|
Post by tyranlthixis on Mar 21, 2014 21:15:24 GMT
Well if this new rule includes leaving a run when some one I refuse to party with joins rather than refusing them a place I guess I see some bans coming my way if I ever log in then. Anyway, just wanted a quick clarification if you wouldn't mind. Areas like Hells are designed for 10 mans groups. However, if people want to do them, simply for the challenge/bragging rights in smaller parties, like the series of 5 man hell runs I did some time ago, is refusing entry to people on these grounds OK? These type of runs are usually planned in advance by friends and people don't refuse entry because they dislike or to bully others. Cata Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards Why wouldn't you be able to do such a run still? This would be handled in a way that would be in line with other griefing offenses. For example, if every time somebody logged on you robbed them over the course of 2 weeks. They finally get fed up and report you. You are then warned and if you continue to harass them THEN you incur some kind of punishment. So, your doing a 5 man run for kicks. Somebody asks to join and you explain your reasons to them. They don't like your answer and they talk on the DM channel and complain about you. A DM can pm you and talk to you at that time. If there is good reason for you rejecting the person (like you have this alternate goal) the person is told too bad and the situation is dropped completely. There is common sense involved here.
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Mar 21, 2014 21:31:26 GMT
Well if this new rule includes leaving a run when some one I refuse to party with joins rather than refusing them a place I guess I see some bans coming my way if I ever log in then. Anyway, just wanted a quick clarification if you wouldn't mind. Areas like Hells are designed for 10 mans groups. However, if people want to do them, simply for the challenge/bragging rights in smaller parties, like the series of 5 man hell runs I did some time ago, is refusing entry to people on these grounds OK? These type of runs are usually planned in advance by friends and people don't refuse entry because they dislike or to bully others. Cata Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards . So, your doing a 5 man run for kicks. Somebody asks to join and you explain your reasons to them. They don't like your answer and they talk on the DM channel and complain about you. A DM can pm you and talk to you at that time. If there is good reason for you rejecting the person (like you have this alternate goal) the person is told too bad and the situation is dropped completely. There is common sense involved here. Figured as much. Just wanted to have it clarified for everyone since from what I've seen so far in peoples responses there seems to be somewhat of a little panick, end of the world mentality. This a good thing to get these little things people might not fully understand explained. Thanks for the clarification O:-) Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by wollstonecraft on Mar 21, 2014 21:36:11 GMT
I wonder if dedicating (officially or unofficially) one server to small-party play isn't out of line here. I don't actually condone the idea of compartmentalizing groups of players, as we did with HC on 119, but *maybe* some of the hypothetical situations that people are envisioning have an ounce of merit.
Small pre-set groups, small group guild runs, multi-boxers all have reasons other than blacklisting not to invite other players along. And I can think of another hypothetical: players with languages other than English.
So, perhaps a separate server where the blacklist rule does not apply would still allow those small groups to be small for the sake of being small, whatever the reason. The other servers would abide by the new rule for all of the reasons players on them have to hope for larger parties.
This is just an idea, and I'm not convinced that it's a good idea.
-WSCraft
|
|
|
Post by halo27 on Mar 21, 2014 23:09:50 GMT
Ok, am lost slightly with this premise, like Cata I am also seeking clarifcation... So small man runs if a group is doing that for the added challenge, or speed runs etc then that would be fine to reject people going by what Tyr said?
"Somebody asks to join and you explain your reasons to them. They don't like your answer and they talk on the DM channel and complain about you. A DM can pm you and talk to you at that time. If there is good reason for you rejecting the person (like you have this alternate goal) the person is told too bad and the situation is dropped completely. There is common sense involved here."
Does this then change anything? What reasons/challenges are acceptableto reject people?
|
|
|
Post by fallenwizard on Mar 21, 2014 23:21:20 GMT
Ok, am lost slightly with this premise, like Cata I am also seeking clarifcation... So small man runs if a group is doing that for the added challenge, or speed runs etc then that would be fine to reject people going by what Tyr said? "Somebody asks to join and you explain your reasons to them. They don't like your answer and they talk on the DM channel and complain about you. A DM can pm you and talk to you at that time. If there is good reason for you rejecting the person (like you have this alternate goal) the person is told too bad and the situation is dropped completely. There is common sense involved here." Does this then change anything? What reasons/challenges are acceptableto reject people? Well, to me it sounds more like player A ask to join a said small group, gets rejected for some given reason, then the small group's friend, player B logs in and asks invite. Now small group would have to decline him aswell or they'd be griefing player A. Another would be a group doing "!runmsg run **** starting in 5, room for bard +2" and then player C logs in as 10rogue/15sorc/15druid and asks for invite, the group needs to invite him or they'd be violating the said rule. Personaly thou I'd like some clarifications on my earlier addressed things such as how long in the run you're supposed to accept join requests.
|
|
|
Post by halo27 on Mar 21, 2014 23:25:20 GMT
And guild runs?
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Mar 22, 2014 0:08:54 GMT
That's a pretty warped way at looking at the situation. There is no secret anti bullying missions going on. If you read what Funky wrote, he's already addressed all of the concerns you've brought up in this post. Everything from the magnitude of the problem to how former players like a "Rockcutter" will be handled if they cry injustice. If there is something specific you don't like about the wording suggest improvements. I'm not sure I'm warping anything. I said: "this whole shebang is basically cooked up to deal with a couple players who are viewed as bullies?" after I read these quotes which lead me to that conclusion: On a more personal note, this is something I’m doing not because I want to, but because a few disruptive players are forcing my hand. The situation has grown so absurd that even some of the players engaging in blacklisting are now afraid to post advocating nerfs, however appropriate such nerfs may be. What it boils down to, ladies and gents, is that I would rather lose the blacklisters than the good players they’re costing us. If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to vote with your feet. My time is increasingly scarce and precious, and I’m not going to spend it catering to a small number of players lording it over the rest of the playerbase. Basically we have a small number of bullies on HG . . . The rule allows the server to take a much needed break from toxic players.. I'm not looking to start a quote war here but what am I warping when my statement lines up with the above quotes? The sarcasm about secret anti-bullying missions may have been mistaken; the joke was that this comes as a big shocking surprise to, obviously, anyone who wasn't already "in" on it. It sounds like this has been an issue for a while, and from your words, we're intended to take this as a serious threat that DMs have already been dealing with (hence, secret/anti-bullying/mission). Regardless, you do not accurately judge my intent with the earlier posts. No, I read full well Funky's request to only post criticism if its accompanied by a better solution; I fail to acknowledge the necessity for this rule in the first place, so I likewise fail to propose any "solution". I don't understand the point of this rule and it hasn't been adequately demonstrated exactly why it was needed. So far I'm seeing some "dirty laundry"-esque references to un-named players who are doing terrible things like blacklisting people based on forums posts. What hasn't been properly explained to satisfaction is exactly who these players are, exactly what ill deeds they've done, and why the entire server needs to have dramatically shifted partying dynamic. So far we can only assume that some complaints have been made, but there's a burning question that I can't wait to see answered: if someone blacklists you then why do you think the best way forward is to complain to the administration and have them force the blacklister to play with you? If someone blacklists you then why do you even care what they think? I saw a reference to toxic players, but I don't understand why these toxic bullies are in such high demand to party up with by the people they blacklisted. If you got blacklisted based on forums posts then why would you want to play with that guy anyway? Sounds ridiculous to me. The whole thing is just utterly confounding. Now there's talk of re-structuring the server...what? Half these posters don't even play here anymore, and yet I'm expected to believe that a handful of toxic bully players have a stranglehold over the server population? Again, there must be some extraordinarily good reason that people want their company so badly if they must beg the administration to FORCE the blacklister players to hang out with them. The problem is showing the general public what are player complaints is not feasible unless somebody wants to step forward and post something who is affected by such behavior (not recommended). It has been an issue for a long time and the people affected aren't new or trouble making players. You'll just have to trust Funky that a problem exists and it is serious enough to warrant some kind of a rule.
|
|
|
Post by tyranlthixis on Mar 22, 2014 0:45:43 GMT
Again common sense needs to apply here. The guide or DM has to ask themselves "is this blacklisting". Not taking every player that logs on for a single run is not blacklisting. There needs to be a pattern of behavior established. For example, on Tuesday your guild organizes a run. 8 players show up and you call publicly for the other 2 slots. Player X shows up and you give him a reason for not taking him on the run. Wednesday the same thing happens, Thursday the same thing happens....You've done several runs and left with 8-9 and excluded this player consistently. The player complains on the DM channel or via PM and we have to investigate. They have screen shots showing being ignored or of the conversations they are having with the group. There may be a legitimate reason for the rejection. At some point we have to clarify what is going on here because it is starting to look like blacklisting. There are no knee jerk reactions in judging these matter. We may even have to talk to the player and work on some kind of agreement between both parties. They may not be aware that an issue exists because nobody is talking to them. The rule gives DM/guides some tools to act as advocates for both the player and the group they are excluded from. Funky would have to be consulted before anything was actually done involving punishment.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 22, 2014 0:50:00 GMT
Well if this new rule includes leaving a run when some one I refuse to party with joins rather than refusing them a place I guess I see some bans coming my way if I ever log in then. That's the current scope of the rule, yes. I guess we could try to hone it a bit more. The real problem is the convincing of others not to play with that person, to the extent that they wind up unable to play late-game areas. Unfortunately, as a matter of practical enforcement, differentiating between those two things is not really tenable, as I have neither time nor desire to go sifting through logs - even assuming that they aren't just chatting on voice. I guess my take on it is something along the lines of: if you're really so wrapped up in preventing certain people from partying with you, you're probably costing the server more than you're contributing, in the long run. It's not like we're forcing you to talk to the person, or even to play with them if their style of play is totally incompatible with yours. I certainly wouldn't want a Leeroy in my party whenever he so chose. If someone is disruptive to your gameplay, that becomes a DM issue, and we'll deal with it as such. That's part of the 'totality of the circumstances', but I can spell that out more clearly, at least. Another way to frame it is that I don't want players attempting monopolistic-style control over who gets to play content at any point in the game. It wouldn't be possible with a larger group of players, but unfortunately it is. If you want the power to exclude from the server, you should run your own. Yet a more personal way is this: catering to that kind of pettiness just isn't worth my time. The time I invest in an update I can just as easily invest in a pro bono case, for someone far more deserving, and far more in need, of that time. I would rather operate a called-run server for community-minded people, than I would continue to entertain the kind of petty nonsense that's been going on of late. Of course, none of that even touches on the big-picture items. How good do you really think it is for a small group of players to exercise that kind of power? It's precisely the kind of oppressive, arbitrary regime people in this thread are objecting to, only one motivated entirely by self-interest. I get the feeling a lot of posters in this thread haven't even begun to think this through in any sort of rigorous way. And then there's the even bigger-picture problem: what happens when they've succeeding in stifling forum debate, which is by far the best source of balancing information? Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 22, 2014 0:54:20 GMT
I wonder if dedicating (officially or unofficially) one server to small-party play isn't out of line here. I don't actually condone the idea of compartmentalizing groups of players, as we did with HC on 119, but *maybe* some of the hypothetical situations that people are envisioning have an ounce of merit. Small pre-set groups, small group guild runs, multi-boxers all have reasons other than blacklisting not to invite other players along. And I can think of another hypothetical: players with languages other than English. So, perhaps a separate server where the blacklist rule does not apply would still allow those small groups to be small for the sake of being small, whatever the reason. The other servers would abide by the new rule for all of the reasons players on them have to hope for larger parties. This is just an idea, and I'm not convinced that it's a good idea. -WSCraft I'm open to something of the kind, but it'd have to be monitored somehow, or it'd be a giant loophole. Maybe pre-posted runs with a fixed number of slots? Problem is, even if it's open-enrollment, so to speak, it wouldn't be hard for posters to coordinate with their desired runmates. And, I frankly don't have the time for a large administrative apparatus. Another possibility is upping the max characters to 4, to allow two dual-boxers, once Limbo drops. One serious upside to all of this is that's it's really lit a fire under my ass to get Limbo done. More players solves this issue on its own. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 22, 2014 0:59:13 GMT
Personaly thou I'd like some clarifications on my earlier addressed things such as how long in the run you're supposed to accept join requests. I recognize that there need to be clear guidelines, and I will endeavor to provide such. Part of the problem with that, however, is that the more bright-line they become, the easier they become to evade, which is a large part of the appeal of totality of the circumstances tests. On the one hand, you don't want things so vague as to create a serious chilling effect; on the other, you don't want them so precise that the rules are easy to circumvent. Listing a series of factors considered is the typical compromise, but that's probably unduly burdensome for the end user. The simple way to deal with this is to ask a DM if you're uncertain, BEFORE it's an issue. I recognize, however, that that is ALSO not always feasible. These kinds of issues are precisely why we avoid this kind of rule where possible. I'm not seeing any good alternatives, however, at least for the time being. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 22, 2014 1:15:42 GMT
I can understand what the primary purpose of the rule is and why you put it into place but there seem to be so many ways of achieving effective blacklisting whilst not actually falling foul of the rule it will be extremely difficult to police effectively. This is why we have the 'totality of the circumstances' test, instead of bright-line rules. We have a pretty good idea of who is and isn't engaging in this behavior. We're not out to get them, and in fact would not have instituted this rule at all if we saw another way - and may in fact drop it if player counts increase once PL areas drop. We ARE, however, out to prevent them from doing harm to the server. That will play into enforcement, so if you're not deliberately engaging in this kind of behavior, you have little to worry about. On the other hand, we don't want to completely single out a group of players, so we would probably track ongoing situations for a period of time to see if there actually was a pattern indicative of blacklisting, rather than simply saying 'oh, look, X is up to their old tricks, time for them to go'. If my understanding is correct, though, the group of players in question have decided to move back to another game, which is basically what I expected would happen. Apparently, petty power politics means more to them than enjoying the game, and they have decided to 'blacklist' the server, employing the same strategy they were using against players who dared defy them. If I was a bit more of a vindictive ass, I would 'blacklist' them in return (and drop Limbo within a week, even if it meant taking time off work ), but I'm still looking out for the server at large, and I'm aware that there are at least some players who would probably not want them banned, so that they could at least potentially party with them in the future. And yes, I am still working on Limbo whenever I get the chance. Once I can get the triggers set down, it will be almost ready for alpha testing. If I had a week in which I had no obligations at all, I could finish it. As it stands, it'll likely be about a month - my last day where I didn't spend at least 8 hours at the office was over 3 weeks ago. Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 22, 2014 1:19:32 GMT
No, I read full well Funky's request to only post criticism if its accompanied by a better solution; I fail to acknowledge the necessity for this rule in the first place, so I likewise fail to propose any "solution". The only necessity is that you run the risk of my deleting your posts as a waste of space and time. Funky
|
|
|
Post by CataclysmicDeath on Mar 22, 2014 2:04:00 GMT
Well if this new rule includes leaving a run when some one I refuse to party with joins rather than refusing them a place I guess I see some bans coming my way if I ever log in then. That's the current scope of the rule, yes. I guess we could try to hone it a bit more. The real problem is the convincing of others not to play with that person, to the extent that they wind up unable to play late-game areas. Unfortunately, as a matter of practical enforcement, differentiating between those two things is not really tenable, as I have neither time nor desire to go sifting through logs - even assuming that they aren't just chatting on voice. I have no issue with the rule. I don't doubt it's necessity at the present time. I only posted as I wanted clarification on my second comment on my previous post which was provided very quickly. However, there are one or two people I won't party with simply because doing runs with them spoils my enjoyment of the game, which is after all why I game. I don't make a big issue of it and don't intend to. It doesn't prevent them doing the run since I simply say I have to go and log. The only person loosing out is me since I don't get to go on the run. I don't even say it is because of the person joining. If doing that leads to me being banned fair enough. A rule is a rule. Having said that I just finished a very pleasant Cania run and will probably be popping in to do other runs now n then, I'll just have to see how it goes. Cata
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Mar 22, 2014 4:58:33 GMT
Fair enough. We're basically trying to preserve the enjoyment of the server for the greatest number possible, in the long run. I completely understand why people dislike the rule. I just don't see a better alternative. I'm still listening in hopes of hearing one, though. And working to drop Limbo and hopefully up player counts to obviate it.
Funky
|
|