+- 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: Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" (/showthread.php?tid=14966)
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Drake - 01-09-2009
' Wrote:Everybody else who disagrees with me can generally be divided into Logical Argument Which Comes Down to a Difference of Ideals, People Who Had Some Trauma Somewhere Down the Line And Thence Can't Be Convinced Out of Their Position, and Poltroons.
Just out of curiosity, which am I?
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - mwerte - 01-09-2009
Couple of quick questions I had related to the latest admin notice
1) Does this void rule 4.3
Quote:4.3 Factions are free to restrict or not restrict access to their home systems and tax players who enter home system. Access to systems that surround home system must not be restricted unless there's a war with another faction.
Even the admins cannot sanction people for not not following the rules.
2) Why wasn't this done a few months ago when the 101st was blowing capships off the server left and right? Why only now when Bs| starts enforcing a policy of "no capships in NY" (which ironically this admin notice mandates). Why only now when this is probably the most liberal of the "capship regulations" around?
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Reverend Del - 01-09-2009
1) No except in one instance. That in which a correctly tagged and Id'd player wishes to enter the system in order to purchase items not sold elsewhere.
2) The Bs| were not enforcing a no caps in NY policy, they were enforcing a no-fire in NY policy in accordance with the RP they had worked out with the LN. This policy was against the wishes of Igiss, as publically stated in stewcool's special RP thread. Had it remained with the Bs| and those choosing to follow it, nothing would have happened.
The reason nothing was done with the 101st was because too few Admins to deal with it at that time. The 101sts policy shrank back before I became an Admin ergo nothing needed to be done.
Cap ship policy should be done on an incentive basis for those that follow it, if you don't follow it, you don't get the nice bonuses an official faction can give you, such as organised events in which you can fly your cap ship of choice. A policy enforcing signing up first will no longer be tolerated and any such existing policies should be changed forthwith.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Eppy - 01-09-2009
' Wrote:Just out of curiosity, which am I?
First one.
I think a large portion of the opposition is really just afraid to get somebody's hands dirty and hurt somebody's feelings. I don't hold that concern more than I feel necessary. What I find most idiotic, though (sorry, guys) is assuming that taking a mandatory regulation position is somehow assuming a 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' approach about things. It does no such thing; it simply creates a set of parameters players should follow that the rules don't cover (which they do not, don't try to make them the be-all end-all, because that's never worked and everybody knows it), that some of them may not even have been aware of. If the player already knows how to follow the accepted conventions, good for him, he signs his name and goes on to play with his new capship. If he doesn't know all of the accepted conventions, he's just been made aware of them, and still continues on to play with his new capship. If he refuses to sign his name he's expressing a rejection of the accepted conventions (keeping to a safe ZoI, not hoaring his cap, fighter-hunting, Nomad hunting, etc), which isn't going to do anybody any good down the line; he's going to start wars for the entire NPC group and create unpleasant RP situations (Who DID make that humongous Dreadnought that cruised past Manhattan before being shot down by the Carrier squadron, Admiral Hale?) that the whole player base will suffer for. We're not trying to do this to increase the faction's power (which, admittedly, I have misguidedly attempted to do myself in the past); we're trying to ensure a stable RP setting for the NPC faction player base and the server as a whole.
...WHICH is why I'm recommending a set of cap registration regulations laid down by the Administration, setting its clear purpose and its methods, should a player faction or group of player factions choose to do so. That way nobody can have their feathers ruffled and we can introduce a finer level of RP into the fun, harmonius (cliche' alert) game we all enjoy.
Quote:Cap ship policy should be done on an incentive basis for those that follow it, if you don't follow it, you don't get the nice bonuses an official faction can give you, such as organised events in which you can fly your cap ship of choice. A policy enforcing signing up first will no longer be tolerated and any such existing policies should be changed forthwith.
...we give bonuses? I don't see it. What on earth can we possibly give them? We tried adding a free Armor MK VIII to well-written RP posts for capships. Didn't do a thing.
EDIT: By Admin-regulated policy, of course, I mean something that actually has sway, which means unilateral acceptance, not this five-carrots-to-one-stick approach my seemingly misguided colleagues have shoved down our throats.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Drake - 01-10-2009
To be perfectly honest, I don't think some sort of capship control would necessarily be a bad thing. It might end up being a very good thing. However, I honestly don't trust players (not all players, at least, you'll eventually get a few bad eggs) to control it properly without a lot of Admin oversight.
And there's the fact that Igiss has pretty much said that there will be no one controlling capship distribution, ever, whatever anyone thinks. Even if someone managed to convince the entire Admin team, if they then couldn't convince Igiss, Igiss' word is law. And I haven't really heard anything new in the argument for capship control in the past few months, so I doubt Igiss has either. It's the same arguments, whether or not they have merit (some do, some don't), spouted over and over again.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Dab - 01-10-2009
Perhaps its time for admins to talk to Igiss about it, as well as several faction leaders and maybe shell out a guideline/rule list of what is and is not allowed for capship regulations. Then factions can take their pick of what regulations they wish to use that are allowed and use that as their policy. That way no one can take actions that are not allowed.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Eppy - 01-11-2009
' Wrote:Perhaps its time for admins to talk to Igiss about it, as well as several faction leaders and maybe shell out a guideline/rule list of what is and is not allowed for capship regulations. Then factions can take their pick of what regulations they wish to use that are allowed and use that as their policy. That way no one can take actions that are not allowed.
Thank you, Dab.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Linkus - 01-11-2009
Then again, perhaps it's time for Factions to stop bloody griping about what OTHERS are doing and just focus on themselves?
If you want your faction to look good, make sure your player faction is setting a good example and that you are doing good.
People will remember the player faction that stands out, no matter how bad the independants are.
If it's a case of fairplay, then that's another issue. That's an OOC issue and not an RP one (Well, in most cases) and so ought not to be dealt with by the factions but by People. Not players, people. Yes there is a difference.
In short, OOC matters such as 'rogue' caps ought to be dealt with OOC wise. Unless factions are now calling themselves OOC things as well, then they ought to stay away.
Call it a point of view but it's purely based on logic.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Eppy - 01-11-2009
Wouldn't it be in better taste to deal with OORP issues in-RP? Be the better man.:)
And don't accuse us of bloody griping. We just had our collective balls cut off, can you complain us for complaining about being demeaned into little more than a bunch of guys with the same tag? That's not what we signed up to be, and if you expect us to set an example we expect to have something worth bloody setting an example for, because if we don't have anything more than a pack of morons cruising by in Liberty Dreadnoughts there's not much incentive to remain factionized. We'll ask for the billion-and-a-half back and delete our status, thankee, and continue to RP as we choose without the restrictions and expectations placed on the official factions for no gain other than a fancy recruitment post.
Questions on the latest "Administrator Notice" - Linkus - 01-11-2009
I've suggested other ways for Official factions to have benefits (Specialised ships, weapons etc) but it met with no responce at all.
I've nothing against factions, I've been in a good few and still am.
What DID you sign up for?
Did you sign up just so you could control how other people play their game?
Or
Did you sign up so you could actually play the faction you like and in a good manner?
Again the question stands though.
Why does it matter what the independants of your NPC faction do?