the rules developement

[Jinx]

i ll take the "advice" and put it into a separate thread. ( http://discoverygc.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=28181 )

what Xoria listed up is something i only partly agree with. its too easy a theory of causes, consequences ( and for that matter - blame )

the reasons why rules are or were needed must be differentiated. - some situations were disrupting gameplay from even an objective point of view, other situations were only perceived from some people point of view as disruptive - and others again are based on moot reasons.

like in real life - what those that decide .. decide about is brought to them by the "broad community". so when there is a feeling that the community is in need for something, - someone needs to act. - but it must be understood that the community is not a hive mind, is not speaking one single thought. - there are many currents within the community, some are loud, some are not. - some are able to make their point, others lack this ability, sometimes a minority manages to act like a majority, sometimes a majority fails to stand up against the minority.

what actually leads to a rule is a SUBJECTIVE perception of a detrimental situation. - but such situations are not objective, they are presented in a biased fashion. someone with the skill to present his case more professional has a much greater chance to succeed than someone that lacks that skill. - and that is not very dependent on the issue of the problem.

the example is the battleship "problem" - there was and still is a very profound hysteria about "everyone flying a battleship" - and hence the rule about [one battleship / player] was installed. - but no time in the whole discussion it was actually proved that there were really so many battleships that it would be detrimental for the server enviroment. - no statistics were presented, - it was all based on opinions.

but - it became a rule.

then there is the 4 hours lock out rule. - certainly a more important rule - especially with more and more players joining in ( although the numbers are decreasing again on the server for like a month ) - it was a consensus that a rule was needed... and it was put down to a public poll. - before the rule was installed, everyone was given a chance to share their opinion and their concerns.

and then - it became a rule.

another example is the publicly posted bounties. - it was never a real concern, pvp priority happened more and more, but the reason for that was not necessarily a behaviour that exploited the freedom of a faction. - yet, we got presented with a rule.

when the rule was released, there was a lot of critizism - and it was "softened" by saying that it was mostly still "down to common sense" - ... but still.. there was never a public poll about it, nor was the public really informed about making it a hard rule.

and this one, too - became a rule.

my critizism is that - the way it was written, ... is way too easy. - its not simply "you wanted it, now you have it" - the reasons, the situations and the consequences are very different from rule to rule. - there is not always a majority behind a rule - and if there is not a majority, there is no real consensus.

i wouldn t go as far as to say that we are given the "blame" for having so many rules ( although it sounds like it a little ) - but there are simply some rules that the majority simply never agreed on. - and so they cannot be blamed for it. - game disruptions are created by a minority, making the majority responsible for it is a way to deal with things - and yes, the majority must take the consequences ... .but not the blame.

that is my "whining" about - that ... if you justify such a thread, you gotto be very precise. a lot more than the thread was. - this is nothing personal - but i d like such a thread to differentiate all the currents in the community much better - and not treat the community as one big organism that follows one mind.

edit: since from previous occasions you happened to be very precise about the wording of others - i d like to point out that not every critizism is automaticly a "whine" as the term "whine" carries an implication of something unjust / negative in itself. if a *descriptive* thread is made to "explain" why we got so many rules, it gotto look into the matter, not just the outside.

and i haven t even touched restrictions ( and the consequently ooRPness ) of the upcoming restrictions that were sometimes installed "pre-emptively" before there was a real cause. - so they are a consequence before we got a reason for them. - that ... aswell does not mean that its something negative per se, it just means that reasons for rules are so different and colourful that one cannot just say that its a matter of consequences.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC