it is morally wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater slaariel. Just so you know ok.
the state of things
- Thread starter Cinn
- Start date
- Status
it is morally wrong to throw the baby out with the bathwater slaariel. Just so you know ok.
Also, Woldaff this official post is exactly what people are complaining about in this thread. This online emulated game played by the minority of nostalgic nerds doesn't need to be governed with an iron fist. Nobody comes to this server and says, "Wow, I love how harsh the rules and the enforcement of the rules are here!"
I was going to put a bunch of other bullshit in this post but it would dilute my somewhat serious message that you guys could chill a lot on the governance aspect of this ongoing wreck.
Tarutao
Staff Emeritus
Wrong.
You didn't deserve to be trained. The mocking, on the other hand...
The legitimate point this thread began with was quickly undermined by people saying "xxx should have not have been banned for yyy".
Basically there are two types of arguments. One is legitimate and one is not.
On one hand you can argue that the rules should be less strictly enforced. This is not realistic - too much maneuverability on the part of any single GM creates drama, accusations of favoritism and all sorts of other distrust of staff.
Take for instance the commution of Eisley's ban. The dev team took a full week to go through the logs, find out exactly what happened, try to determine the intent behind his actions, look for what sort of consequences came from the things the he did, and on and on. At the end of the day he violated a rule that he agreed to and that he knew upon agreeing to that it very well might get him banned for breaking. Still, after considering everything we decided a full player character ban was inappropriate. You would *think* that this would be met with, "Now that was a true enforcement of the SPIRIT of the rules!" but it is instead met with, "Why the hell did you not unban XXX then?! I think what he did was less and you just proved that you can unban at will!".
The argument you should be making is for the rules themselves to be less strict. Equal enforcement (or at least near equal enforcement) is important in a situation like we are in where the enforcers have interests that they must separate in order to be unbiased and fair. If rules have too much interpretation it makes it that much harder for players to see that we are indeed keeping our interests separate and allowing for an even playing field.
To be more succinct- The balance you are asking us to change is very precarious. We walk a very fine line in trying to be as equal and fair as possible. Not taking this into consideration in an argument is disingenuous and frankly offensive to the staff who go far out of our way to try and make sure we provide a fair and equitable game environment.
I am near locking this post. I think the point where people can not have this sort of conversation is when they start talking about specific instances. I would welcome a post about general policy but throwing names and cases around does nothing to further anything besides show exactly how careful the staff must be when making decisions that are not directly in response to written rules.
Basically there are two types of arguments. One is legitimate and one is not.
On one hand you can argue that the rules should be less strictly enforced. This is not realistic - too much maneuverability on the part of any single GM creates drama, accusations of favoritism and all sorts of other distrust of staff.
Take for instance the commution of Eisley's ban. The dev team took a full week to go through the logs, find out exactly what happened, try to determine the intent behind his actions, look for what sort of consequences came from the things the he did, and on and on. At the end of the day he violated a rule that he agreed to and that he knew upon agreeing to that it very well might get him banned for breaking. Still, after considering everything we decided a full player character ban was inappropriate. You would *think* that this would be met with, "Now that was a true enforcement of the SPIRIT of the rules!" but it is instead met with, "Why the hell did you not unban XXX then?! I think what he did was less and you just proved that you can unban at will!".
The argument you should be making is for the rules themselves to be less strict. Equal enforcement (or at least near equal enforcement) is important in a situation like we are in where the enforcers have interests that they must separate in order to be unbiased and fair. If rules have too much interpretation it makes it that much harder for players to see that we are indeed keeping our interests separate and allowing for an even playing field.
To be more succinct- The balance you are asking us to change is very precarious. We walk a very fine line in trying to be as equal and fair as possible. Not taking this into consideration in an argument is disingenuous and frankly offensive to the staff who go far out of our way to try and make sure we provide a fair and equitable game environment.
I am near locking this post. I think the point where people can not have this sort of conversation is when they start talking about specific instances. I would welcome a post about general policy but throwing names and cases around does nothing to further anything besides show exactly how careful the staff must be when making decisions that are not directly in response to written rules.
But this already happens?
Without going into specific instances, is there a way to avoid having GMs mess with our guild while we're raiding? I don't mean coming in and giving us all mushroom illusions, I mean things like secretly resetting fights during difficult encounters, making trash mobs invulnerable, porting our tank about. Things like that.
langdorn
Dalayan Elder
Change ur sig eisley
Rorne
The sad fish is a reactionary creature; an enemy o
I hope you don't have the audacity to be talking about Prime Enchanter
We reserve the right to change encounters as you do them. We always have and always will balance encounters primarily as they are being done by guilds mostly because going through a full beta is unrealistic at our size.
If you think you have a problem then you should talk to the guilds who most often do new content. They are constantly burdened with having to be the first to attempt encounters that need tweaking. Hell - the only reason you were able to kill PE at the time you did is because your guild complained enough to get it made much, much easier. Was it a reasonable request? Sure - we did change it after all. Still, it seems pretty crazy to complain when the only reason it needed re-balancing in the first place is because the dev team listened to your complaints and changed it.
There is a very big difference between GM conduct and Dev conduct. If you want a game where dev's will not tweak, change and balance then you are in the wrong place.
If you think you have a problem then you should talk to the guilds who most often do new content. They are constantly burdened with having to be the first to attempt encounters that need tweaking. Hell - the only reason you were able to kill PE at the time you did is because your guild complained enough to get it made much, much easier. Was it a reasonable request? Sure - we did change it after all. Still, it seems pretty crazy to complain when the only reason it needed re-balancing in the first place is because the dev team listened to your complaints and changed it.
There is a very big difference between GM conduct and Dev conduct. If you want a game where dev's will not tweak, change and balance then you are in the wrong place.
Wrong. You can PREVENT accidents. In that situation you just described, it's exactly that.
When you make actions, you always have to think about potentiel consequences of these action. Moreso when others are involded.
It was easy to foresee that you could potentially train them by trying to peak at where they were. If he failed to foresee that consequence, he really has to put his head out of his ass. And really that was the main problem with Arcibu. Don't get me wrong we were in good terms, I'm not a hater. I helped him out bunch and he did too for multiple quests/pugs. But he could never put himself into another's perspective than his own, which make him harmful for others ( harmful being a strong word considering it's a game but you get what I mean ).
Absolutely wrong. Other servers are garbage because of a lack 'iron fist ' .
Daelius
Dalayan Adventurer
Rules are great, and so is enforcing them. But just like a cop who gives a warning for speeding instead of a ticket, you have to have a little flexibility. Look at account history, repeat offenders and what not. Someone's 3 boxing a buff bot? Give em some time in jail the first time. Same person has now done it twice? A week.
It seems like all people want is a system where the maximum punishment isn't the first choice.
It seems like all people want is a system where the maximum punishment isn't the first choice.
- Status