+- 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: Answer required (/showthread.php?tid=100864)
Answer required - Thyrzul - 06-25-2013
(06-25-2013, 12:14 PM)Hone Wrote:(06-25-2013, 03:02 AM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: Right, looked into this and reported the findings back to TAZ leadership. This wasn't bug abuse. Someone took that base apart from the inside by deleting all goods on it using the base admin password. TAZ has the names of the accounts that were used in this, along with all alts. How they deal with the party responsible is up to them I suppose...(06-25-2013, 03:35 AM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: No bug was abused, so there's really no reason for the admins to get involved. If TAZ wants to rebuild, that's their perogative. But sharing base passwords is like sharing ships - make sure you can trust who you hand them out to. I personally don't fancy having to decide who has more rights to a specific shared resource then the next one.
I kinda have a question about this; While I agree its fine for people to destroy bases from within like this, didnt canon say they had to RP first now?
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread...pid1349432
Quote:Thank you for patience of the people directly involved, the comments from the community and the generally civil discussion. After listening to the sides in this debate, here is the decision.
There will be no action taken against anybody involved in this situation.
The base will not be restored.
The Bretonian war cabinet must to role play this sort of situation better in the future. It is the responsibility of official factions to act as an example for all players and this wasn't a good example.
In the olden days (2008), often the discussion between people for strategy and policy was conducted in character on the forum. For decisions affecting other factions or player bases I suggest that people start doing this again.
As people have asked for clarification:
1) Roleplay agreements made in skype are not valid. Roleplay must happen on the forum or in game for it to exist. This means that people can't use skype chats as evidence of role play agreements or discussions.
2) Roleplay is required before seriously attacking or destroying a base. This should happen on the forum but it is reasonable for it to happen in game if it is part of a conversation with a base owner. This means that if you don't do this you might be in violation of rule 5.2
So if nothing about it was posted on the forum or no conversation was had with the base owners, wouldnt that violate canons ruling here?
Or is it OK cos it was done BY one of the base owners?
Hone has already raised this point in two threads already, one which got locked due to derail, an other not actually for discussing this subject. I feel he raised a good point in this comment I quoted from him, and I'd like to ask the admins about something.
As Hone pointed out, Cannon has laid down rules regarding base destruction, conditions which in case were clearly not met prior to the destruction of Malaclypse Freeport from within. (And of course conditions which I assume not only applying on the War Cabinet only.) To me, it is obvious that said saboteur will have to face a sanction for violating #5.2 of the server rules in case reports are being made, as given by Cannon's guidelines, especially point 2), the way of destruction of the station was in violation of said server rule.
Now, my question is the following: As a victim of a server rule violation, will Malaclypse Freeport be restored to it's former state or not?
Given that there were precedents of admin actions regarding the restoration of relatively static entities, which otherwise would have suffered of (inRP terms) irreversible and unwanted changes (for example retconning a powergaming attempt), and that in gameplay terms a Player owned Base is the most static vulnerable object, by my interpretation effectively belonging to the group of entities I've mentioned earlier, I am hoping for an affirmative answer, but of course, the Admins will have the final word in the end.
Thank you for your time.
As Hone pointed out, Cannon has laid down rules regarding base destruction, conditions which in case were clearly not met prior to the destruction of Malaclypse Freeport from within. (And of course conditions which I assume not only applying on the War Cabinet only.) To me, it is obvious that said saboteur will have to face a sanction for violating #5.2 of the server rules in case reports are being made, as given by Cannon's guidelines, especially point 2), the way of destruction of the station was in violation of said server rule.
Now, my question is the following: As a victim of a server rule violation, will Malaclypse Freeport be restored to it's former state or not?
Given that there were precedents of admin actions regarding the restoration of relatively static entities, which otherwise would have suffered of (inRP terms) irreversible and unwanted changes (for example retconning a powergaming attempt), and that in gameplay terms a Player owned Base is the most static vulnerable object, by my interpretation effectively belonging to the group of entities I've mentioned earlier, I am hoping for an affirmative answer, but of course, the Admins will have the final word in the end.
Thank you for your time.
RE: Answer required - Hone - 06-25-2013
Quite.
Although Id point out that in the thread;
"not actually for discussing this subject."
It was mentioned in the OP, so I hardly thought it was offtopic.
RE: Answer required - Anaximander - 06-25-2013
http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=2334
There are no rules regarding PoB's as of yet.
I'd try to get the base back via skype rather than the forum if I was you.
RE: Answer required - Hawk - 06-25-2013
I smell trial by forum. Not happening.