Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)

[jammi]

http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=133649

Subject of the sanction may have accepted the verdict, but I'm having a slightly harder time understanding the rationale behind this one. That 10 second ruling there isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules, and surely isn't even relevant considering the sanctioned player did roleplay beforehand. If the RP was conducted while cloaked prior to the attack, surely this satisfies every clause the rules require?

Fair enough if this is a new greentext precedent designed to shape the way cloaks are used for fairplay purposes, but it seems to be the height of poor judgement to enforce a sanction when it's based on an incredibly questionable non-standard interpretation of a rule that's never been used this way in the past.

Doesn't this effectively render using cloaks for ambush attacks against the rules?

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Cashew]

I'll PM you since I don't want to have trial by forum all over this thread.

---

[Mephistoles]

It isn't trial by forum, it's a fair, constructive discussion and there's not really any reason Jammi's post can't be answered here. If it involves a change in the way rules are enforced, it is something the entire community needs to be made aware of.

There is nothing in the rules about giving 10 seconds and up until now people have been freely dropping their RP while cloaked and shooting once they decloak. From what I've seen, as long as there is a long enough (undefined) gap between the engagement notice and firing, the cloak is irrelevant. It could be in this sanction that the engagement notice was given and the player instantly decloaked after it and opened fire. It could be that there was a gap between RP and decloaking and the sanction is instead for shooting directly after decloak.

The wording is very unclear and the confusion needs to be cleared up.

---

Sigma & GMG Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/d4j3W4v

[Malmsteen]

I'll PM you since I don't want to have trial by forum all over this thread.

I would like to say that this quote above show exactly how should be the way to reply from admins to their feedback
Actually, if the answer is here, then a forum trial or even worse will happen which will never be constructive
and since constructive ideas and feedback are only the materials for building healthy online communities ,
So that is my only feedback at the moment, always let the clients say what they want and reply to them in PM to evade destructive acts.

Respectfully,
Malmsteen

[jammi]

Respectfully, I'd argue that line of reasoning is entirely wrong. Sanctions set precedents - if the fact of the matter is that the intention wasn't to set a general precedent regarding cloak usage and the sanction was put in place because of extenuating circumstances specific to that case, that needs to be publicly clarified.

Simply clarifying to me privately doesn't actually help very much, because while it certainly means I now know what's going on, no-one else does. Having a system where rules are arbitrarily enforced because the general majority weren't copied in to a PM isn't exactly desirable.

What happens next time someone is ambushed by a cloak user, remembers this sanction and feeling aggrieved then submits a report - where no action is taken because the specific circumstances were different, despite appearing to match the sanction description?

Besides, if this thread isn't to scrutinise admin rulings and judgements, what's its actual purpose?

[Dusty Lens]

Sounds like you need to have weapons be locked for X seconds following a decloak. Rules are boring and terrible.

Being said I have to agree with everyone saying this is a terrible ruling. Back in my day we basically just shouted "engaging" into local chat and then cruised around looking for anyone we know heard it. If we had a little more time we simply PMd everyone on the global server an engagement notice in the hopes that we'd run into them later. I don't see the difference between that and dropping the hammer as soon as you drop cloak. It certainly doesn't run against the spirit of the rules or the concept of giving everyone a measure of equal opportunity before you put your poker into their pooper. There's precedence here by thunder.

All in all I agree with Jammi and everyone should consider our positions to be in lockstep.

Sincerely,

A Boston Terrier using Dusty's login*.

*That was subjected to a terrible auto accident as a puppy, leaving it mentally incapacitated.

P.S. Also in the future tell people that you'll be willing to have a discussion on the matter once a final position has been reached by the admin team as a whole following a consultation with the code monkeys, but in the interim the sanction holds. That'll buy you anywhere from a month to a decade or so.

P.P.S. You're all terrible people.

[Hidamari]

/uncloak
Dropping cloak, diverting power to regular ships systems, weapons ready in 10 seconds...


still this is just going to make cloaking for any kind of player interaction completely meaningless, the only thing they will be used for is avoiding player interaction entirely, which is exactly what you need to be discouraging.

10 seconds is FAR too long to wait against an opponent that already knows you are there because they can 1. hear you through the weird rumbling sound it makes when a cloaked ship is near you, and the fact you still have to role play with them.

battleship fights already last roughly thirty seconds at point blank ranges. uncloaking and having to sit there for ten seconds is an unacceptable length of time.

---

[Garrett Jax]

If there is RP beforehand, which seems to be the case from all sides, then Rule 3.1 is satisfied and there is no violation.

---

[Alestone]

I have several questions regarding this particular sanction:

1. Was Cashew part of the nonresponsive group of players? If so, was he the one that brought the "report"? If that is the case, is there a policy in place to recuse yourself when a conflict of interest occurs?

2. Was proper procedure followed on the Sanction? To wit, was a vote conducted on this?

3. Were the nonresponsive players sanctioned, warned, etc for their behavior? If not, why not? I ask because this sanction seems to be setting a precedent for ignoring the opposing side as a valid defense of that behavior.

[Cashew]

"3.1 An attack is any hostile action that drains shields to less than 50%. Saying "Engaging" is not sufficient and aggressors are not allowed to destroy a ship before allowing sufficient time to respond. If a player is attacked he has the right to defend himself regardless of who is attacking. Trading nanobots, shieldbatteries or other ammo and equipment during a fight is also considered taking an active role in the engagement."

"aggressors are not allowed to destroy a ship before allowing sufficient time to respond"

That 10 second ruling there isn't mentioned anywhere in the rules, and surely isn't even relevant considering the sanctioned player did roleplay beforehand. If the RP was conducted while cloaked prior to the attack, surely this satisfies every clause the rules require?

No where in the rules does it explicitly say that there has to be 10 seconds between an attack, yes. 10 seconds is merely a guideline for the player to go by for the future which I recommended. I'm happy to go back and re-phrase what I wrote to be more precise in what I meant. Rule 3.1 is quite clear in the way it asks for the aggressor to allow sufficient time for the player to respond to an attack. Regardless of the fact the aggressor gives RP within the encounter there is no reason to not give a player some time to acknowledge he/she is about to be attacked. In this current scenario there was absolutely zero time for the player to acknowledge they were going to be attacked, thus the rule is broken.

it seems to be the height of poor judgement to enforce a sanction when it's based on an incredibly questionable non-standard interpretation of a rule that's never been used this way in the past.

Ironically it's "questionable" because you don't have access to the information which you so desperately desire. There have been several sanctions practically identical to this one in the past which have gone through without any objections or complaints.

Doesn't this effectively render using cloaks for ambush attacks against the rules?

An ambush attack is clearly still viable. If a battleship vessel has a cloaking device and it is about to attack another battleship, bearing in mind that both can travel at 80m/s, the battleship being attacked will not be (theoretically) out of range of the aggressor. Now, taking into other factors, the aggressor might have a CDer with them. This means that the victim cannot cruise away which essentially secures the surprise attack if played out correctly. If there is no CDer and the victim decides to cruise away, there is nothing the aggressor can do to stop them. A battleship cannot destroy another battleship, and its nanobots, within the time it takes to cruise. So, surprise attacks are still completely viable, eventhough there is now a cloaking sound.

There is nothing in the rules about giving 10 seconds and up until now people have been freely dropping their RP while cloaked and shooting once they decloak. From what I've seen, as long as there is a long enough (undefined) gap between the engagement notice and firing, the cloak is irrelevant. It could be in this sanction that the engagement notice was given and the player instantly decloaked after it and opened fire. It could be that there was a gap between RP and decloaking and the sanction is instead for shooting directly after decloak.

Can an Admin do anything about that if it's not reported? No.
You got it spot on here: "It could be in this sanction that the engagement notice was given and the player instantly decloaked after it and opened fire."

Simply clarifying to me privately doesn't actually help very much, because while it certainly means I now know what's going on, no-one else does. Having a system where rules are arbitrarily enforced because the general majority weren't copied in to a PM isn't exactly desirable.

What's there to clarify about giving sufficient time before firing?



All in all:
If the Admin team were to assign a set time for a player to wait before attacking then you'd all be outraged and throw your toys out the pram. It simply means "be nice, give them a few seconds to finish sipping their tea".


I hope this clarifies this incident, I will now go and re-phrase my sanction notice to accommodate this.