Modes The Open v Solo v Groups thread IV - Hotel California

[Roybe]

I am not so certain that it is a "clear case" of grief play or harassment. The parties in question obtained access to the group from the manager, and chose to ignore the rules HE set down. For what its worth, I dont see how FD could possibly put out any bans for that. The group can kick them, but they broke no real rules that I can see.

I might disagree on this, as it is obvious they lied to the managers to get access to the group.

They never intended to 'play by the rules', which means they were going in there to only grief the group.

So it is a clear case of griefing.

Whether FDev could do anything about it, based on the ToS?

It definitely could come under the harassment clause...again, these guys went in there specifically to harass these people.

...but really...nothing was, or will be done...so all this is 'meh'.

AND this lack of enforceability is one of the best reasons for an Open PvE mode, rather than this ad hoc situation we currently have.

 

[Leto Thule]

All the more reason for the variable group rules, as described in the FAQ (quoted below, my underlined emphasis) to be implemented - if players knowingly join a Private Group with an out-of-game rule set (as there are no selectable variant in-game rules) with the express intent of breaking the agreed rules of the Private Group then Private Groups would seem to need in-game rules that can be specified for the Private Group:

No, I think thats a case of extreme selective interpretation.

"We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group."

The rules in each can be different - reads here that a group owner can set rules. Got it. But, after that, it states it will be possible to be banned through antisocial behavior. Bingo, already done. Jockey had stated he wished for REAL bans, and I am thinking he means banned from the game (I am certain he will correct me if I am mistaken .

So, I can state that, in MY group, I demand everyone bring me 12 cases of platinum every week. If they dont, do they get banned? They joined the group knowing I demand free platinum. Not giving me the platinum breaks my group rules. I consider it antisocial. (Yep, up to the individual, if you are allowing THEIR rules to set the stage..)

It could be possible that instead of letting literally everyone who asks join a group, and saying "Oh here is another 16,000 commander banner look join", MAYBE they look around first? Maybe check The Code's thread? Cross reference? Let me guess, too much work, right? Well then I have no sad music to play for laziness.

Yes, here comes your reply "But that just means we need a PVE mode so that cant happen". Well, just because you WANT it does not mean anything. The game was sold with the current modes, you all knew that, and you all play it anyhow. Adapt, or dont.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It could be possible that instead of letting literally everyone who asks join a group, and saying "Oh here is another 16,000 commander banner look join", MAYBE they look around first? Maybe check The Code's thread? Cross reference? Let me guess, too much work, right? Well then I have no sad music to play for laziness.

The idea of that group is just to have as many CMDRs as possible, so to have random encounters to occur frequently.

And you're expecting a single guy to manage that group, with the toolset available in E: D, or else you attribute that to laziness? A little harsh I feel.

Play some sad music for not providing group owners with adequate tooling to manage and monitor the group they set up. A simple No PvP checkbox where CMDRs who do engage in PvP get flagged for instance. Or something like that, I have spent almost 3 seconds on coming up with that, so better solutions are probably imaginable.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It could be possible that instead of letting literally everyone who asks join a group, and saying "Oh here is another 16,000 commander banner look join", MAYBE they look around first? Maybe check The Code's thread? Cross reference? Let me guess, too much work, right? Well then I have no sad music to play for laziness.

Yes, here comes your reply "But that just means we need a PVE mode so that cant happen". Well, just because you WANT it does not mean anything. The game was sold with the current modes, you all knew that, and you all play it anyhow. Adapt, or dont.

If forum names were linked to Commander names then it would certainly be easier to spot if players with a penchant for behaviour not acceptable to the rules of the group was trying to gain access - however they are not. Second copies of the game are relatively inexpensive too.

The game was sold with the current modes indeed - and the text I quoted above is the explanation as to how the groups would work, including an ability to vary the rule-set within a group (which has not yet been implemented).

 

[Asp Explorer]

A simple solution to that would be to give the group mode "easy" access to the IP's associated with each member as they log in and present it to the group owner if a complaint is made against a CMDR member.

It won't stop people using different IP's and CMDR names of course, but it does make it a bit harder for people to be nasty.

 

[Leto Thule]

The idea of that group is just to have as many CMDRs as possible, so to have random encounters to occur frequently.

And you're expecting a single guy to manage that group, with the toolset available in E: D, or else you attribute that to laziness? A little harsh I feel.

Play some sad music for not providing group owners with adequate tooling to manage and monitor the group they set up. A simple No PvP checkbox where CMDRs who do engage in PvP get flagged for instance. Or something like that, I have spent almost 3 seconds on coming up with that, so better solutions are probably imaginable.

Granted, the toolset is lackluster. I fully support the implementation of tools, however, providing GAME BANS for those who break rules set by players is a terrible idea no matter what angle you play from.

If forum names were linked to Commander names then it would certainly be easier to spot if players with a penchant for behaviour not acceptable to the rules of the group was trying to gain access - however they are not. Second copies of the game are relatively inexpensive too.

You know, you are 100% correct. I absolutely forgot about the forum accounts not being linked. Touche`.

The game was sold with the current modes indeed - and the text I quoted above is the explanation as to how the groups would work, including an ability to vary the rule-set within a group (which has not yet been implemented).

I am confused. This part is what "would" work? It already works, and the "ability to vary the rule set"... I read this as the group manager setting the playstyle rules, not a hard-code solution with checkboxes. Can you explain?

 

[fademist]

Granted, the toolset is lackluster. I fully support the implementation of tools, however, providing GAME BANS for those who break rules set by players is a terrible idea no matter what angle you play from.

Why is terrible? isnt from someones group isnt ban from the game lol

 

[Leto Thule]

Why is terrible? isnt from someones group isnt ban from the game lol

Sigh.

As usual, you dont read the entire convo and then post your reply to just a snippet. My entire point was in reference to Jockey's post that called for "REAL BANS" to be handed down. So yes, its a game ban, not a group ban, that we are discussing. Please read before posting. Thanks.

 

[fademist]

Sigh.

As usual, you dont read the entire convo and then post your reply to just a snippet. My entire point was in reference to Jockey's post that called for "REAL BANS" to be handed down. So yes, its a game ban, not a group ban, that we are discussing. Please read before posting. Thanks.

real ban on private group for that wont happen anyway....

 

[Leto Thule]

real ban on private group for that wont happen anyway....

That was my entire point, that group bans should never affect a GAME ban.

 

[Majinvash]

That was my entire point, that group bans should never affect a GAME ban.

I agree.

Have some rep

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am confused. This part is what "would" work? It already works, and the "ability to vary the rule set"... I read this as the group manager setting the playstyle rules, not a hard-code solution with checkboxes. Can you explain?

"Would" in the sense that Ashley's FAQ thread was created a day or so after the launch of the Kickstarter, over three years ago - the game was in the future in the context of the quoted post.

I read it as the group manager would be able to vary the in-game rules - or why state "and the rules in each group can be different" at all? If the rules were to be out-of-game then there'd be no requirement to mention rules at all in the context of how the in-game groups would function.

 

[Roybe]

No, I think thats a case of extreme selective interpretation.

"We have the concept of “groups”. They can be private groups just of your friends or open groups (that form part of the game) based on the play styles people prefer, and the rules in each can be different. Players will begin in the group “All” but can change groups at will, though it will be possible to be banned from groups due to antisocial behaviour, and you will only meet others in that group."

The rules in each can be different - reads here that a group owner can set rules. Got it. But, after that, it states it will be possible to be banned through antisocial behavior. Bingo, already done. Jockey had stated he wished for REAL bans, and I am thinking he means banned from the game (I am certain he will correct me if I am mistaken .

So, I can state that, in MY group, I demand everyone bring me 12 cases of platinum every week. If they dont, do they get banned? They joined the group knowing I demand free platinum. Not giving me the platinum breaks my group rules. I consider it antisocial. (Yep, up to the individual, if you are allowing THEIR rules to set the stage..)

It could be possible that instead of letting literally everyone who asks join a group, and saying "Oh here is another 16,000 commander banner look join", MAYBE they look around first? Maybe check The Code's thread? Cross reference? Let me guess, too much work, right? Well then I have no sad music to play for laziness.

Yes, here comes your reply "But that just means we need a PVE mode so that cant happen". Well, just because you WANT it does not mean anything. The game was sold with the current modes, you all knew that, and you all play it anyhow. Adapt, or dont.

Comparing a voluntary payment for inclusion to a direct lie, whose intent was to gain access to grief/harass the group and the owner, is disingenuous at best.

These two are not even comparable.

 

[Leto Thule]

"Would" in the sense that Ashley's FAQ thread was created a day or so after the launch of the Kickstarter, over three years ago - the game was in the future in the context of the quoted post.

I read it as the group manager would be able to vary the in-game rules - or why state "and the rules in each group can be different" at all? If the rules were to be out-of-game then there'd be no requirement to mention rules at all in the context of how the in-game groups would function.

Mate, if the post was created over 3 years ago, I think its safe to assume its been implemented as intended. I think you are looking for something between the lines that isn't there -- the rules for each group ARE different, and set down by the group leader. I can have a group where I tell everyone we MUST remain in-character. Another group may not. It is mentioned there because immediately after, it says they can be removed from the group for "antisocial" behavior. You appear to be attempting to interpret that as an allusion to dev support for PVE checkboxes in group rules.

But, no matter what the real answer to that is, the point is still true that no GAME BAN should be levied based on rules a player set down, which was the point of my reply to begin with.

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

Comparing a voluntary payment for inclusion to a direct lie, whose intent was to gain access to grief/harass the group and the owner, is disingenuous at best.

These two are not even comparable.

Are there any RULES that say you cannot lie in the game? I cant find any, nor can you state for a fact the intent was to "grief". If I were to do this, it wouldnt be to grief, it would be to earn money through piracy from targets who think they were immune. I am not greifing you by performing acts of piracy. Piracy isnt greifing or harassing.

 

[Asp Explorer]

If someone is unpleasant enough that they get removed from so many groups, and if the members of those groups play exclusively in them, then the naughty player has effectively been banned to Open

 

[Leto Thule]

I agree.

Have some rep

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

o7

If someone is unpleasant enough that they get removed from so many groups, and if the members of those groups play exclusively in them, then the naughty player has effectively been banned to Open

No problems with that, and being banned from groups is fine, with the way groups are set up.

 

[willowfan]

Are there any RULES that say you cannot lie in the game? I cant find any, nor can you state for a fact the intent was to "grief". If I were to do this, it wouldnt be to grief, it would be to earn money through piracy from targets who think they were immune. I am not greifing you by performing acts of piracy. Piracy isnt greifing or harassing.

I would say that it does amount to harassment if you are wilfully attacking players (and piracy is most definitely a form of attack, whether the intention is to kill or not) in a Private Group that is set up with the specific intention of being PvE only. By doing so you would have forfeited any right to be a member of that group.

 

[Leto Thule]

I would say that it does amount to harassment if you are wilfully attacking players (and piracy is most definitely a form of attack, whether the intention is to kill or not) in a Private Group that is set up with the specific intention of being PvE only. By doing so you would have forfeited any right to be a member of that group.

Yes, you certainly would, and being removed from that group is an expected and acceptable outcome. A game ban is not.

 

[Dave1235]

I might disagree on this, as it is obvious they lied to the managers to get access to the group.

They never intended to 'play by the rules', which means they were going in there to only grief the group.

So it is a clear case of griefing.

Whether FDev could do anything about it, based on the ToS?

It definitely could come under the harassment clause...again, these guys went in there specifically to harass these people.

...but really...nothing was, or will be done...so all this is 'meh'.

AND this lack of enforceability is one of the best reasons for an Open PvE mode, rather than this ad hoc situation we currently have.

I agree its greifing and shows exactly why a pve option is needed.

Iirc fd stated a long while ago that they would/could shadow ban griefers. If they ever do. it should be done at an account level. So no wipe cmdr and start again, having to buy another copy of the game should be enough of a deterrent to stop them doing it again.
either that or a total ban. Dont even sell them another copy would ensure they don't do it again.I also doubt they will do anything retrospectively but a proper pve open mode would help going forward

 

[Leto Thule]

I agree its greifing and shows exactly why a pve option is needed.

Iirc fd stated a long while ago that they would/could shadow ban griefers. If they ever do. it should be done at an account level. So no wipe cmdr and start again, having to buy another copy of the game should be enough of a deterrent to stop them doing it again.
either that or a total ban. Dont even sell them another copy would ensure they don't do it again.I also doubt they will do anything retrospectively but a proper pve open mode would help going forward

YOU agree its grief play. I dont. Maybe I think YOU are griefing, and you should have to buy another copy of the game. See how that works? Players dont make rules.

A PVE option is not needed. Some people want a PVE option. Some people want to force everyone into open. Please explain how one opinion has more weight than the other.