Fix the damn PvE rules!

[Aeris 3,764]

Are you hoping people will jump you for acting innocent so that you can get more special treatment? Like getting your posts removed in threads after you've insulted people, like when people didn't agree with your opinion on superheroes and bridges.

[Slickshot 1,195]

Are you hoping people will jump you for acting innocent so that you can get more special treatment? Like getting your posts removed in threads after you've insulted people, like when people didn't agree with your opinion on superheroes and bridges.

 

I am so jealous of whoever can send a pm to a GM!  They always contact me if they want to speak with me.  The other way around never works.

Nope, just jealous is all.

 

Edit:  I feel bad because I had intended to quote you Mordraug and forgot to hit the quote button. lol  Anyhow I like this point you made:

 

If not being allowed to be an asshat is "restrictive" to a player's game "style", that player needs to go to PvP and deal with the consequences plain and simple.

 

I don't see most griefers doing this any time soon, because its too risky, as you said.  Such is the nature of griefing.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Slickshot

[Rasu 561]

The real question would be 'Why did you unpack them?'

 

Same reason people do it at the steppe? People hate things like that and "fix" it.

[rixk 830]

Same reason people do it at the steppe? People hate things like that and "fix" it.

That kind of things are exactly what lead to the griefing charges. You destroy someones work. I have been in the same situation. Someone moved into tundra next to me, flattened there a patch of land, which we with neighbors are trying to preserve. Guess what, instead of going in under the cover of darkness and destroying everything he had done, I went and talked to the guy, explained the situation and... he understood, I even got him on a cart and showed him a nice place nearby.. Of course he also could've declined and in that case I couldn't have been doing anything else than to accept his choice, he wouldn't have been making any friends of course.

If we are talking about rights and freedom. I think everyone in the game(pve servers) has the right to log on and find their work exactly the same state they left it in the previous evening, when they logged out. And that right is above someones freedom to do everything he wants. If someone wants to target another player(and their assets), there are PvP servers.

[Rasu 561]

There is a fundamental problem when that extends to off deed in general. You have no way to know if someone is going to get butt hurt about something. Its starting to get to the point where you have to deed it to do anything or risk someone trying to call you out or grief you because you did something that affected the work they where doing.

[rixk 830]

There is a fundamental problem when that extends to off deed in general. You have no way to know if someone is going to get butt hurt about something. Its starting to get to the point where you have to deed it to do anything or risk someone trying to call you out or grief you because you did something that affected the work they where doing.

Nothing so special there.. If you step on someones toes, they will let you know, or call a GM even now.. The question is, whether you can hide behind "I can stand wherever I want, even on your toes" or not.

[Rasu 561]

So you want more work load on volunteers because some guy came in and undid some work you did off deed? Think of enclosure rule...what you want is basically enclosure rule without the fence the mark the area.

[rixk 830]

So you want more work load on volunteers because some guy came in and undid some work you did off deed? Think of enclosure rule...what you want is basically enclosure rule without the fence the mark the area.

Word "volunteer" isn't an excuse to do sloppy work. If the volunteers can't manage their workload, then it is time to expand the crew.. or for management look at other options, but removing rules, because the volunteers are struggling with the load, is sh*tty practice. If there is workload, there is need for the service.

Oh and reinstating enclosure rule would already be enough.. Yes, it had problems, but we should then simply try to focus on how to fix those problems, instead of removing the rule and creating another set of problems with it. You don't cure headache with cutting your head off.

[Archaed 2,280]

I love all of this, the idea that more rules are needed is hilarious.

 

Is this paranoia due to something in the water?

 

dont want it stolen? lock it.

dont want it broken into? deed it.

[Audrel 2,223]

I love all of this, the idea that more rules are needed is hilarious.

 

Is this paranoia due to something in the water?

 

dont want it stolen? lock it.

dont want it broken into? deed it.

 

Rules are not needed. Definitions are. "Play nice" is rather vague.

[TrofeoLover1 2]

Ya'll want civility in an uncivil [and IRL] world.

[Slickshot 1,195]

You don't cure headache with cutting your head off.

Let me make light of this, by reminding everyone of this line.  We could all do with a laugh, me thinks! lol

[Battlepaw 585]

Oh and reinstating enclosure rule would already be enough.. Yes, it had problems, but we should then simply try to focus on how to fix those problems, instead of removing the rule and creating another set of problems with it. You don't cure headache with cutting your head off.

 

It has problems he says.... 

 

Meh, that enclosure rule wasn't problematic, it was disastrous.     I let out a small cheer when people could no longer legally enclose anything they wanted, they couldn't make massive tracs of land uninhabitable.    

 

No one cured the headache by cutting out a policy that allowed players to bypass all common sense and take everything they could wrap a fence around rather than rightfully pay for.     It was a cure to a disease to remove the enclosure rule.    

[Slickshot 1,195]

It has problems he says.... 

 

Meh, that enclosure rule wasn't problematic, it was disastrous.     I let out a small cheer when people could no longer legally enclose anything they wanted, they couldn't make massive tracs of land uninhabitable.    

 

No one cured the headache by cutting out a policy that allowed players to bypass all common sense and take everything they could wrap a fence around rather than rightfully pay for.     It was a cure to a disease to remove the enclosure rule.    

I don't disagree with you, however, removing such a rule without anything else to support the aftermath of that decision has lead to an incline in griefing.  Before it was harder to grief because you weren't allowed to break into enclosures, but now you can bash down anyone's fence just because you don't like them and then turn around and try to hide behind the lack of rules as your defense.

 

So, while the enclosure rule removal was a step in the right direction, it immediately fell into a massive crater due to having no aftermath-support to maintain composure against the standards of griefing.

[Pashka 707]

They did put something in though.  Now non prem's can own a deed.  Something they were not able to do before.  Now if they still choose to live off deed in an enclosure that is no longer protected.  There are tips and tricks to help them with that.  Including being able to plant grass in a house that you never could before.  So they can put their horse inside to keep anyone from being able to attack it.  Lots of new things that people can do now.

 

No reason to even think about bring the mess that was the enclosure rule back into being.

[Archaed 2,280]

How does "play nice" need to be defined? IF you do actions purely to upset others and cause drama, that's not playing nice.

 

Some exploits are exploits, the implications of destroy on village roles, and various other things, but stealing an unlocked cart/wagon/boat/child is not against the rules, or against playing nice, unless the only reason youre doing it is to cause grief.

 

hence the term, griefing

[Slickshot 1,195]

How does "play nice" need to be defined? IF you do actions purely to upset others and cause drama, that's not playing nice.

 

Some exploits are exploits, the implications of destroy on village roles, and various other things, but stealing an unlocked cart/wagon/boat/child is not against the rules, or against playing nice, unless the only reason youre doing it is to cause grief.

 

hence the term, griefing

This is why I outlined what actions compared to intentions look like.  Griefing relies heavily on intentions, and not so much the actions used to define those intentions.

[Mordraug 2,542]

 

Meh, that enclosure rule wasn't problematic, it was disastrous.     I let out a small cheer when people could no longer legally enclose anything they wanted, they couldn't make massive tracs of land uninhabitable.    

 

 

So enclosing an unpaid area is BAD, but destroying/stealing stuff others paid for (so unpaid by the griefer/thief) is GOOD.

 

You're oozing hypocrisy.

[Battlepaw 585]

So enclosing an unpaid area is BAD, but destroying/stealing stuff others paid for (so unpaid by the griefer/thief) is GOOD.

 

You're oozing hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy, is trying to trump up a broken system that was removed for good reason as some sort of solution.    The hypocrisy is bringing feuds into a topic, and trying to pretend rule changes will change how players will act.    I agree with more than a few of you, and changing how players will act will be the result of trying to better define what the rules are, or at least make arbitration more transparent or community involved.    

 

Players want the change the system, but it's hardly a change to institute something that was proven in practice an institutionally flawed system.   I'm sorry, if anyone want to keep feeding players lies about "the good ole days" I can show you screenshots, and video from those "good ole days"   

 

IT was a freaking joke.   You want to know what is worse than griefers "stealing" is someone who is legally allowed to fence in anything they feel is their right to.   In one of my previous topics, most freedom players were almost universally against land control using PMKs, well how is fencing in massive tracs of land any different?   

 

How does anyone who does not pay for land justify their right to take it?  I'll tell you how.  They try and say it's "for the noobs" or "Its to fix griefing" or any other pathetic excuse they can come up with.   

Edited August 13, 2015 by Battlepaw

[Slickshot 1,195]

I agree with more than a few of you, and changing how players will act will be the result of trying to better define what the rules are, or at least make arbitration more transparent or community involved.   

This is something I've been thinking about lately.  One of the problems with the way justice is served in this game is how it protects the identity of criminals.  We've had the shaming threads and what-not, but those are always player made and because of such often run off the rails a bit.  We don't necessarily need to shame others, but we want to, and we are more inclined to do so because moderation doesn't do right by us when they keep criminals off the radar.  I don't think moderation should shame criminals in this game, so to speak, but they should shed light on case rulings, instead of keeping it hush hush.

 

If moderators would open up a little bit more about the rulings/punishments of cases that have recently been concluded, I believe it would help the community deal with their frustrations a little better.  Something such as a non-comment thread, where only moderation may post, and we as players can read.  It would certainly shed light into the darkness where thieves and griefers are known to hide.  When someone accuses you of a crime, it is easy to say "you're a liar," or "no one should trust this lying piece of crap," or "he's just trying to make me look bad."  However, when a moderator steps forward with their ruling on a case and makes it public knowledge, it is no longer possible to hide in the dark and lie through your teeth.  This, I believe, would discourage criminal activity greatly as no one wants to be 'Public Enemy Number 1' on the radar...except for those crazy Vendetta puppies or whatever, who do it for the fame.

 

The only problem with this, however, is that moderators are not allowed to discuss case rulings.  If I remember correctly, they are required to 'sign' an NDA when they become staff that says they will not discuss a case with outsiders, and they will not disclose rulings/punishment with anyone other than the person being punished.  In my opinion this is backwards thinking and is a detriment to serving complete and transparent justice.  Unfortunately Rolf is the only person who can change that, and I'm not sure he's taking time out of his busy day to read this one suggestion buried in a sea of conflict in a random thread in a massive forum. 

 

Far too often moderation is judged based on the decisions they make, however the information they have to make such decisions is never disclosed completely to the public and leads to a lot of misguided frustrations and skepticism.  Such misguided frustrations lead to outbursts, arguments and fights in the forums (where it honestly needs to be cleaned up for the sake of those new people who join), which could all be greatly avoided by having the truth within reach and available.  We are all guilty of these outbursts, including myself.

 

If I allow someone to join my deed and they turn out to be a thief with a record, I'd like to have been able to look up such information before-hand.  I'm not talking about player to player accusations, I'm talking cold hard facts from moderation proving guilt.  Like I said, shaming isn't necessary, but the truth is.  With solid transparent information, we can honestly begin to take a step in the right direction without the addition of more rules to guide us. 

 

Transparency from the moderation staff is the true key here.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Slickshot

[Neb 42]

Independent NON-player based moderation is the only true solution, imo.

 

Any player GM / moderator is placed in the impossible situation where by any decision they are forced to make is going to be perceived as favoritism, bias, or corruption by those on the negative end of that decision and in some cases (in other games i have played ) these decisions have been influenced by the risk of in game consequences as a result.

[Slickshot 1,195]

Independent NON-player based moderation is the only true solution, imo.

 

Any player GM / moderator is placed in the impossible situation where by any decision they are forced to make is going to be perceived as favoritism, bias, or corruption by those on the negative end of that decision and in some cases (in other games i have played ) these decisions have been influenced by the risk of in game consequences as a result.

This wouldn't solve the problem of a lack of transparency. However an increase in transparency would likely cut down on crime altogether.

[Archaed 2,280]

Transparency from the moderation staff is the true key here.

Frankly, i think the opposite, with attitude and behaviour of some here, I think it should be private, giving out names will only lead to a lynch mob, look at bruhamoff, the kid buggered up once, and the community hounded him until he quit

 

way to go guise

[Sixiron 22]

Frankly, i think the opposite, with attitude and behaviour of some here, I think it should be private, giving out names will only lead to a lynch mob, look at bruhamoff, the kid buggered up once, and the community hounded him until he quit

 

way to go guise

 

We really do not need more lynch mobs because someone is using an unlocked cart, wagon, boat, or whatever else. It gets old seeing all these threads.

[Slickshot 1,195]

Frankly, i think the opposite, with attitude and behaviour of some here, I think it should be private, giving out names will only lead to a lynch mob, look at bruhamoff, the kid buggered up once, and the community hounded him until he quit

way to go guise

I disagree. Transparency, as opposed to secrecy, helps reduce tension in conflict; that's a pretty observable fact of social interaction.

Sure you might have (rare) cases of lynch mobs, but that's when moderation should step in as well and meditate. Harassment is against the rules, afterall.

Secrecy just leads to doubt, suspicion and fear. Those are all detrimental emotional responses that are unnecessary.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Slickshot