

I have yet to see anyone make the case that the rule is somehow flawed in any way. I think that's why discussion of it can appear to be a pretty pointless gesture - we're talking about it in a vacuum.

---

Former member of "the most paranoid group of people in the community"
Discovery Community Forum Rules

[n00bl3t]

Honestly, no worries. I've seen non-issues morph into hot buttons with little effort for years now & with as many pages as this thread has generated so far...I can't help but say: "I hear what's bein' said, but what's the point?"

It's already been made clear most eloquently by others ::albeit without the desired magical green color:: that the rule is a basically a catch-all...so now that it's stated & understood, why continue to beat a dead horse? if it's an actual problem worth discussing, then it should have some solutions presented, otherwise, the thread is just spinning its wheels.

The point was to clarify and have a discussion about it. Whilst that has happened to a certain level, more discussion can definitely take place. (Especially since this has not become quite a hostile thread.)

Both of you are a little off. That one case you mention was where the reporter' screenshots were no longer available on a file storage facility - hence he would have to be asked to provide them again. In my experience of sanctions the evidence has been available pretty freely.

As for 1.2's past, present and future: well the thread began with it being described as a "we can do what we want to" rule. Which is partly true. I'd replace the "what we want to" with "whatever may be necessary to make things run more smoothly".

It is not used or even referred to all that frequently. The thread begins by suggesting that it is used "these days" - the most recent example of its threatened use was six weeks ago.

If you want to check your understanding of Rule 1.2, look at its use in the past before that example.

It allows Administrators to sanction people for things detrimental to the collective experience of the game that may not becessarily be covered by the many other rules that are designed with specific game mechanics in mind. Of course that raises the question : "what do we mean by collective experience of the game", but the semantics could go on until the cows come home.

I have yet to see anyone make the case that the rule is somehow flawed in any way. I think that's why discussion of it can appear to be a pretty pointless gesture - we're talking about it in a vacuum.

It is not so much the certain incident in itself, but more the attitude of the Administration saying that they will not provide the sanctioned person with SS. I know, that if I was sanctioned, I would want to see proof, and I would not be the only one in that.

Whilst the most recent example of a threat to it being used was by Hoodlum whenever, it was used within the last week. Feel free to question my use of the phrase "these days" however, since it is meant as a completely objective and non-subjective phrase.

As for discussion, it is here to take place. We cannot fully calculate what discussions and/or what points will be brought up. Hence, this thread continues to exist.


(Feel free to keep the discussions going.)

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.