[INDEPENDENT] Dedicated Private MOBIUS PVE Groups for the PC, PS4, XBOX with over 50,000 Commanders.

[Robert Maynard]

I think that's the discussion right there! Is bluff and bluster counted as a hostile act in itself. Letter of the rules, I'd say the person didn't actually do any wrong. Spirit of the rules, he probably did.

Personally, I would go with the "use ignore" for words and bluster, only ban/kick for actual attacks.

That's up to Mobius - it's his group.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No I wouldn't given that the other CMDR was working in a war zone. It was player interaction. Player interaction is not banned in mobius group.
I've been removed because of two complaints. This complaint is not valid imo and the other is hopefully being looked at.
If anything the disappointing thing is the shear neck of people labelling others withought a: having the full facts and b: happily labelling them as some kind of mass murderer

If that's the case then maybe it needs to be re-examined - it's up to the group founder.

 

[jabokai]

That's up to Mobius - it's his group.

Mobius is a good guy, not a dictator, I'm sure he'll put it to discussion and let the members decide as he did with the rules in the first place. He acted on his interpretation to protect said members (and not wrongly) but perhaps the rules just need a little refining.

As I said, without an actual attack I'd just call this bluff and bluster and either put the player on ignore and go on my way or wait and see what they did.

 

[YoBuck]

I agree it's up to the group founder if his last word is out then I'm out. But I would expect as a rule set has been drawn up then in grey areas such as this there should be an appeal process. Indeed mobius himself has a post about this over at elitepve yet the "offending player" hasn't been contacted at all to give his side of events.
I have a lot of fun in that group and admire what it stands for. I'm not there to cause trouble in any form but to just be insta booted imho is kind of against the groups ethics anyway.
I'm just after a fair hearing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mobius is a good guy, not a dictator, I'm sure he'll put it to discussion and let the members decide as he did with the rules in the first place. He acted on his interpretation to protect said members (and not wrongly) but perhaps the rules just need a little refining.

As I said, without an actual attack I'd just call this bluff and bluster and either put the player on ignore and go on my way or wait and see what they did.

.... also, from re-reading the posts, it's not totally clear where the incident took place.

 

[YoBuck]

The incident took place in khaki(sp?). It was not in a CZ. It was outside the trading station of the community goal.

I stand by it was not pvp it was player and game interaction.

 

[jabokai]

The incident took place in khaki(sp?). It was not in a CZ. It was outside the trading station of the community goal.

I stand by it was not pvp it was player and game interaction.

If it's the incident I just read about on the elitepve forums then the player was interdicted? If so, then that is clearly against the rules of the group and the kick was deserved.

 

[YoBuck]

If it's the incident I just read about on the elitepve forums then the player was interdicted? If so, then that is clearly against the rules of the group and the kick was deserved.

That is a seperate incident, I'm currently dealing with this one. And according to mobius own post that I quoted over at elitepve I should be able to give my side.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Or indeed inforce the 48hr ban as stated by mobius.

 

[jabokai]

That is a seperate incident, I'm currently dealing with this one. And according to mobius own post that I quoted over at elitepve I should be able to give my side.

Ha ha, you're not really embracing the spirit of the PvE group are you!? If you're not only breaking the rules by interdicting, but also skirting up against them with threats of PvP!

 

[YoBuck]

I'll happly take a 48hr cool off for the interdiction incident, that was my bad and I held my hands up straight away. This on the other hand is just spurious at best. Player interaction is not against mobius group rules.

As for embracing the pve group I beg to differ. I'm helpful both i game and on the forums. Let's keep to the facts shall we.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The incident took place in khaki(sp?). It was not in a CZ. It was outside the trading station of the community goal.

I stand by it was not pvp it was player and game interaction.

Then the incident took place outside a combat zone, by your own admission.

It's up to Mobius to make the judgement whether a threat of PvP, outside the only designated permissible zones for PvP, in this PvE group constitutes breach of the group rules.

 

[YoBuck]

Ok so if we are going to apply the rules correctly. I.e it was outside a conflict zone then we should also fully apply the rules that it was not a pvp incident.
Or is that just madness?
I've pm'd the player in question and he seems pretty quiet on the subject.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ok so if we are going to apply the rules correctly. I.e it was outside a conflict zone then we should also fully apply the rules that it was not a pvp incident.
Or is that just madness?
I've pm'd the player in question and he seems pretty quiet on the subject.

If there was no threat of PvP then what was the purpose of interacting with the player in question?

If there was no threat of consequence for running away then the interaction is reduced to role-play that could be ignored as to carry out the threat would mean that the attacker would be kicked from the group.

 

[YoBuck]

exactly. Role play

 

[jabokai]

I'll happly take a 48hr cool off for the interdiction incident, that was my bad and I held my hands up straight away. This on the other hand is just spurious at best. Player interaction is not against mobius group rules.

As for embracing the pve group I beg to differ. I'm helpful both i game and on the forums. Let's keep to the facts shall we.

That 48 hour cooldown, as far as I can see, is not a de facto rule. It was just an initial way of dealing with a particular person/event.

I was kind of on your side with the bluff and bluster threat of PvP, but interdiction is totally not allowed - it's a blatant rule break and a kick is perfectly fine for that if nothing else, IMHO.

 

[Wolf]

I think that's the discussion right there! Is bluff and bluster counted as a hostile act in itself. Letter of the rules, I'd say the person didn't actually do any wrong. Spirit of the rules, he probably did.

Personally, I would go with the "use ignore" for words and bluster, only ban/kick for actual attacks.

I would agree with you if interdicting a player was not clearly stated as not allowed in the group policy.

see the policy here: http://elitepve.com/page/policy
or here the initial announcemenmt, 6th of December 2014: http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=637
or here the poll leading up to the draft: http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=449

It is not that we just invented those rules recently and without including the members. And with now over 6000 players it is just not feasible to use anything else than a zero tolerance policy. The first post of this thread and the http://elitepve.com site state clearly enough what the group is about and what kind of behaviour is expected from, and by, it's members. I don't think it is asking to much to inform yourself about the rules of a group before you join.
Especially when the information is so hard to miss.

 

[YoBuck]

Well luckily you ain't the judge and jury then.
Let me set the record straight. The interdiction was my fault, if I'm honest I wasn't even thinking weather I was in open or group. As you say it's not a de facto rule. But concidering my immediate honesty on the subject I'm clearly not not some player griefer.
On the incident here I think I'm in the right, it was player interaction and nothing more.
I'm not trying to test the rules or see what I can get away with. I'm here to enjoy the game the same as you guys.

 

[Wolf]

Wow, was interupted posting for a few minutes and there is a whole new page of posts! Did't expect that. I see the conversation already was passed that point now.

 

[YoBuck]

I would agree with you if interdicting a player was not clearly stated as not allowed in the group policy.

see the policy here: http://elitepve.com/page/policy
or here the initial announcemenmt, 6th of December 2014: http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=637
or here the poll leading up to the draft: http://elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=449

It is not that we just invented those rules recently and without including the members. And with now over 6000 players it is just not feasible to use anything else than a zero tolerance policy. The first post of this thread and the http://elitepve.com site state clearly enough what the group is about and what kind of behaviour is expected from, and by, it's members. I don't think it is asking to much to inform yourself about the rules of a group before you join.
Especially when the information is so hard to miss.

I've fully addmiter to messing up. It seems two incidents have become merged when I only see one incident.
As for the rules set I wasn't aware that time of posting was part of it all.

 

[jabokai]

I would agree with you if interdicting a player was not clearly stated as not allowed in the group policy.

Yeah, I didn't know about that bit at the time.

Wow, was interupted posting for a few minutes and there is a whole new page of posts! Did't expect that. I see the conversation already was passed that point now.

Indeed! Now I'm aware, I agree with you.

Well luckily you ain't the judge and jury then.

I'm a member of the group and you're asking for arbitration - who do you think would arbitrate but other members of the group? Attitude like "Well luckily you ain't the judge and jury then" is only going to sway people against you!