Thank you Michael Brookes

[Kristov]

I think you misunderstood somewhere and is too fast to jump to the conclusion...

"The community sees their interest of completing the CG hindered by Code, and Code sees its interest of blockading the CG hindered by the community."

Our interest is blockading the CG (stopping the CG from being successful), and it was hindered by the community because the community is what makes CG successful. Thus we went after the community with our blockade.

I don't see what is confusing about the logic other than a potential misinterpretation.

Edit:

Allow me:

Your misinterpretation or potential strawman is akin to Managarm chasing after the sun.

See what I did there?

I see what you did there, I'm sure others do as well, so what?

See Gluttony, there's one wee ittle problem with your statement, and that is CODE's own STATED reasons for their actions at HO..

You were upset with FD and decided to punish the players because FD upset you.

CODE's own words there Gluttony, your actions had nothing to do with the CG or the community, you were trying to punish the community because FD annoyed you.

No Role Play there, no community based reasons there, just spite and anger at FD redirected at the community because you can't do anything to FD.

Again, muzzle your dogs Gluttony, they are your own worst enemy.

 

[mossfoot]

This is also why spin is such an unappealing thing to me. In an election if a scandal breaks out everything official that comes out is about damage control and sticking to prepared talking points like a brick wall until it hopefully goes away. It reflects little, if anything of what's going on behind the wall, however. The perps involved can believe whatever they want behind closed doors, as long as the face sticks to the talking points. those two things don't have to be in agreement and in fact we have no reason to believe they are.

 

[Bill Clement]

If you want, I can request for an IP check up from the support team on the forum. I'm the same GluttonyFang.
Then I do have something to admire about you- the sheer volume of replies, the multiple styles (I've counted three distinctive ones so far, all with different diction, pace, debating angles and editing choices) would be a large undertaking for a small team. One individual managing the feat with (apparently) no or very short breaks for such an extended period of time is extremely impressive. Forgive me for assuming that a poster who continuously debates in different writing styles for over twenty and a half hours (yesterday) might just be different people using the same equipment or address.
I would like to repeat that I have read your commentary and is taking in the input.

As for your other half of the comment, Nonya is entitled to his own opinion, it does not represent the Code nor any decision of the Code.

To my knowledge, we are not exploiters nor grievers.

Edit:

If you have any questions, please re-state them here as you can see I'm slightly busy with everything and I could have possibly missed out on something.

What do you call a person who initiates a friendly conversation, then interdicts the person they're having a typed conversation with, shoots out their engines, takes the time to type a mocking message, then blows out their canopy?

Characterise the person acting in this manner.

Then please detail what your groups 'discipline' entails. 'Three strikes and out' implies much but actually says very little. What specifically constitutes a strike? Who or whom decides to make the assessment? What is the consequence of each of those three strikes?

 

[Rhaedas]

My only problem with how CODE handled the whole thing was they didn't enforce a blockade of the imported items, they just shut down the area completely with quick and relentless firepower. they took the easy way out to play the game. And they had that right, but given their reputation before, I had expected a bit more player to player interaction. Had they focused on stopping the scrap from coming in, using cargo scanners and threats to make sure that happened, and only then destroying violators, they'd have my complete respect. What's the worst that would happen in that situation? A cargo ship isn't going to escape into SC easily, and can be chased down again. If he high wakes...that's what was wanted anyway, right? Especially with Hutton, that's a win to force their hand.

"Leave or drop your cargo" should have been the warning. You shouldn't have been blockading traffic, it wasn't traffic that you were opposed to.

 

[GluttonyFang]

What do you call a person who initiates a friendly conversation, then interdicts the person they're having a typed conversation with, shoots out their engines, takes the time to type a mocking message, then blows out their canopy?

Characterise the person acting in this manner.

Depends on context. What was the conversation? In what situation? What was the message that is considered mocking? I cannot make a firm judgement without details.

Then please detail what your groups 'discipline' entails. 'Three strikes and out' implies much but actually says very little. What specifically constitutes a strike? Who or whom decides to make the assessment? What is the consequence of each of those three strikes?

On the third strike, the individual will be terminated from The Code. Violation of the code will constitute a strike. The code is very simple to understand and comprehend, bosses within the organization (myself included) hold the right to call out members' actions and their violation against the code while members and non-code pilots may report what they believe is an violation.

The traditional rule is that "when a boss or the captain says you're out, you're out." The modern interpretation is that if a boss/captain hands you a strike, you got a strike. Members can appeal to our decisions and have other bosses place judgement on the situation.

So far every one that received a strike owned up to their mistakes.

- - - Updated - - -

My only problem with how CODE handled the whole thing was they didn't enforce a blockade of the imported items, they just shut down the area completely with quick and relentless firepower. they took the easy way out to play the game. And they had that right, but given their reputation before, I had expected a bit more player to player interaction. Had they focused on stopping the scrap from coming in, using cargo scanners and threats to make sure that happened, and only then destroying violators, they'd have my complete respect. What's the worst that would happen in that situation? A cargo ship isn't going to escape into SC easily, and can be chased down again. If he high wakes...that's what was wanted anyway, right? Especially with Hutton, that's a win to force their hand.

"Leave or drop your cargo" should have been the warning. You shouldn't have been blockading traffic, it wasn't traffic that you were opposed to.

Some people did not follow the rules of engagement strictly, we understand that is an issue. I will take in the feedback that some community members believe that a blockade should target specific vessel carrying relevant cargo instead of a complete lock down.

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I see what you did there, I'm sure others do as well, so what?

See Gluttony, there's one wee ittle problem with your statement, and that is CODE's own STATED reasons for their actions at HO..

You were upset with FD and decided to punish the players because FD upset you.

CODE's own words there Gluttony, your actions had nothing to do with the CG or the community, you were trying to punish the community because FD annoyed you.

No Role Play there, no community based reasons there, just spite and anger at FD redirected at the community because you can't do anything to FD.

Again, muzzle your dogs Gluttony, they are your own worst enemy.

That is an interpretation of the event.

The only way to stop a CG is to stop the community, we would be punishing players if our very target is to interrupt player gameplay, and that is not our purpose at all.

We don't have any anger in this situation, there is the objective and there is the method. Objective is to stop the CG, method is to stop the community. There's only conflict of interest and that one side wishes to yell louder than another in hope to drown out the minority's voice, simple as that.

If you continue to preach your opinion as some sort of absolute truth, I will begin to ignore you. I am under the impression that all opinions are equal and valid, so if you wish to violate that clause for your agenda of venting your frustration, I will simply start to ignore your comments until I find you sincerely approaching us to provide feedback.

This is a dead horse, we have received the community's feedback on the legitimacy of our RP reasons and are taking it into account.

Please do not take advantage of my courtesy.

Again, rhetorics from your mind, distinguish them from reason.

- - - Updated - - -

Fold

We cannot make you believe in what you do not wish to believe in.

 

[Bill Clement]

That is an interpretation of the event.

The only way to stop a CG is to stop the community, we would be punishing players if our very target is to interrupt player gameplay, and that is not our purpose at all.

We don't have any anger in this situation, there is the objective and there is the method. Objective is to stop the CG, method is to stop the community. There's only conflict of interest and that one side wishes to yell louder than another in hope to drown out the minority's voice, simple as that.

If you continue to preach your opinion as some sort of absolute truth, I will begin to ignore you. I am under the impression that all opinions are equal and valid, so if you wish to violate that clause for your agenda of venting your frustration, I will simply start to ignore your comments until I find you sincerely approaching us to provide feedback.

This is a dead horse, we have received the community's feedback on the legitimacy of our RP reasons and are taking it into account.

Please do not take advantage of my courtesy.

Again, rhetorics from your mind, distinguish them from reason.

- - - Updated - - -



We cannot make you believe in what you do not wish to believe in.

Bit tetchy that last reply, Glutton. Try being a bit more patient, team. Considering I've been asking you guys the same question for two days without getting anything close to a straight answer, getting upset at people you disagree with is a bit rich. Still, you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in fair play in game, I guess applying similar ROE on the forum is to be expected.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Bit tetchy that last reply, Glutton. Try being a bit more patient, team. Considering I've been asking you guys the same question for two days without getting anything close to a straight answer, getting upset at people you disagree with is a bit rich. Still, you've made it abundantly clear that you aren't interested in fair play in game, I guess applying similar ROE on the forum is to be expected.

People are free to disagree with me, but I expect some common courtesy from my debate partner. If they cannot show even slight appreciation of another individual patiently taking input when it isn't necessary and actually "get upset at people they disagree with" is a bit pushing too much in my books. People can get frustrated, I know that, but when they throw nothing but frustration at me, that is where I find I need to point out their attitude before any healthy debate can continue.

I don't know what you are talking about that "we aren't interested in fair play."

 

[Kristov]

That is an interpretation of the event.

The only way to stop a CG is to stop the community, we would be punishing players if our very target is to interrupt player gameplay, and that is not our purpose at all.

We don't have any anger in this situation, there is the objective and there is the method. Objective is to stop the CG, method is to stop the community. There's only conflict of interest and that one side wishes to yell louder than another in hope to drown out the minority's voice, simple as that.

If you continue to preach your opinion as some sort of absolute truth, I will begin to ignore you. I am under the impression that all opinions are equal and valid, so if you wish to violate that clause for your agenda of venting your frustration, I will simply start to ignore your comments until I find you sincerely approaching us to provide feedback.

This is a dead horse, we have received the community's feedback on the legitimacy of our RP reasons and are taking it into account.

Please do not take advantage of my courtesy.

Again, rhetorics from your mind, distinguish them from reason.

- - - Updated - - -



We cannot make you believe in what you do not wish to believe in.

Excuse me, are you trying to tell me, and everyone else, that the actual reasons posted on the redditt post were NOT what they were? That CODE was mad at FD and took it out on the players? Because that IS what the post stated Gluttony, you linked it enough times, and I asked you repeatedly, have you READ IT YOURSELF? and it would appear that no, you never did bother to read it because you keep trying to dispute me and others when we point out that what it said and what YOU keep saying do NOT jibe.

Do put me on ignore if this bothers you, but make no mistake Gluttony, when CODE's stated reason for doing something and YOUR PR about the reason do not match up, I am not the only one who sees that and questions your rhetoric. Trying to spin things so that the stated reasons aren't REALLY the reasons doesn't work, especially when other CODE members go and post something that backs up the stated reasons and not YOUR PR reasons. A boss of CODE and a member of CODE both stated the same thing for the reason behind the HO event, you keep trying to make it out to be something else entirely even though you personally didn't have anything to do with the event at all. You wonder why we don't believe you and continue to question the worth of anything you say, and take offense at that?

CODE, you need a new face man, the one you are using here, he's horrible at the job.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Excuse me, are you trying to tell me, and everyone else, that the actual reasons posted on the redditt post were NOT what they were? That CODE was mad at FD and took it out on the players? Because that IS what the post stated Gluttony, you linked it enough times, and I asked you repeatedly, have you READ IT YOURSELF? and it would appear that no, you never did bother to read it because you keep trying to dispute me and others when we point out that what it said and what YOU keep saying do NOT jibe.

Do put me on ignore if this bothers you, but make no mistake Gluttony, when CODE's stated reason for doing something and YOUR PR about the reason do not match up, I am not the only one who sees that and questions your rhetoric. Trying to spin things so that the stated reasons aren't REALLY the reasons doesn't work, especially when other CODE members go and post something that backs up the stated reasons and not YOUR PR reasons. A boss of CODE and a member of CODE both stated the same thing for the reason behind the HO event, you keep trying to make it out to be something else entirely even though you personally didn't have anything to do with the event at all. You wonder why we don't believe you and continue to question the worth of anything you say, and take offense at that?

CODE, you need a new face man, the one you are using here, he's horrible at the job.

I don't know how to convey this any clearer, we find FD's CG illegitimate, how does that translate into anger of any sort? We merely exercised our judgement and carried out our opposition of said CG in game, how is that anger?

I repeated stated that we understand the community do not see our RP reason being proper due to its OOC nature and we are taking in that input seriously.

What more do you want to argue against?

I take offense to people who carry snide derisive with their comment and remind them of their method of articulation, simple as that.

Edit:

If you are referring to this line: "We believe that scrap was chosen as the resource for this CG in order to "deincentivize" piracy. We take this as an insult as we are part of this community and will participate whether you want us to or not."

And thinking that we are angry because of it, I find that completely unfounded. People can be insulted but not be angry. Anger is a possible product of being insulted, insult understood as a verb is an action that can generate anger, but it doesn't guarantee the production of anger. I am telling you, as an official representative of The Code that we did not carry out the CG blockade out of anger of any sort, but merely demonstrating protest with provided in-game mechanics.

Please stop jumping the gun on things just to advance some frustration-motivated agenda.

 

[nexxo]

I don't know how to convey this any clearer, we find FD's CG illegitimate, how does that translate into anger of any sort? We merely exercised our judgement and carried out our opposition of said CG in game, how is that anger?

Semantics, dude. Basically you sought to disrupt other players' fun because you had an issue with FD.

I take offense to people who carry snide derisive with their comment and remind them of their method of articulation, simple as that.

I'm sorry, hard core PvP player can't handle harsh language?

 

[Kristov]

I don't know how to convey this any clearer, we find FD's CG illegitimate, how does that translate into anger of any sort? We merely exercised our judgement and carried out our opposition of said CG in game, how is that anger?

I repeated stated that we understand the community do not see our RP reason being proper due to its OOC nature and we are taking in that input seriously.

What more do you want to argue against?

I take offense to people who carry snide derisive with their comment and remind them of their method of articulation, simple as that.

You seriously need to read the redditt post Gluttony, cause it stated that you guys were angry at FD, no equivocation, no mincing words, no skirting around the subject, it stated it outright, and that was the first justification for the action.

Seriously, anyone from CODE who's a boss, you really need a new face man, one who actually READS what the other bosses post in other areas, because this one...yeah...

 

[GluttonyFang]

Semantics, dude. Basically you sought to disrupt other players' fun because you had an issue with FD.

If we are talking about semantics, then you'd understand that our objective is not to ruin players' fun, but to blockade the CG. Interruption of other players if anything, is a byproduct.

I'm sorry, hard core PvP player can't handle harsh language?

This is the forum and it has its rules and also harsh language doesn't help any conversation or increase the productivity of any debate.

- - - Updated - - -

You seriously need to read the redditt post Gluttony, cause it stated that you guys were angry at FD, no equivocation, no mincing words, no skirting around the subject, it stated it outright, and that was the first justification for the action.

Seriously, anyone from CODE who's a boss, you really need a new face man, one who actually READS what the other bosses post in other areas, because this one...yeah...

Then point out the quote, point it out and discuss it with me. Also, drop your attitude.

Edit:

Not sure if you ignored my last reply's edit, but it appears so.

 

[nexxo]

If we are talking about semantics, then you'd understand that our objective is not to ruin players' fun, but to blockade the CG. Interruption of other players if anything, is a byproduct.

Oh, ruining players' fun was a byproduct. That makes people feel better, no doubt.

This is the forum and it has its rules and also harsh language doesn't help any conversation or increase the productivity of any debate.

Possibly ruining other players' fun didn't help you make your point with FD either.

Look, you can't knowingly upset players and then demand that they converse in a civil, rational and respectful way with you about that. Because that is not how people perceive you to have behaved towards them.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Oh, ruining players' fun was a byproduct. That makes people feel better, no doubt.

People are free to believe what they wish, we are stating our stance, simple as that.

Possibly ruining other players' fun didn't help you make your point with FD either.

Zac himself opened up communication with us after the hutton situation and invited us to official events, we see this as an encouragement. Of course, we re-evaluate our actions base on community feedback, as you have seen here.

 

[nexxo]

Zac himself opened up communication with us after the hutton situation and invited to us official events, we see this as an encouragement. Of course, we re-evaluate our actions base on community feedback, as you have seen here.

No, we haven't seen, because your attitude and behaviour hasn't changed. You have said: "it wasn't our intention to upset the players", but you haven't said: "Sorry, it wasn't our intention to upset the players". You are basically saying: the impact of our actions on your fun was not our objective, but also not our concern. That is what upsets people.

If you have no problem with people being upset by your behaviour, then don't get annoyed by their upset behaviour in turn.

 

[goemon]

No, we haven't seen, because your attitude and behaviour hasn't changed. You have said: "it wasn't our intention to upset the players", but you haven't said: "Sorry, it wasn't our intention to upset the players". You are basically saying: the impact of our actions on your fun was not our objective, but also not our concern. That is what upsets people.

If you have no problem with people being upset by your behaviour, then don't get annoyed by their upset behaviour in turn.

actually i was annoyed about what i call(ed) bug-using, exploiting broken game mechanics, like the padblocking. gluttony has stated on several occasions over the last days, that the code will treat pad blocking as an exploit.

if you ask me, i prefer this over "sorry for pad-blocking".

so, not everybody here is annoyed about the same things.

 

[GluttonyFang]

No, we haven't seen, because your attitude and behaviour hasn't changed. You have said: "it wasn't our intention to upset the players", but you haven't said: "Sorry, it wasn't our intention to upset the players". You are basically saying: the impact of our actions on your fun was not our objective, but also not our concern. That is what upsets people.

If you have no problem with people being upset by your behaviour, then don't get annoyed by their upset behaviour in turn.

We do care, which is precisely why we are taking feedbacks and I'm sitting here for now 5 days straight with more than 40 hours of my time clocked on pure PR.

If we didn't care how our action affected the players, we wouldn't listen to any feedback whatsoever and wouldn't care about how the community feels about our actions whatsoever.

I made it pretty clear in my announcement: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182182

- - - Updated - - -

actually i was annoyed about what i call(ed) bug-using, exploiting broken game mechanics, like the padblocking. gluttony has stated on several occasions over the last days, that the code will treat pad blocking as an exploit.

if you ask me, i prefer this over "sorry for pad-blocking".

so, not everybody here is annoyed about the same things.

We understand and is trying to take in various feedback.

 

[nexxo]

That's nice (although I would remove the "formally" from "formally apologise", just apologise. "Formally" is distancing), but you'll have to carry that through in your behaviour on this forum. You've upset a lot of people, not everybody has read your apology, and you will have to let them vent their anger and suck it up gracefully. That's what being a spokesperson and leader is all about.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's nice (although I would remove the "formally" from "formally apologise", just apologise. "Formally" is distancing), but you'll have to carry that through in your behaviour on this forum. You've upset a lot of people, not everybody has read your apology, and you will have to let them vent their anger and suck it up gracefully. That's what being a spokesperson and leader is all about.

And I am doing that to the best of my ability.