I think leaders who are players putting other players potentially hundreds of dollars into the hole for violating a game 'rule' (not actually any rule of the game, just a player written 'law') due to boredom are giant jerks. Viable intermediary steps between 'pointless slap on the wrist' and 'pay money or suffer' would be appreciated. And no, fear of being kicked out and having to pay extra RL money should not be something we throw around to keep people 'in line'. That just leads to a nasty atmosphere that most people won't want to play in at all.
Disagree. Probably why your org had an issue with Nicholo. As long as rules are reasonable and enough warning is given, it's really not "nasty" to expect people to acknowledge and understand that actions lead to consequences. You're playing with young adults and adults. I don't know why you think paying RL money should give people OOC immunity to consequences for things they chose to do, Narsrim style (sorry I had to). That's pretty irrational, and if you ever raised a kid like that, they'd be a hellion.
I think your comment about it being a "nasty atmosphere" that no one will want to play in has been pretty much disproven at this point. That's exactly how things are now. There is no middle ground for punishments. People have, for as long as anyone has played, broken the rules enough to get thrown out. Your org just did it a few months ago. The game didn't end.
I think cutting them off from skills that require org power for a probation time would be fine. I mean, it'll go back to the "they paid RL money" thing but I still don't buy that as an actual argument, just a sense of entitlement. Being a customer doesn't mean you get to have it your way, unless you are at McDonald's.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited November 2012
Plus, you just listed off a ton of slaps on the wrists. Silenced from org aethers? Stopping news posts? That's about as had as a disfavor.
Of course the other extremes are banishing someone to inescapable rooms and peacing them, which I don't think any player should have the power to do (other than short term maze, etc).
I say all that to say this:
Your problem is an issue with personal boundaries and responsibility. Not a mechanical one. I don't want to see time better spent elsewhere instead of coding this stuff, when I can just take you to a parenting class where they will teach you that it's not your fault when you have to punish kids for doing things they know they shouldn't.
I do like the notion of being able to block someone from using nexus-specific power though. It will affect some guilds more than others, obviously, but it's definitely more than a slap on the wrist.
Really? If someone is spewing vitriol to other org members (but it's the first time they've done it), removing their ability to do so is not a slap on the wrist. It's a solution. Problem: Inappropriate speech. Solution: Capacity for speech removed.
Problem: Member going crazy and attacking people, even once warned.
Solution: Peaced member.
Right now the only thing that can be done is this:
Problem: Member going crazy and attacking people, even once warned.
Solution: Member is given a slap on the wrist, this doesn't work. Member is removed from the org. If they want to go to another org, they will lose access to their current skills. Depending on their guild and their eventual guild, they need to pony up cash. For instance, if I moved into the Blacktalon, I'd have to spend at least $40 to get my character back to full capacity. If I went mage, I'd have to spend over double that. Member quits game, hates person who removed them.
Purposefully levering up another player's cost to play the game is unacceptable. That power is what got out of control in Achaea with players having complete control over access to skills. Having someone not be violent for 2 hours is not more dangerous or extreme than sending them a bill to continue playing... Only a very few specs can be rogue and be viable, some can't do anything without specific org power.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Really? If someone is spewing vitriol to other org members (but it's the first time they've done it), removing their ability to do so is not a slap on the wrist. It's a solution. Problem: Inappropriate speech. Solution: Capacity for speech removed.
Problem: Member going crazy and attacking people, even once warned.
Solution: Peaced member.
Right now the only thing that can be done is this:
Problem: Member going crazy and attacking people, even once warned.
Solution: Member is given a slap on the wrist, this doesn't work. Member is removed from the org. If they want to go to another org, they will lose access to their current skills. Depending on their guild and their eventual guild, they need to pony up cash. For instance, if I moved into the Blacktalon, I'd have to spend at least $40 to get my character back to full capacity. If I went mage, I'd have to spend over double that. Member quits game, hates person who removed them.
Purposefully levering up another player's cost to play the game is unacceptable. That power is what got out of control in Achaea with players having complete control over access to skills. Having someone not be violent for 2 hours is not more dangerous or extreme than sending them a bill to continue playing... Only a very few specs can be rogue and be viable, some can't do anything without specific org power.
Lol, maybe Serenwilde is different from all the orgs I've played but I can count the number of times people have gone nuts over ct on one finger, and again, giving players the power to peace one another is a terrible idea. Heck, I think giving players the ability to ban eachother from channels has an extremely high probability of being abused. Plus the whole peaced idea is in direct conflict with your "they paid for it" argument.
The second half is a little ridiculous and filled with hyperbole. Like I said, learn how to have boundaries. Accept that people will make decisions and it's not up to you to be a care-bear and hug them afterwards. You can give people a fair bit of rope, more than the one warning you just suggested. Purposefully leveraging their money over them is wrong, that is correct (alternatively so is leveraging the fact that you spent OOC money to get your way IC). That's not what anyone is doing. You want to play in an org, follow the rules. The rules are the leverage. Follow the rules. Follow. The. Rules. You're not their mother. Honestly, I don't know why you are dramqueening over it like it's going to ruin the game when it already exists and quite clearly has not ruined the game.
The beauty of having tailored and incremented probation is that you get to fit the punishment to the crime. Yes, turning of ctells would be a slap on the wrist for a hardened combatant, so you don't include that as a core part of their probation, you peace them instead.
Heck, you could even have specific peace types, if the system bears it out. "I forbid you from harming members of Celest. If you do so, full peace will fall upon you. So be it! <insert mumbo jumbo spell>". Bam! As long as you don't harass people from Celest, you're fine. Harass someone from Celest and you're bopped with 5 minutes of peace. That's not long, but it's long enough to stop you from continuing.
That player who was causing all sorts of problems for their org by uncontrollably starting raids is hit with a targeted measure that specifically stops the issue without any sort of collateral damage to their ability to play the game. You can scalpel at the problem, instead of smashing them with a money-sign-meat-tenderizer.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Yes well, have at it. I will eagerly await the rage posts about how 1) ineffective channel bans are and how we, yet again, absolutely must have a way to effectively punish people or the game will be ruined by non existent leveraging of ooc funds. and 2) so and so is abusing the peace/special room banishment to get their way.
Or probably both, and I predict Magnagora will be the first to do it.
Your problem is an issue with personal boundaries and responsibility. Not a mechanical one. I don't want to see time better spent elsewhere instead of coding this stuff, when I can just take you to a parenting class where they will teach you that it's not your fault when you have to punish kids for doing things they know they shouldn't.
No. My problem is that other players are not my children. They are (ostensibly) fully functioning adults, who make their own financial decisions. I don't find it appropriate to put all of them into the role of 'kids' who are 'doing things they know they shouldn't' because I (or another leader) won a popularity contest. That's crossing personal boundaries in a MAJOR way.
Or you could just fine them. You have been bad over the Org channel, you now owe 50,000 gold to the commune/city. Do it again it will be 100,000, do it again it will be 150,000. If you fail to pay up within so and so time. You will be removed from the org. Same for players gone nutty, fine them, and increase per offense. (The beauty of this, is it can be implemented right now, with no need to code, because of logs.)
This way they get fair warning, and punished, and when that gold starts coming to silly levels, they will stop.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Your problem is an issue with personal boundaries and responsibility. Not a mechanical one. I don't want to see time better spent elsewhere instead of coding this stuff, when I can just take you to a parenting class where they will teach you that it's not your fault when you have to punish kids for doing things they know they shouldn't.
No. My problem is that other players are not my children. They are (ostensibly) fully functioning adults, who make their own financial decisions. I don't find it appropriate to put all of them into the role of 'kids' who are 'doing things they know they shouldn't' because I (or another leader) won a popularity contest. That's crossing personal boundaries in a MAJOR way.
X_X
What? I have no idea what you are carrying on about. The point is that it's your job as a leader (much like a parent) to enforce rules and boundaries and it's their fault when they consciously and willing break them. It's pretty impersonal. Which apparently you simultaneously understand and don't understand at the same time.
I'm sorry, you don't get to be entitled just because you spent ooc money. I don't get to eat at chili's naked just because I bought an appetizer. We're customers, not share holders.
I have a lot of reservations about things like channel banning etc. Some pretty prominent players in at least one organization have said they would most certainly use such features to punish people for having the audacity to speak to someone of a higher rank, for using CT for idle chatter, etc.
It seems like those kind of privileges would pretty quickly end up being used to harm the game in general (to a great degree), versus improve it.
3
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I have a lot of reservations about things like channel banning etc. Some pretty prominent players in at least one organization have said they would most certainly use such features to punish people for having the audacity to speak to someone of a higher rank, for using CT for idle chatter, etc.
It seems like those kind of privileges would pretty quickly end up being used to harm the game in general (to a great degree), versus improve it.
Yes, it'll abused in about 3.5 seconds. I have no doubt about it.
I think what Celina is getting at is this. In real life, if you break whatever country you are in laws. Speeding for example. You can't say "Cop, I spent good money on that car, please don't impound it." So why should you get away with it in game. When you are supposed to be roleplaying that you are IN that organization, and as such, you should be following its laws. If you break it. There is no excuse really so any... repercussions even if it hurts your pocket, is your own fault, much as getting you car impounded is also, no one elses fault but your own.
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Yes, that. I mean, yes it's a game...but it's an RP game.
There is that possibility, but with the power to do so confined to ~6 people in each org, each with fairly substantial power to countermand any of the others, and with what is likely to be such an infrequent use, it wouldn't be a difficult matter to keep an eye on, really. It would just be a good tool to have available when needed. Probationary statuses (with or without as many options) would serve as a good mechanical measure that would both persist and have more potential for specific use.
"What? I have no idea what you are carrying on about. The point is that it's your job as a leader (much like a parent) to enforce rules and boundaries and it's their fault when they consciously and willing break them. It's pretty impersonal. Which apparently you simultaneously understand and don't understand at the same time.
I'm sorry, you don't get to be entitled just because you spent ooc money. I don't get to eat at chili's naked just because I bought an appetizer. We're customers, not share holders."
Yes, but I (and evidently others) don't find it appropriate that you ramp up from disfavors or fines to ejection, with no mechanical step in the middle. Being made leader (via a popularity contest) does not entitle you to god status, nor does it make you the parent of a bunch of naughty children deserving whatever you decide they have coming to them. Even in that sort of metaphor, it wouldn't be appropriate to say to a child "Now, that's bad, sit in the corner (powerblock). Bad, now sit in the corner longer and you can't have snack (Block and fine). Now, I told you. Time to present an inappropriate punishment, you have to hike five miles (pay $50) before you can eat again (play)." That's just silly.
Even if some of the options are deemed inappropriate, or are made on-request-only, they are still just options that can go un-implemented, and the idea stands. Something mechanical that provides the ability to appropriately punish/manage org members, that can be tailored to their situation/crime and use an amnesty-esque auto-removal timer.
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
What? God mode? Hike five miles before you can eat again? I can't help but think you are being as over the top as possible to make your point, and it's just coming across as you not really having a legitimate point.
Throw in the block to power skills. I think that's a reasonable middle step. It won't change a thing, and you'll still complain, but you'll have your symbolic middle step.
There is that possibility, but with the power to do so confined to ~6 people in each org, each with fairly substantial power to countermand any of the others, and with what is likely to be such an infrequent use, it wouldn't be a difficult matter to keep an eye on, really. It would just be a good tool to have available when needed. Probationary statuses (with or without as many options) would serve as a good mechanical measure that would both persist and have more potential for specific use.
"What? I have no idea what you are carrying on about. The point is that it's your job as a leader (much like a parent) to enforce rules and boundaries and it's their fault when they consciously and willing break them. It's pretty impersonal. Which apparently you simultaneously understand and don't understand at the same time.
I'm sorry, you don't get to be entitled just because you spent ooc money. I don't get to eat at chili's naked just because I bought an appetizer. We're customers, not share holders."
Yes, but I (and evidently others) don't find it appropriate that you ramp up from disfavors or fines to ejection, with no mechanical step in the middle. Being made leader (via a popularity contest) does not entitle you to god status, nor does it make you the parent of a bunch of naughty children deserving whatever you decide they have coming to them. Even in that sort of metaphor, it wouldn't be appropriate to say to a child "Now, that's bad, sit in the corner (powerblock). Bad, now sit in the corner longer and you can't have snack (Block and fine). Now, I told you. Time to present an inappropriate punishment, you have to hike five miles (pay $50) before you can eat again (play)." That's just silly.
Even if some of the options are deemed inappropriate, or are made on-request-only, they are still just options that can go un-implemented, and the idea stands. Something mechanical that provides the ability to appropriately punish/manage org members, that can be tailored to their situation/crime and use an amnesty-esque auto-removal timer.
Why do sections of your post turn this weird beige-y yellow colour?!
And again, anything that involves admin needing to police things demands the question of "Will this add something enjoyable to the game? Will it improve the quality of any given organization? What's the risk of it being abused and the effect thereof, if it takes a few days for an admin to get to it (because not all admin handle issues or are watching what goes on in every org)?"
I think this falls outside that realm. I also think if we go that route, the power should be limited to the CL solely (since they are, after all, the elected official of the city, not a guild). If it's abused, they can be voted out by the city at large (or 3 GMs). Though still, I'm not sure this is something that's 'good', especially given the tendency for cliques to form and then abuse the smaller groupings in their organization. It's not common, but it happens, and when it does, this level of harassment can really kill someone's desire to get into the game, and then - again - it falls on the admin to decide if it's a big enough problem or outside the bounds of 'what's okay for a city government to do', enough so for us to step in.
There really isn't a problem, there is a ton of stuff you can do that does not require coding, but simply the implementation of current code. I will touch briefly on some of those things now that can stop it being Disfavour - Removed as a Citizen.
Fines
As I previously said, implement fines that individuals would have to pay to the commune. And slowly increase them as the individual commits more and more offenses, with a warning that eventually this will lead to removal from citizenship, as well as lack of payment. The way to stop this from being abused is to accompany fines with disfavours that explains the offence, as well as records the fine given. For example, "Player A has repeatedly slayed citizens of this commune/city despite warning. First offence, 50,000 gold fine given." Because of the disfavour it will be able to be prevented from abuse, and any serious abuse that is blatently obvious, only then do the admin really need to step in. In order to make sure everyone is aware of what fines are given, create a chelp file which details offenses, the fines and finally the increase % per offence. For example.
Killing a citizen. First offense - 50,000 gold and a disfavour. Second offense - 100,000 gold and a disfavour. Third offense - 200,000 gold and a disfavour. Fourth offense - 400,000 gold and a disfavour. Etc.
Power Fines.
This works much like the above. Except with power, so you would need logs kept from Power Aides and Minister. Banned from Services.
This is essentially a trade sanction. Do not permit them to trade with other commune/city members. If they have a shop, remove it from them. This forces them to use only the commune/city shops and aether shops. And makes it incredibly difficult to do anything but the aetherplex. Then inform them that getting around this by trading with city enemies is a fine offense. (Granted this isn't exactly a strong punishment, and will only serve as a minor inconvenience unless they own a shop, but its something.) Again accompany it with a disfavour, so number one, they know why its happened. Number two, everyone else knows about it. Number three, it can be monitored for abuse.
Final Notes
These are just ideas from the top of my head, but I am sure there are many other things that can be done. It just takes a little work and initiative to get a system that works for the org. And as for the argument, "Just because elected officials in the city/commune get elected doesn't mean they should be able to cross that line and kick you out, costing real money." .... If you do not like how they run things, might I suggest stepping up and initiating roleplay to take that "Elected" power away from them, by replacing them, even if it takes a while.
@Eventru: I really don't agree that CL should have any powers what so ever to deal with guild level punishments, that ability for three guild leaders still exists (you can't be a guild leader without being in the commune) as does the ability for them to be contested.
That said, I'd rather see at the very minimum just a flagging system... like... light, medium, high. There might not be any punishments inherently tied to those but there could be things like... light punishment might prevent you from accessing some special areas but not the general access area of the guild hall, or if it's detectable by shops/perms you might increased prices at shops or not be able to pilot certain ships? Medium could make it worse, start locking you out from more, and severe could complete shut you out perhaps even spreading to other guilds if they agree.
The benefit here is that about half are things that the players can do themselves, while the others are just more flexible based on the guild and potentially more environmental. If you break enough rules of your guild well then you can't enter the guild hall, maybe guards/other mobs could even get updates so that their attitudes towards people changes based on their warnings. Like that flirty elfen guard at mother might start whispering gossip about the, unspecified, bad things they've done to a random person nearby when they enter or leave. Others might snub them rather than warmly greeting them.
@Kabina: I actually wouldn't think banning people from commune/city shops would do much. Only cause well... I never use them cause the plex is easier :P
Though it does raise a question to confirm that we can restrict enemies of a clan from purchasing at a shop. Cause then you could enemy to say... the moonhart circle or something to block a commune member from accessing the shops.
Comments
This way they get fair warning, and punished, and when that gold starts coming to silly levels, they will stop.
X_X
It seems like those kind of privileges would pretty quickly end up being used to harm the game in general (to a great degree), versus improve it.
And again, anything that involves admin needing to police things demands the question of "Will this add something enjoyable to the game? Will it improve the quality of any given organization? What's the risk of it being abused and the effect thereof, if it takes a few days for an admin to get to it (because not all admin handle issues or are watching what goes on in every org)?"
I think this falls outside that realm. I also think if we go that route, the power should be limited to the CL solely (since they are, after all, the elected official of the city, not a guild). If it's abused, they can be voted out by the city at large (or 3 GMs). Though still, I'm not sure this is something that's 'good', especially given the tendency for cliques to form and then abuse the smaller groupings in their organization. It's not common, but it happens, and when it does, this level of harassment can really kill someone's desire to get into the game, and then - again - it falls on the admin to decide if it's a big enough problem or outside the bounds of 'what's okay for a city government to do', enough so for us to step in.
Fines
As I previously said, implement fines that individuals would have to pay to the commune. And slowly increase them as the individual commits more and more offenses, with a warning that eventually this will lead to removal from citizenship, as well as lack of payment. The way to stop this from being abused is to accompany fines with disfavours that explains the offence, as well as records the fine given. For example, "Player A has repeatedly slayed citizens of this commune/city despite warning. First offence, 50,000 gold fine given." Because of the disfavour it will be able to be prevented from abuse, and any serious abuse that is blatently obvious, only then do the admin really need to step in. In order to make sure everyone is aware of what fines are given, create a chelp file which details offenses, the fines and finally the increase % per offence. For example.
Killing a citizen.
First offense - 50,000 gold and a disfavour.
Second offense - 100,000 gold and a disfavour.
Third offense - 200,000 gold and a disfavour.
Fourth offense - 400,000 gold and a disfavour.
Etc.
Power Fines.
This works much like the above. Except with power, so you would need logs kept from Power Aides and Minister.
Banned from Services.
This is essentially a trade sanction. Do not permit them to trade with other commune/city members. If they have a shop, remove it from them. This forces them to use only the commune/city shops and aether shops. And makes it incredibly difficult to do anything but the aetherplex. Then inform them that getting around this by trading with city enemies is a fine offense. (Granted this isn't exactly a strong punishment, and will only serve as a minor inconvenience unless they own a shop, but its something.) Again accompany it with a disfavour, so number one, they know why its happened. Number two, everyone else knows about it. Number three, it can be monitored for abuse.
Final Notes
These are just ideas from the top of my head, but I am sure there are many other things that can be done. It just takes a little work and initiative to get a system that works for the org. And as for the argument, "Just because elected officials in the city/commune get elected doesn't mean they should be able to cross that line and kick you out, costing real money." .... If you do not like how they run things, might I suggest stepping up and initiating roleplay to take that "Elected" power away from them, by replacing them, even if it takes a while.
EDIT: Btw, TOS Section 9 is a good read.
@Eventru: I really don't agree that CL should have any powers what so ever to deal with guild level punishments, that ability for three guild leaders still exists (you can't be a guild leader without being in the commune) as does the ability for them to be contested.
That said, I'd rather see at the very minimum just a flagging system... like... light, medium, high. There might not be any punishments inherently tied to those but there could be things like... light punishment might prevent you from accessing some special areas but not the general access area of the guild hall, or if it's detectable by shops/perms you might increased prices at shops or not be able to pilot certain ships? Medium could make it worse, start locking you out from more, and severe could complete shut you out perhaps even spreading to other guilds if they agree.
The benefit here is that about half are things that the players can do themselves, while the others are just more flexible based on the guild and potentially more environmental. If you break enough rules of your guild well then you can't enter the guild hall, maybe guards/other mobs could even get updates so that their attitudes towards people changes based on their warnings. Like that flirty elfen guard at mother might start whispering gossip about the, unspecified, bad things they've done to a random person nearby when they enter or leave. Others might snub them rather than warmly greeting them.
@Kabina: I actually wouldn't think banning people from commune/city shops would do much. Only cause well... I never use them cause the plex is easier :P
Though it does raise a question to confirm that we can restrict enemies of a clan from purchasing at a shop. Cause then you could enemy to say... the moonhart circle or something to block a commune member from accessing the shops.