ADMIN NOTICE : OFFICIAL FACTION RIGHTS

[pchwang]

My past two posts were about why the statistics of the survey was flawed to begin with... But since virtually no one paid attention to those, here's why I don't think this proposal should fly.

In response to Dieter's response to Xoria...

Xoria, if you told me there was a problem with badly played Spyglasses running rampant in Vespucci, Cortez and Magellan, I’d take your word for it. Other people tell you there are problems elsewhere. Can you not take their word for it? You also see the same sanction reports other Admins do.

Your critique of the battleship licencing idea is predicated on 2 assumptions:

1) Official Factions will fail to objectively evaluate the licence application.

2) If the Official Factions do fail to objectively evaluate the licence application, the harried Admins will be too busy, and disinterested to intervene.

Those assumptions are pessimistic.

I for one am optimistic that the opinions of faction leaders about the ability of a player to RP well, and understand the rules, will be sound. This is not rocket science. A good application for a battleship licence would demonstrate a good understanding of the faction diplomacy and RP, an interesting backstory for the vessel, and a good understanding of the server rules.

Xoria is not being pessimistic. He's being realistic. We all know that there are certain faction leaders who will fail to objectively evaluate licensing applications, and we also know that the admins don't exactly want to commit their lives to poking into every single application for a capital ship, which it may come down to.

Just look at the Special RP Request Subforum. Or even the Faction Creation Requests Subforum. Both were inundated with inane requests, and now, for the latter, there's a 500 million credit fee to make sure that prospective faction leaders think hard and long about their requests before blindly submitting one.

Everyone knows what a poor application would look like. “I want to get a battleship because I want to pwn piratz.” It will be objectively and demonstrably poor.

Right, of course, either the application is good, or it's bad, like you mentioned above. How often do you actually get black and white requests like these?

You speak of Admins having to wade through evidence of unfairness, which likely won't be available anyway, because it will all be buried in secret Skype chats, etc. That is wrong. The only "evidence" needing review will be a perfectly good application which got denied anyway, for no good reason. That's it.

No offense, but lulz? Dieter, you are perfectly right, but in thought, you haven't gone the whole nine yards. In the event something like the above occurred, you would sort through the evidence, and be like, "Whoa, this app got denied for no good reason!"

Then comes the second question...

"Why?"

And then, you have to wade through the evidence of unfairness, in order to make sure that for whatever reason why this application was denied, it would not happen again.

Otherwise, what are you going to do? "Oh, unfair denial of battleship request... meh, screw it, I'mma get ingame..."

We have application processes for all sorts of things here.

-Want to join an official faction? You have to apply.
-Want to start an official faction? You have to apply.
-Want to buy a system? You have to apply.
-Want a terrorist ID? You have to apply.

So now, you want to fly a battleship? You have to apply. That's all there is to the proposal, in a nutshell.

Except the above can actively be enforced by extra-game means. What I mean by that is that the admin can actually have a hand in any of the above.

Battleship regulation, on the other hand, is not going to be admin regulated.

There's a reason why the community has chosen you - YES YOU ADMIN OVER THERE YONDER - to lead and guide our community. There is a reason why not all faction leaders are admin.

I have said in the Admin forums and still believe that Right Number 5 should be subjected to a community vote, and only implemented if it got very strong backing. In my opinion, 60% in favour wouldn't be enough. Nor likely 70%. Would have to be very strong indeed.

Finally, I'll restate my point about statistics. Your 70% is not even the community's 70%, Dieter. I do not mean to be offensive, but by last two posts in this thread, which were obviously not really read or regarded by most of the community pretty much highlighted just that. Your 70% came from a skewed convenience survey that has extreme bias due to the fact that a large number of those who feel strongly about the issue submitted an answer.

If you want to conduct a survey to get results, conduct one correctly and then base your decisions off it. Otherwise, just make the decisions regardless. You are administrators.

---

[7:42:05 PM][6:51:36 PM] Igor (Smokey): btw terry
[6:51:48 PM] Terrance Cooper: Ye?
[6:52:00 PM] Igor (Smokey): nothin
[6:52:03 PM] Igor (Smokey): just sayin btw
[6:52:05 PM] Terrance Cooper: <_<

Johnny_Haas: you shot anti criuse speed rockets!!!
Johnny_Haas: but why????
Johnny_Haas: ??
Johnny_Haas: why you shoot criuse speed rockets?