+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Rules & Requests (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Rules (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF (/showthread.php?tid=99612)
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - Thyrzul - 06-01-2013
Add 1.10 to Luke's sanction list too then.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - Jinx - 06-01-2013
a few things to consider
- roleplay is not ooc. roleplay is at its best when it is agreed on from both sides on a ooc basis. - roleplay is stageplay... but when roleplay is only unilateral it starts to mix with ooc. - so why not trust each other to work out a plot
- a good mantra is always the classic that you must not treat others in a way you would not like to be treated yourself. if the players involved agree that they would have enjoyed the outcome - NO MATTER what role in that all they occupy - they can at least live with their own conscience.
- classic inRP consequences are "comply or die" - we have no other tools. - the police cannot incarcerate an offender or lock them down for X hours.
that works very well in terms of ships.
- ships are a "one-time-investment"
- ships do not use money to be maintained
- ships are significantly cheaper than pobs
- most importantly ... ships respawn when they die
- ships / players can always offer a compromise to avoid combat situationally
it does not work well with pobs.
- pobs are a progressive investment
- pobs require money to be maintained
- pobs are significantly more expensive than ships
- and most importantly .... pobs do not resawn when they die
- pobs cannot offer an agreement, cause they are "stupid" - only when the owners ore representatives are ACTIVLY around, they an offer a compromise
the differences - especially regarding pvp - is huge. and so the old classic "comply or die" so called "inRP" consequence may not apply too well.
we seem to have two very different stances now. in case of itabashi - the goverment was a bit slow and the base was a bit over aggressive. in case of this base - the goverment was a bit fast and the base appeared not to have been overaggressive - but presumed to be a danger to become that ( pre-emptive strike )
in my opinion - PoBs are unlike playerships. there should be a RULE that demands that the owner
- should not be forced to share the password with someone he does not fully trust
inRP a faction can demand a password - but the base owner should also "inRP" be allowed to give a FAKE password - that is treated like a real one. when the faction wants to USE that password - they would need to contact the base owner with their intent. - hence forcing multilateral roleplay or forcing a compromise. the fake password should be treated like the real one inRP - but enabling the base owner to "have changed the password upon noticing the malivious attempt of the other party" - that would flag the base effectivly hostile to those who realize that they were given a "now invalid password" - so they can siege the base ... but not from within but from the outside.
it may be logical to demand a pw inRP - but we are dealing with conditions that are FAR different from normal pvp.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - jonnaffen747 - 06-01-2013
(06-01-2013, 10:29 AM)Thyrzul Wrote:EDIT:
(06-01-2013, 10:29 AM)jonnaffen747 Wrote: Edit : If and only If (I'm saying if for a good reason) the base will be revived by the admins, It won't defend anymore gate all platforms will be taken back to base. And Maybe ill destroy 1-2 platforms to add cargo modules.
-Thanks to Chris for this
If that will really be the case and the base would lose it's capabilities to abuse the location, in my opinion that could be a solution to favor all sides. But only if that really will be.
This is an Option that i want to add to the list for all that didnt had seen it
EDIT : Give me an example for 1.10 and ill add a describtion
-------------------------------------------------
it does not work well with pobs.
- pobs are a progressive investment
- pobs require money to be maintained
- pobs are significantly more expensive than ships
- and most importantly .... pobs do not resawn when they die
- pobs cannot offer an agreement, cause they are "stupid" - only when the owners ore representatives are ACTIVLY around, they an offer a compromise
True words.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - jonnaffen747 - 06-01-2013
Okay I've posted A poll that run from now on 5 Days everyone is free to vote what ever he likes to.
Maybe this will help bringin our Discussion Forward.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - Thyrzul - 06-01-2013
I am personally in favor of multilateral roleplay and communication between the parties, but in one of the scenarios you mentioned, Jinx, the owner can easily go rogue and the base can become hostile to the local forces.
The issue comes when said rogue base is at a bottleneck leading to the capital, and armed pretty well to effectively disrupt any traffic going in and out, practically paralyzing the House itself to a significant degree.
Given the nature of sieges and the effort it takes to bring down a station of this magnitude, I can totally understand the standpoint of the War Cabinet once the base going rogue has became a possible outcome that a preemptive strike proved way more suitable than a siege afterwards. Because even during a siege, the capital itself is blockaded from that side... in this case the base could have sealed Bretonia from it's most valuable ally, Liberty.
EDIT:
Deliberately setting a station's defense mode to hostile to all vessels not on the docking list in order to make the station blow up non-registered transports at will without any further discrimination. Doing so out of mere amusement and without any roleplay basis.
The issue comes when said rogue base is at a bottleneck leading to the capital, and armed pretty well to effectively disrupt any traffic going in and out, practically paralyzing the House itself to a significant degree.
Given the nature of sieges and the effort it takes to bring down a station of this magnitude, I can totally understand the standpoint of the War Cabinet once the base going rogue has became a possible outcome that a preemptive strike proved way more suitable than a siege afterwards. Because even during a siege, the capital itself is blockaded from that side... in this case the base could have sealed Bretonia from it's most valuable ally, Liberty.
EDIT:
(06-01-2013, 10:59 AM)jonnaffen747 Wrote: Give me an example for 1.10 and ill add a describtion
Deliberately setting a station's defense mode to hostile to all vessels not on the docking list in order to make the station blow up non-registered transports at will without any further discrimination. Doing so out of mere amusement and without any roleplay basis.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - Jinx - 06-01-2013
yes - the problem is that multilateral roleplay can be abused. hindsight of what is to come can screw others over. - a base that cannot be removed is as much a pain as a base that is remove pre-maturely. - and we had both versions on disco.
it comes down to a very sucjective decision - who is to be favoured more... the ones that want the base removed - or the ones that own the base.
some of the issues with bases that exploit bottleneck traffic - can be addressed by the dev team. - but thats it really.
it is rather sad that a feature that is meant to be fun for all - turns into a feature that is making everyone ( except the gleeful bystanders ) unhappy.
and yes - i can understand why the bretonians acted that way. - i can also understand however why the base ownder feels genuinly betrayed.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - jonnaffen747 - 06-01-2013
[12:18:10] Ceco "HärbǏngÊR" Mihailov:
Jansen
(aerelm's Sidekick (inlove))
Registration Date: 01-27-2009
Date of Birth: 02-22-1991 (22 years old)
Local Time: 06-01-2013 at 12:17 PM
Status: Online (Editing Poll Results @ 10:17 AM)
Realy fair, not even givin the poll a Chance.
I won't answer here anymore , as it seems Moderators defending Moderators ... and not even a fair court in this here.
Where's the sence in this then if everyone can do whatever he wants? nothing.
Summer's sight ,
Hm that base suxs killed 1 Transport. Well i will destroy it now! and the reason i Name is Cuz i can
- Imma out
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - Jack_Henderson - 06-01-2013
You War Cabinet/Bretonian guys in here can justify what you want... the fact is:
The destruction of 3 transports (you can prove what? one? You have a "olololol" on Skype? Is there any rp?) does not justify trashing a Core 4 base that had been there for a long time and seems not to have caused considerable problems for a large part of that time. Especially if there actually is a line to communicate with each other (actually an active cooperation) and after suggestions for change had been taken up and implemented by the owner.
Let's analys damage for both sides and look for appropriateness, because in my opinion a reaction to an action should always be appropriate:
> 3 transports blow up every 3 minutes in Disco. Their maximum value is less than 100 mils and 30 minutes in time and no one gets emotionally involved about a transport blowing up anyway, as it just happens everyday, all day.
> The WC decided on a whim and from their feeling of being entitled to it to destroy something that took weeks if not months to create, is worth billions and - most importantly - carries the heartblood of the owner... just because they could. Let's also mention 2,561 views in a very short time, 109 often emotional replies by many players, so in short: big drama for big parts of the cmmunity.
Conclusion:
The crime does not fit the punishment.
You do not execute a small criminal by dropping an atomic bomb on the town he lives in.
=> Appropriateness is definitely not given in this case.
Even if anybody believes the weak attempt to mark the base as a "troll base that had to be destroyed for the greater good", the way of doing it was not apropriate. We all know where troll bases were and how they created the overall damage done here in less than an hour, for weeks or even months.
The point "He broke the agreement, the base can legally be destroyed" and the attempt to find an irp explanation for an oorp attack, doesn't change that this was an extremely bad call, the oorp execution was as dirty and cowardly a backstab as can be and those players involved should be ashamed and not stand here, saying "np np" and defending their decision like many do.
The only one who really understood what happened on a player-to-player level is Summer, because he bore the full brunt of the reaction from all sides.
Empathy and perspective change (= how would I feel if this happened to me?) is what should play a role in decisions like that. But I assume it was just once again: Power. And power has always brought out the worst in people. Actually, Summer wrote that.
The solution has already been voiced in here.
It was dirty action on many levels.
=> Step 1: restore it.
Side comment: Bases have been restored for less reason than this.
Result: It would help the owner but also those players who were part in the killing and who feel bad about it.
Something like that should not happen again:
=> Step 2: disarm it. Completely.
Most importantly:
=> Step 3: Use the mess to draw a set of clear rules.
And: Admins, sorry, I know you hate more work and it is a game for you, too. I understand. But player bases are worth your getting involved. You look for justice when something gets unjustly destroyed in cases worth not even 1/100th in value, not even counting any emotional value (and thus drama potential!)... you cannot ignore things of this size and "let the players do it themselves".
Players are not able to, as this example, Seychelles in the past, and many other dick-moves with bases have proven. I bet you have tons of problems that have been reported. Please get involved.
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - Cannon - 06-01-2013
jonnaffen747 - this is not a trial by forum. I allowed this thread to foster discussion between the groups involved in this situation and the wider community rather than making an admin decision based on the only information both groups provided.
Adding a vote to this thread is not helpful because we have no intention of acting on that sort of thing. We will listen to rational arguments made in this thread and we mostly were hoping that these groups could figure something out without admin intervention.
If you want to push for an admin decision quickly, we will make one and I doubt it will be in your favour. [PS check the vote -- for reference I edited it]
RE: Abuse of Power Complaint to Admins Via Bretonian War Cabinet/BAF - jonnaffen747 - 06-01-2013
I'll think about your last sentence, Sounds fair with that what I've done. Will PM you later with my decision.