I hope not, There has been a rise of anti-this anti that around here, A person is smart, people are dumb. I'm positive the admins know what to do to benefit the mod.
Problem is every person thinks they are smart and that they are not part of the people. Whilst Admins have to make the call in many instances it would be rude of us to think we know all the answers that may benefit the mod. Structured input can often be useful from many angles - Tunicle
I don't see the point in asking for rules clarification things that are very, very clearly defined. At one level it is probably best to deal with simple points during an "experimental" forum foray. The very fact that there was a discussion shows some parts of the community did not see clear definition. This could be genuine problems or those derived vindictively, either way some people reading but not necessarily posting may have found of use - Tunicle
No, the GMG ID cannot pirate, except Samura and Kruger. End of story.
Discussing this is probably not a good idea, since people will feel legitimized, as if it isn't a completely obvious matter. Possibly but possibly not, just saying something does not really legitimise it, often it exposes the reasons for saying it and starts processes of communication functioning as a community - Tunicle
What's next, will we be discussing if the Freelancer ID can actually fly Cruisers? Hypothetically why would that be a fruitless discussion, the answer seems far from clear but a weighting of a whole range of factors. Much more difficult as an experiment.
The spirit of the discussion wasn't so bad. There are a lot of awkward ID issues around at the minute - namely the ton of "cannot ally with lawfuls/unlawfuls/quasilawfuls except XYZ" that hampers a ton of unlawful/quasilawful factions.
I mean yeah - in this case it was Kruger acting up again - but in a general sense, a ton of IDs have a lot of room for improvement.
Thank you, some feedback and possibly some inkling as to why this experiment existed - Tunicle
I for one like the idea of such discussion threads. It was mainly faction-faction bad rivalry which somewhat derailed the GMG ID thread, but from general pov, there are a lot of cases when things aren't 100% clear, like "can GMG ask for payments in their systems" issue, or "can corrupt LPI/RFP/GRP play trade lane toll collectors". Discussions create chance for people oriented in the topic to bring up points supporting (for some controversial), yet inRP legit encounter outcomes. Aforementioned corrupt RFP trade lane toll collecting would be such issue.
Of course, such discussion threads need to be strictly moderated, and maintained in calm, constructive manner all the time, but as I said, I believe problematic persons in GMG ID thread caused trouble due to personal/faction bad rivalry, not due to the very nature of such, imo useful, threads.
(12-31-2014, 04:55 PM)Omicega Wrote: The spirit of the discussion wasn't so bad. There are a lot of awkward ID issues around at the minute - namely the ton of "cannot ally with lawfuls/unlawfuls/quasilawfuls except XYZ" that hampers a ton of unlawful/quasilawful factions.
I mean yeah - in this case it was Kruger acting up again - but in a general sense, a ton of IDs have a lot of room for improvement.
i'm +1'ing Omi on this.
putting aside the kruger kerfuffle, that thread went better than a lot of similar threads have in the past.
I found the whole thing very interesting. I am surprised how quickly people can start getting personal about things when others don't agree with their Point of View.
This kind of discussion, possibly, clears up some of the possible ambiguities that some people think they find within an ID etc.
As preceding post - Tunicle
'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are' Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person
In this case, a discussion was imo unnecessary. Possibly in a narrow sense, but why choose a hard area for an experiment. Of course Admins could have just left the in game ruling but that does not inform the community at large
The case was clear ater 4 years of always interpreting the IDs right. And stuff like that has always been a clear case for a 1.3 sanction, or 6.9 (I think) as it was in the old system. What is obvious to some is not to others
I think it had one positive aspect: it became clear that the term "piracy" needs to be clarified for some. One does not need a parrot on the shoulder and a hook, as well as fly skull&crossbones to pirate. Asking nicely or asking for donations or asking while giving an option is also piracy. Think this may be one of the spin-offs that negates your first comment - Tunicle
In general, I can think of situations in which the way of asking the community can be really productive.
I'd however avoid it when it is about rule violations, as it's impossible to avoid direct confrontation. [color=#00FF00]Impossible is a state of mind - Tunicle/color]
The overall idea of this was pretty cool. However in the future, I think it would be best to use it for things that might be a bit more controversial. The change being discussed in the experiment seemed like a pretty clear cut decision to make. See earlier points regarding experiment, even when perceived as easy does not mean no opposing points. Imagine if we had tried this on one of the many real conundrums the community faces. Instant falme, mods and admin intervention, them us, and no progress - Tunicle
Maybe reserve this kind of crowd-sourcing for more vague/complex issues?
I love the concept though. And hopefully it will reduce some of the bs flack that the admins and devs receive every time they make a decision.
![[Image: w3gBAeX.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/w3gBAeX.gif)
![[Image: omicega.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/omicega.gif)
![[Image: jWv1kDa.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jWv1kDa.png)
![[Image: 9KgNaeX.png]](http://i.imgur.com/9KgNaeX.png)
