Going against your own word - "infiltrators" please note

[Andovar]

First, I'm pretty sure that these infiltrators don't really give a damn if they broke their "word".

Second, I can't believe that these incidents come as a surprise to anyone. Ok, maybe for some people relatively new to the game, but the DW2 organizers and really any veterans of the game should have expected this. A large players event like this is a griefer magnet.
Did they really think they were going to be able to manage a player group of thousands and keep out all the nefarious players?


Well, on the plus side, this gives us something new to rant about on the forums, and take a break from all the ADS banter.

 

[Factabulous]

There is, however, a penultimate solution. A PvE or PvP setting to select when setting up a Private Group. Turn on PvE and one player firing on another results in an Assault fine, but does zero actual damage. Ramming a player ship with a player ship yields the same result. Then let the griefbags come. They will get bored in seconds and leave. Problem not only solved, but prevented entirely.

I think you're missing a clue in their names 'griefers'. They get enjoyment from annoying you. So if they can't shoot you, they ram you. If they can't ram then they jam you in the mailslot, or get in the way of your landing / taking off, or other more cunning ideas.

They get their pleasure from twisting the rules to annoy people, and watching you all react like you are right now. So when others say 'just ban X and it will all be fine' they are actually just opening up a whole can of whack-a-mole.

I can understand why FDev would stay well clear.

 

[Stigbob]

Are you suggesting that people control their character, rather than their character controls them?

What if their character is a rule breaker? are you suggesting they play as a non-rule breaker?

PS the operative word here is PLAY. It's not RL, it's escapism.

True, it is just a game. However as with all games break the rules and people may decide not to play with you and you may not be allowed to take part in it anymore.

 

[Stigbob]

I think you're missing a clue in their names 'greifers'. They get enjoyment from annoying you. So if they can't shoot you, they ram you. If they can't ram then they jam you in the mainslot, or get in the way of your landing / taking off, or other more cunning ideas.

They get their pleasure from twisting the rules to annoy people, and watching you all react like you are right now. So when others say 'just ban X and it will all be fine' they are actually just opening up a whole can of whack-a-mole.

I can understand why FDev would stay well clear.

FDEV already gave us the means to dispose of them according to our own versions of Wheaton's law, just pop anyone you don't want in your game onto block.

Tech details, dev posts, how to and an explanation that getting rid of griefers is the intended function of it from FDEV here : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=367388

 

[Sylow]

Hmm. "Infiltrating" Möbius? That's as much of a feat as "infiltrating" a bluecollar bar on a friday evening.

I don't know who would've done that recently and also am not interested to know. I just feel sorry for them. Anybody who thinks he did something special of achieved anything apparently lacks enough successes in his life or even in the normal game. He deserves my pitty.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'm curious, what was this "hellmode"?

I've heard of "shadowbanning" (restricting a player to Solo only, and that seems appropriate, as it prevents further mayhem (with that account, at least). For a repeat offender, a shadowban for the duration of the expedition (300 days?) - if they try with a new account, at least they'd be in unengineered ships unless they repeat the engineer unlocks.

hellmode, was going to be a locked mode where player accounts were put that had no influence on BGS or anything. The game would still have been playable but in theory all of the players in it would have been like minded so they could all play together whilst not affecting anyone else.

 

[jasonbarron]

I'm sure nothing will happen in the PG. I mean, if I was in the PG I'd take great care to be in something a bit sturdier than a lawn chair with an fsd strapped to it just in case, but I don't think any moles are hidden in the group, so don't be so worried. It'll be fine

 

[Stigbob]

hellmode, was going to be a locked mode where player accounts were put that had no influence on BGS or anything. The game would still have been playable but in theory all of the players in it would have been like minded so they could all play together whilst not affecting anyone else.

It exists the perma banned complain about being stuck in it, but as they still have access to the game they can't whinge.

 

[Bigmaec]

That would be nearly impossible to do. Countless free e-mail services, anonymous Steam cards from nearly everywhere.. just wouldn’t work.
Escaping what though? Aggravation? When someone else is inflicting aggravation where is the escape?
There is, however, a penultimate solution. A PvE or PvP setting to select when setting up a Private Group. Turn on PvE and one player firing on another results in an Assault fine, but does zero actual damage. Ramming a player ship with a player ship yields the same result. Then let the griefbags come. They will get bored in seconds and leave. Problem not only solved, but prevented entirely.
Set the PG to PvP and everything works the same as it does now.
There is a huge list of other games that do variations of this exact thing already.

That.

First, I'm pretty sure that these infiltrators don't really give a damn if they broke their "word".
Second, I can't believe that these incidents come as a surprise to anyone. Ok, maybe for some people relatively new to the game, but the DW2 organizers and really any veterans of the game should have expected this. A large players event like this is a griefer magnet.
Did they really think they were going to be able to manage a player group of thousands and keep out all the nefarious players?
Well, on the plus side, this gives us something new to rant about on the forums, and take a break from all the ADS banter.

That, too.

I think you're missing a clue in their names 'griefers'. They get enjoyment from annoying you. So if they can't shoot you, they ram you. If they can't ram then they jam you in the mailslot, or get in the way of your landing / taking off, or other more cunning ideas.
They get their pleasure from twisting the rules to annoy people, and watching you all react like you are right now. So when others say 'just ban X and it will all be fine' they are actually just opening up a whole can of whack-a-mole.
I can understand why FDev would stay well clear.

If you don't die to player "jams" or "rams" you can just use the timer and log off.

 

[Rampant]

Are you suggesting that people control their character, rather than their character controls them?

What if their character is a rule breaker? are you suggesting they play as a non-rule breaker?

PS the operative word here is PLAY. It's not RL, it's escapism.

The PLAY part is something that happens *after* the player makes their agreement, person-to-person.

I'm therefore not "suggesting" anything at all. I'm stating a fact that if a person breaks their own word, their own agreement, between themselves and a group of other players, this is not acceptable. This isn't an agreement you're character has made, the agreement precedes the character being placed into the game and is not something that the character can "justify" by breaking that agreement. It is 100% the domain of the player. If the *player* chooses to break their word, then it is on the player, not roleplay and not their character.

The player who breaks their own word faces the consequence of understanding and knowing that they are not trustworthy. Not to be trusted. As a person. That's a fact. That isn't subjective. It isn't about a character's actions inside a game (which, let's be honest, often *do* correlate to a player's own personality - although we cannot state that as a fact with 100% conviction.) This is a matter of the player being *factually* and demonstrably dishonest, and possibly with premeditation, planning and forethought.

Please note the total lack of any emotion in those words. This is a totally dispassionate and factual observation.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Old Duck]

Out of curiosity, does this mean you actually read those 100 page EULAs before clicking "I have read and agree to" button?

 

[bladerunner900]

The PLAY part is something that happens *after* the player makes their agreement, person-to-person.

I'm therefore not "suggesting" anything at all. I'm stating a fact that if a person breaks their own word, their own agreement, between themselves and a group of other players, this is not acceptable. This isn't an agreement you're character has made, the agreement precedes the character being placed into the game and is not something that the character can "justify" by breaking that agreement. It is 100% the domain of the player. If the *player* chooses to break their word, then it is on the player, not roleplay and not their character.

The player who breaks their own word faces the consequence of understanding and knowing that they are not trustworthy. Not to be trusted. As a person. That's a fact. That isn't subjective. It isn't about a character's actions inside a game (which, let's be honest, often *do* correlate to a player's own personality - although we cannot state that as a fact with 100% conviction.) This is a matter of the player being *factually* and demonstrably dishonest, and possibly with premeditation, planning and forethought.

Please note the total lack of any emotion in those words. This is a totally dispassionate and factual observation.

Yours Aye

Mark H

You are of course correct, in everything you just said. Unfortunately, Private Groups only work on the honour system and as we all know, some humans have no honour.

 

[Nadreck]

OP you're a lawyer perhaps? The only thing you can do is to have the group admin remove someone from PG. And you can probably ask support for help, given that this expedition has some degree of unofficial FDev support in terms of "publicity". And the only "rules" other players need to abide to, are Frontier's ToS. And they protect both the attacker and the attacked.

IIRC, there's an anti-harassment clause that could be invoked in this situation: the attacker would not be protected.

That could become relevant if a banned player tries to sue Frontier because they "can't play the game they paid for".

 

[Rampant]

OP you're a lawyer perhaps? The only thing you can do is to have the group admin remove someone from PG. And you can probably ask support for help, given that this expedition has some degree of unofficial FDev support in terms of "publicity". And the only "rules" other players need to abide to, are Frontier's ToS. And they protect both the attacker and the attacked.

No I'm not a lawyer, just a person with a keen knack of observation and just wanted to bring this factual observation out into the forum domain. It is for players to note whether they wish to be premeditatedly untrustworthy or not. Certain acts have factual consequences. Going against your own agreement marks one out as not to be trusted. It is for the player themselves to choose whether they wish to bring this stigma onto themselves or not. Actions speak loud. Very few actions speak louder than deciding with deliberate forethought to enter into an agreement that one has no intention of honouring and worse - fully intends to break that agreement in the first place -and worse- proactively going out to find a group of people who do have an agreement in place solely in pursuit of intending to enter that agreement in order that one can then break the agreement.

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[Aashenfox]

Out of curiosity, does this mean you actually read those 100 page EULAs before clicking "I have read and agree to" button?

Do you??

 

[Rob At Work]

Out of curiosity, does this mean you actually read those 100 page EULAs before clicking "I have read and agree to" button?

I paid £130 and all I got was this lousy Lifetime Expansion Pass


vvvvv ...LOL.. vvvvv

 

[Stigbob]

I paid £130 and all I got was this lousy Life Expansion Pass

That's gambling for you .

 

[Old Duck]

Do you??

I'm not claiming the moral high ground of the OP.

 

[Aashenfox]

I'm not claiming the moral high ground of the OP.

K, just checking, cos I never have. I think it renders the point moot, is all. The thing is people can write anything they want in their terms and conditions, it still has to be a) reasonable (this is a critical one, unreasonable terms never stand up in court and reasonableness is a less arbitrary metric than you would think) and b) Enforceable (a consequences mechanism exists for cases of non compliance).

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

All the moralizing in the world won’t stop a dedicated agent. At best, you’ve slapped a target on your back regarding any Private Groups you run. Instead of a foolish campaign to shame infiltrators how about we brainstorm ways to deal with them?

It’s dog eat dog, my friend. Ain’t nothing wrong with accepting that and preparing accordingly.