|
Post by bazukar on Mar 27, 2014 4:42:27 GMT
My sentiments and this rule appear to be mutually exclusive. I can try though.
|
|
|
Post by leezard on Mar 27, 2014 4:50:50 GMT
in the current form of this rule who is it to protect, it completely ignores new players allowing them to be excluded from runs at will.(which is who we shude be protecting ) imo this rule shude exclude guiled toons and apply to nonguilded people or apply to all
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 27, 2014 5:44:27 GMT
in the current form of this rule who is it to protect, it completely ignores new players allowing them to be excluded from runs at will.(which is who we shude be protecting ) imo this rule shude exclude guiled toons and apply to nonguilded people or apply to all Why is it the new players we should be protecting? Opinions without facts to support them aren't of much use. Did you see why it was we added that in the first place?: What about this: Only members of a guild must be invited with the new rule. All others only if you want. Why? - Because typical people in a guild have proven at least to some other players that they are ok. Known problematic players (say like a Rockkutter) will never make it to a guild member. - From what I ve read the new rule was in particularly implemented because some DMs has been treaded bad because they did they job as a DM (reporting exploits as an example). Since mostly all DMs are in a guild they would still profit from the new rule. It helps to eliminate people who haven't been vetted as 'playable with' to at least a certain degree, and is more narrowly drawn. I'll concede that it's not much narrower, but it does solve the 'Rockcutter dilemma'. Funky
|
|
|
Post by Torin on Mar 27, 2014 6:42:48 GMT
"....a guilded player"
Is that a player that is known to be in a guild or must the character be tagged with the guild sign? If its the second, people should tag their characters to avoid confusions/drama. ("Please invite" "nope" "Hey, you know the rule, whats up?" "new rule is only for guild members" "Are you kidding? I'm a famous member of guild...%/ยง..!" "That can say anybody" ...and so on)
|
|
|
Post by Torin on Mar 27, 2014 7:56:50 GMT
Another idea to improve the new rule: What about increase the rule by +1, aka "No Blacklisting in Parties of 4 or More" Why? For me it seems that some players just like the extra challenge to do small group runs. They don't want to blacklist anyone, they just want the extra challenge. With "+1" they could try 3 man runs. Its a compromise that (hopefully) more people could life with. If 3 people are not enough, they should do it with a regular (up to 10) group and the rule applies. PS: Or better join -HC- Its up to discussion if a "+1" hollows out the new rule to much.
|
|
|
Post by theultimatesin on Mar 27, 2014 9:26:57 GMT
This rule IMO is the wrong way to go. I should not be forced to play with anyone I don't want to play with for whatever reason. This is how I understood party formation to work previously.
If I shout a run I must accept anyone that shows up. I reserve the right to end the run at any time. After which all loot acquired during the run is placed up for split. I believe I have only ever not met this metric once. That particular occasion was involving You-Know-Who and it was mutually agreed upon by the entire party. We would rather to have to run four man Dispater than to play with him.
If I did not shout a run I may accept who I want, offering whatever stipulations I want. I reserve the right to end the run at any time for whatever reason I feel like. All loots acquired during the run are mine to dispose of how I see fit. I don't think I have ever disallowed anyone under this metric either really. I have had players choose not to go upon disclosure of stipulations.
I, in these cases, represent the founding players of the run. As I said, these are the standards I thought applied to formation and have always tried to adhere to them. I have always felt it was a fair way for me to treat other players when shouting or not shouting runs.
I also believe that anon should be done away with completely. I myself have been guilty of running anonymous in the past for not wanting to have to invite when doing certain runs. I decided this to be unhealthy for me and have done my best not to use it. I think at best it is nearly useless and would serve us better as trash.
-C
|
|
|
Post by fngrenegade on Mar 27, 2014 12:12:22 GMT
As I think we would enforce the blacklisting rule, I'm certain it wouldn't be "you always have to party with everyone that shows up", instead it would be do you have a pattern of denying "X Player" entry to your runs, if so then there may be consequences. If you want to run the occasional guild only run I don't necessarily see a problem with that, but it shouldn't be every run, you should be part of the community. I don't think this would impinge too much on freedom of association, which I do think is a good thing and I understand the points that have been raised. It is just difficult to balance in a server population this small. Based on the posts here it seems like a lot of the problems are based on misunderstanding and unwillingness to communicate by those involved. If we could simply be better communicators in the future, I think any real impact of this rule could be avoided. -S My 2c from a completely new player perspective, so please if any of my assumptions are incorrect please let me know, is that I think that Sabregirl hits the nail on the head. Yes this rule says if you do don't invite someone to your run who is eligible you will be up for disciplinary action. But there will always be a DM to review the case if a complaint is even filed by the person who isn't invited. To be honest if I see a run about to jump off, lets say I see on the dash that 7 people are at zerials but there is no run shout I wouldn't impose myself by going there and asking for a run that wasn't shouted. And if a run is shouted and I'm not invited when I ask for one I just assume it either filled up or there is another good reason not to get invited. And if I get told, I'm sorry but we are doing a run with guild or just a few friends please understand, I wouldn't feel the need to complain. Only if I was repeatedly not invited into runs would I start to wonder whats up and maybe talk to the people starting the run. And then only depending on what they would say would I report it to a DM which would then ofcourse investigate instead of immediatly punish (I can only assume). Looking at the above explaination I can't see how people are so panicked, do you really expect that if you do a run with some friends you will: A) Immediatly get reported on refusing to invite (maybe a good idea to just tell someone, "Hey i'm just running with some friends, sorry!") Get reported? B) Get action taken by a DM without a pattern of behavior or the chance to explain yourself? I also feel the need to say that the level of discussion and behavior on the forums is 100% turnaround from the people I've met in the game. I can name COUNTLESS numbers of people on the server that have helped me, put up with me, supported me and I've enjoyed running with. The atmosphere on the server that is visible to me is great and I haven't really seen any of the malice is saw in this thread on the server itself. I was actually very shocked with the tone of discussion on the forums compared to the server. Ofcourse I have ran into people that on did something during a run that annoyed me or struck me as selfish or even harmful to the run but I don't let that impact the runs I start or am a part of by refusing to play with those people. I've also played with multiple DMs (arch, sabre, outkast) and they all seem like very reasonable people that will listen to reasonable arguments for why you didn't invite anyone that one run you wanted to do with some friends. As for protecting new players in the rule, I don't really see the need for it. I've yet to be refused access to a run because I'm new, better yet I've had people make room in a Tia run for me because I'm new and they wanted to give me the chance to go. So unless my experiences the past few weeks on the server are skewed somehow I doubt a clause about new players would be needed. - Mithlean Degnek - Mithras the Stone Giant
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 27, 2014 13:02:33 GMT
Hi, fngrenegade, and welcome to the forums! Sorry your first exposure to them was this thread. You're seeing a lot of angry pushback against the new rule, which does explain some of difference in tone between here and the forums. It's coming from at least three different places:
1) Players legitimately irked by the rule's breadth and its violation of our general hand-off approach, as well as the limits it places on right to exclude for much less nefarious reasons than blacklisting 2) Players who were engaged in blacklisting, who are upset for an entirely different set of reasons, along with some of their guildmates 3) Players who, while they probably weren't blacklisting themselves, were still allowed in the blacklisters' runs, and who are irked that same left the server en masse, because it cost them their run-mates
So again, apologies that this was the among the first threads you had to see on these boards. Hopefully the rest will be more pleasant.
With that welcome out of the way, just a quick reminder to people to please stay constructive and on-topic.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by Yojimbo on Mar 27, 2014 13:41:47 GMT
Funky what I suggest is a hold on applying a rule to this problem and instead we open up visibility to the problem by making runs auto announced when the first map is entered as well the already implemented disabling of anon status for large enough groups though it's threshold number is tweak-able I believe. I will say I think that there is a confusion of this rule that it will force you to play with people you don't like/get along with or find to be such a poor player that it can/will ruin your fun. This is not correct it will force the party to accept the player it does not force you to remain in the party. The problems with this are that if you leave and you hold the key I see no reason you are obligated to remain or pass the key on to the group should they wish to remain together. This does fit into the blacklisting in that you hold power over the run but refuse to run with a singular player and the inability for someone to play with another has ruined the experience for all. That scenario is the strongest in my mind for a downfall of the rule as no one should be forced to actually remain in a party with people they dislike nor should their key for a run become party property once a run is called. The problem can be further complicated when a run uses the key at the start and the person joins late but this is mostly a rant. I and many that are still here only take issue out of a fear of the unknown and a lack of knowledge on the problem and its severity. I would love to know more details about it to get a fuller understanding but I do not expect or ask that is be shared as it could severely hurt offending players should they return or stay after this rule and many players have done things and been given chances they certainly deserve the same. I unfortunately have no suggestion for improving the rule only can repeat suggestions I have seen and agree with that will improve visibility and agree with the anon rule in place.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Semner on Mar 27, 2014 14:29:58 GMT
Current formulation of the rule: Players in groups of 3 characters or more may not deny a guilded player a spot on a run if: 1: There are fewer than 10 human players involved in the party. Bots must be kicked to allow human players a spot; and 2: The player asking to join has all the bare requirements to do the run, including required level and tags (but not including gear). The purpose of this rule is to prevent a group of players from exercising monopolistic control over runs, and to foster increased cooperation in the community. The rule will be enforced in that light, with an eye to reasonable expectations. If the player so included is disruptive to the run, players on that run should call a DM to mediate the situation. Banning is the potential penalty for violation of this rule, but we do not ban players lightly. We will need to see convincing evidence of both exclusion (screenshots will suffice) and a pattern of behavior. We will discuss the situation with the parties involved before any final decision is made, and give them an opportunity to explain and to rectify the situation if necessary. I feel as though we should add additional qualifications for legitimate reasons to exclude players from a run. The first two enumerated qualifications are a good start, but I would propose we add some more. They are as follows: 3: If a run is requesting a specific class deemed necessary for the run, and the inquiring player is unable to play such a class, they can be legitimately excluded, but only until it is determined that the party will not able to find such a class to join the run. - For example, a Nessus run is at 9 and lacks a bard and is calling specifically for a bard for their last spot. A player logs in asking to join with their barbarian and is told that the party cannot invite them because they are holding the spot for a bard. This is acceptable and the party leader should not be reported in this case. - This caveat does not imply, however, that preference should be given to core classes on bot accounts. This guideline does NOT supersede guideline #1. 4: Any player who is consistently uncooperative and whose behavior continues to jeopardize the success of a run may be temporarily excluded from runs called by the party leader alone, but only with sufficient evidence (by way of screenshots, chat logs, etc.) that the player in question explicitly refused to cooperate with the party's wishes, and only if the player continues to be disruptive after a DM has been called in to mediate. - In the effort to not exclude new players who are still learning runs, we should note that mistakes are not sufficient justification for exclusion. Even in serious cases, where one unfortunately timed error caused the party to be unsuccessful in completing the run, players should not be excluded. This guideline is intended to encourage cooperative party play, where players listen to their fellow party members and work together to successfully complete runs. - Examples of behavior that meet this criteria include, but are not limited to: repeatedly spawning enemies before the party has had time to buff, consistently beating on no-hit enemies after being told by the party not to do so, consistently healing paragon enemies to the point that they significantly increase the difficulty and length of the run, and consistently going AFK for long periods of time during runs without good reason and adequate communication with the party. There are others, but these are just examples so you can get an idea of what I'm proposing. - Note as well that this guideline is merely an elaboration of the line quoted above: "If the player so included is disruptive to the run, players on that run should call a DM to mediate the situation." 5: Repeated harassment of other party members is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. These types of offenses include: excessive vulgarity directed at other party members, sexual harassment, racial slurs, wishing actual death or harm to another player, and other instances of verbal abuse that ruin the experience of a party member. In these cases, the offending player can be asked to leave and, if they refuse, a DM should be called in to mediate the situation. - This one to me is pretty obvious, as it's in line with the rest of the server rules. I merely thought to include it here because it does seem like an appropriate reason to exclude a disruptive player from a run. Anyway, I'm sure that we could probably add other guidelines to hash out this rule some more, but most anything we add could probably be easily covered by simply asking a DM to mediate the situation. What do you guys think of these? I hope they're not unreasonable. My intention is to have these in place as a preventative measure, so that players know they can be excluded for these reasons and will therefore make a point to avoid giving their parties just cause for excluding them (hopefully circumventing the need to consider blacklisting them in the first place). The goal here is to safeguard a positive gaming experience for as many as possible, and I feel that these additional guidelines help to facilitate that.
|
|
|
Post by chainlink on Mar 27, 2014 15:02:36 GMT
Can you also exclude people from this who choose to solo play but with multiple bots? I remember seeing people running with 7 or 8 in the past (not sure how they do it as I'd have thought it would require extra hands/heads) and whilst from an external viewpoint they have a party in reality they're playing solo, personally I believe bots to fill missing roles are an entirely different matter and are covered by the above distinctions. When I play with my son we usually have between 2 and 7 characters depending on what we're doing but as we usually play -HC- it's not a problem as historically there's virtually never been exclusion in that community.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 27, 2014 15:53:02 GMT
Funky what I suggest is a hold on applying a rule to this problem and instead we open up visibility to the problem by making runs auto announced when the first map is entered This is actually a really appealing idea. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, and all. I'll think on it today. I think, if nothing else, it would resolve a lot of confusion about the 'why' of the rule, or, in the alternative, prevent some of the behavior in the first place. [Edit]At work, so I don't have time to address the people posting after yojimbo, yet. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 15:58:03 GMT
I'm guessing this could cause problems, announcing runs when people aren't actually going to do the run, or doing it while being partially afk. Although if It did this on the starting map of most major runs with the factor of a party of 3 or more... I could see this working well.
|
|
|
Post by chainlink on Mar 27, 2014 16:11:12 GMT
Funky what I suggest is a hold on applying a rule to this problem and instead we open up visibility to the problem by making runs auto announced when the first map is entered This is actually a really appealing idea. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, and all. I'll think on it today. I think, if nothing else, it would resolve a lot of confusion about the 'why' of the rule, or, in the alternative, prevent some of the behavior in the first place. [Edit]At work, so I don't have time to address the people posting after yojimbo, yet. Funky Will potentially get people showing up to servers where -HC- characters are on a run unless it's possible to differentiate when the autoshout happens?
|
|
|
Post by Enius the White on Mar 27, 2014 16:57:11 GMT
The kind of conduct that Twilight Semner outlines above (par 4-5) is clearly not acceptable, and no protection should be offered for those behaving this way. When I then think about the mechanics involved in applying this rule, I actually like what I see. I cannot imagine someone repeatedly behaving like a complete asshat on runs, then seeking remedy from a DM, or Funky. Would probably be rather amusing.... "DM help, they won't let me join their runs and split tears until the server bogs, the way that I enjoy!" Conversely, a player who's conduct was repeatedly offensive to a party, but not intended (e.g. language barrier maybe?) reaching out to a DM under this rule, would be a good thing. The quick, early mediation and education that would ensue could really help to ensure everyone's enjoyment of the game. By contrast, chasing such a player to other parties, as was historically the case, only spread the problem. "Sunlight being the best disinfectant" works on both ends of the spectrum, inviting reasonable intervention, early.
|
|