Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution

Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Printable Version

+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution (/showthread.php?tid=129109)

Pages: 1 2

Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - SpaceTime - 05-07-2015

The last few days:

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - SpaceTime - 05-07-2015

Considering that one picture equals one thousand words, I have tried with four memes to expose in the most prominent way an important problem of Discovery. I know I may be targetted due to this but as a Disco veteran I feel it's my duty to finally address this problem with the community and the admins, despite the personal costs.

Oorp partiality cannot be defeated. However when it exists in the upper echelons of the official factions this is when it creates significant problems to all the surrounding players and factions. Unlike individuals, official factions control the entire faction and in some cases an entire House and thus have many and important decisions to make on a weekly basis. Subsequently, for example, if an official faction leader does not like a particular person of another faction, he can do various things like ignore the attempted RP or harshly punish any minor offenses. On the other hand, if he is in good oorp terms he can ignore any offenses without RP justification.

Eventually, this major issue demotivates players and factions from investing more RP since they know that after scratching the surface they would find only oorp motivation. Oorp partiality can be created because of one of the 3 following reasons which themselves are not a problem if they do not mitigate in inRP actions too:

Multi-faction membership
Skype friendships
Oorp grudges

The Solution

Official factions should be responsible for providing impartial RP despite any oorp relationships. This should be written down as the one of the major responsibilities of an official faction. On the event that this does not happen, players can report it to the Violation Reports sub-section and if the admin investigation agrees, the official faction should be warned or lose a perk and in extreme cases lose its official status.

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - jammi - 05-07-2015

I like the solution. I can't really comment on the Liberty side of things, because I don't know enough about them. But the requirement that factions are to provide impartial RP is a good one. Currently the procedure you've described with an admin investigation, etc would probably be broadly and vaguely be covered by the 'harming server gameplay' caveat.

Despite that, it'd be nice if the rules were sharpened up so factions knew explicitly what was expected of them and what the consequences would be for falling short of that standard. For the people who do think there's a problem here, this'd be a step to add a little more oversight. For the people who don't think there's a problem, well, surely no factions would be harmed by the addition in that case? Win win.

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Stoner_Steve - 05-07-2015

I personally agree with most of what you have said, but how do you prove any of this in the scope of a violation report?

Also can we really try hard to not let this devolve into a trial by forums

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Corile - 05-07-2015

Do you even meme bro.

But I agree with the solution suggested.

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Neonzumi - 05-07-2015

(05-07-2015, 04:08 PM)Protégé Wrote: Do you even meme bro.

Skype friendship aren't as big of a problem as personal ooRP grudges.

And also i agree with the quote |8

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Teerin - 05-07-2015

LPI- is investigating the [UC] legal infraction unilaterally. There are no LPI- members in [UC]

Both [LN] members in LibGov have recognized their potential conflict of interest in this case, and have already abstained from any votes regarding [UC] that occur in that group

=LSF= handles its operations and issues fines as it wants. There are no =LSF= members in [UC]

Your conspiracy theory is amusing, but it doesn't quite stick

EDIT: Aside from myself, none of the other current [LN] members that are also in [UC] have a spot in the [UC] HC.

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - SpaceTime - 05-07-2015

Please Teerin let's not keep it personal and actually address the proposition I made.

(05-07-2015, 04:03 PM)jammi Wrote: I like the solution. I can't really comment on the Liberty side of things, because I don't know enough about them. But the requirement that factions are to provide impartial RP is a good one. Currently the procedure you've described with an admin investigation, etc would probably be broadly and vaguely be covered by the 'harming server gameplay' caveat.

(05-07-2015, 04:07 PM)Captain_Nemo Wrote: I personally agree with most of what you have said, but how do you prove any of this in the scope of a violation report?

The rule about "harming server gameplay" is a very sensitive one as far as I know it is used on extreme cases like with a recent ban. Partiality does not necessarily mean something very extreme like "harming server gameplay".

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Pavel - 05-07-2015

RE: Oorp Partiality by official factions and the proposed solution - Miaou - 05-07-2015

(05-07-2015, 04:24 PM)SpaceTime Wrote: Please Teerin let's not keep it personal and actually address the proposition I made.

You commented on something he's involved with, and he gave how the situation is actually being dealt with, which contradicts your point in this thread. I think you should actually void out your example as it doesn't match whatever you're trying to say here.