I'll start with I don't play with anyone I know, so this doesn't really help me out. However, my perception is over the last 3 or 4 years there is a group of 4-6 players with similar playtimes that always tend to play in same cabal. This stands out even more with the smaller player base. Whether it is a perma or not, it might go a long way to end a lot of the angst over the topic if this was just removed as a prohibition to end all of the data collection many players are trying to do to turn over as evidence which has never amounted to anything as behavior is concerned as far as I know.

It is a much different environment today than when the rule was put in place and many ways players can coordinate their activities without being completely overt.

nt

Just kidding. Happens

Edit: To drive Destuvius mad about my editing..

The short answer is: no.

First, I think it's important to understand that the staff does not sit around and hungrily wait for anything that could possibly be interpreted as permagrouping so we can piss in someone's cheerios. Anyone who thinks that is poisonous to the game and should kindly #### off.

I've never punished someone solely because I believed they knew another player outside the game or because they told me that Soandso is their real life friend. It's not that black and white and never will be. It will always boil down to a judgement call made the points mentioned by HELP PERMAGROUP. It's when people exploit that connection that we take offense, and there are all manner of things that make that exploitation apparent to us over time.

The rules and HELP PERMA are there to protect everyone and give us the leeway we need to police abuse, but for at least the past few years (if not much farther back) I think we've been pretty rational when it comes to this kind of thing. Getting rid of these rules and calling open season on "permagroups" would be disastrous because not all of our players can't be trusted to approach the game with the honesty and sportsmanship that would be required without them, and if we stepped in at that point we'd be met with smug claims that we have no legitimate recourse for doing so.

Playing with your friends will always mean assuming some risk, as ultimately we're the judge as to whether you doing so fairly or if you're crossing the line. If that proposition makes one uncomfortable then the obvious safe choice is to not do so, or at least make a concerted effort not to play off one another directly (e.g. cabal allies who regularly run together, characters who explore a lot together, etc.).

I'll also add that I don't think we've ever punished anyone for a permagrouping related offense without giving the parties involved a quick verbal warning first, followed by ample time to determine whether the behavior gets adjusted.

Edit to add: We don't always give warnings to repeat offenders. We'll certainly drop the hammer on two people immediately if, for example, we'd dealt with those same players for the same problem in recent history.

The rules won't be changing and our approach to them won't be either, but hopefully people's attitudes will because regardless of the rules we have and how they're written, if everyone just acts classy and has respect for one another then it's all copacetic and nobody has to die (to us).

.

NT

>I'll also add that I don't think we've ever punished anyone
>for a permagrouping related offense without giving the parties
>involved a quick verbal warning first, followed by ample time
>to determine whether the behavior gets adjusted.

Man, that would have definitely saved Loshnak, my Flame Scarab duergar AP.... instead I had a 2 minute conversation with Twist and a deny for "unfair exploring" so now I can't even see his PBF. Always wanted to know how he sized up to other APs.

Hopefully this is the case moving forward.

When things are less clearcut.

There shouldn't be safety in cheating until a warning is given.

Sure, I've been hauled in to give an explanation, which I did, and things were then fine. Had the explanation not been adequate I don't think a warning would have been appropriate though.

nt

"Playing with your friends will always mean assuming some risk, as ultimately we're the judge as to whether you doing so fairly or if you're crossing the line."

This is one of the main things that tends to sour me to the whole CF experience. There is so much in CF - not just rules enforcement, but standards for imm exp rewards, standards for PK rewards handed out by imms, and so on - which is just incredibly nebulous, perhaps even purposefully so. After all, you can't really hold the staff accountable for doing anything wrong if the standards themselves are vague.

It's obvious, at least to me, that this sort of thing inevitably leads to selective enforcement, where, for example, you might punish perma-team A because the staff doesn't like those particular players, or maybe they're getting too many kills, but fail to punish perma-team B because the staff likes those players, or they don't happen to be as effective in PK.

I've also always argued that CF needs to have more transparency in all of these things. This is why it's so insulting when, for example, some clown pulls you into the ROTD over something stupid and it's "An Immortal" instead of someone having the decency to openly stand behind their own actions. In this way, I've found that many imms tend to act a lot like bad cops - demanding respect but giving none in return, proving they don't really deserve any respect in the first place.

I know nothing will ever change on this front - it's been like this for, what, two decades? - but I'd just like to say it's damn disappointing because, at least for me, when I see somebody get nuked for any sort of cheating I have a hard time seeing him as the 'bad guy' because of how nebulous, inconsistent, and lacking in transparency the enforcement tends to be. Who knows if they even did anything wrong? And if they did, who knows if it even warranted the punishment that was meted out?

This is extra important because, as you are aware, certain imms have verifiably cheated in the past, and as far as I know they were never punished or even censured for it; god, I don't think anyone on the immstaff has even publicly admitted that those things happened at all, which is the most disappointing thing of all. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes, but maybe that's the point: stop trying to pretend you're cops or politicians. Stop with this closed-ranks clandestine nonsense. I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply cannot respect a group that tries to claim authority but acts with zero transparency and little consistency.

I'm pretty sure the level of staff cheating has reduced over the years.

Also when an imm takes responsibility they are often attacked by the troll pack on dios, who go far beyond reasonable debate on some occasions.

Has it? How would we even know? With the complete and total lack of transparency, there could be tons of immside cheating going down and, frankly, we'd never hear about it. Just because we know about stuff like Cabdru (who was being hilariously obvious about the abuse) doesn't mean we know about anything else that's gone down. Here's an example of where transparency might reveal new information: if you added a public list of PK rewards, the reasons people received them, and which imm gave the reward, I bet you'd see some interesting patterns.

As for being "attacked by the troll pack": sure, that sucks. I don't deny that these people exist nor am I trying to say they're not total poison. At the same time, isn't dealing with that part of the burden that comes with a position of authority -- especially if you've abused that authority?

It's called visible accountability, and CF imms don't have any. Do they have some sort of accountability behind the scenes? Maybe - but again, how would we even know? Here's the thing about transparency and consistency when it comes to this sort of thing: it requires humility. It requires the person to be able to say "hey, I'm human, and I might have made a mistake. Let me show everyone what happened." Accepting accountability also requires humility. This is the same reason why bad cops don't like being filmed, and good ones don't care. Just once in CF I'd like to see one iota of genuine humility from an upper-tier imm, but it just doesn't seem to exist.

Nt

nt

I spend most of my time playing NLHE (this site thinks using the names of some games are spam) and I do pretty well.

But I sometimes sit down at a 21 table, or roll some dice, both of which I have markedly less skill at and which I'm aware carry a house edge I'll never be able to overcome.

Why? Because it's fun.

The enjoyment that I get from spending an hour goofing around playing 21 crappily is worth losing a few bucks.

CF is free and the enjoyment that I get out of playing it outweighs the disappointment I feel when I get tooled by Daev's headdress of Instakill.

And you're now going to ask if I'd play in a rigged gaming parlor and the answer is no, but I don't feel that CF has been rigged in any way for a few years, and no I don't think that Flow on an assassin counts.

>CF is free and the enjoyment that I get out of playing it
>outweighs the disappointment I feel when I get tooled by
>Daev's headdress of Instakill.
>
>And you're now going to ask if I'd play in a rigged gaming
>parlor and the answer is no, but I don't feel that CF has been
>rigged in any way for a few years, and no I don't think that
>Flow on an assassin counts.

I don't understand. You basically just said you were ambivalent about Daev using cheatyface items, then in the same breath you say you wouldn't play at a rigged table. Which is it? I'm an occasional fan of 21 myself, but the difference is that when you sit down at a 21 table there's no obfuscation of the fact that the house has the advantage. In CF it feels like we're constantly trying to pretend there's an even playing field which simply does not (and maybe never did) exist.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the Flow thing. I still think it's a great example of nepotism. However, it's just one example - in general, I think high-PK-power imm-given rewards are terrible for the game, and become orders of magnitude more terrible for the game when you stick them on combos that are already insanely powerful. It's made even worse by the fact that there's zero framework or consistency in why they are given. One imm might give you a handful of exp for the same sort of behavior that another imm might give you a legacy. You don't find that to be just a little messed up? Or how it might lend itself to easy abuse by people who maybe want to reward their friends?

Is that I can potentially befriend or align with suspected cheatyDaev whereas I can't do the same with a rigged shoe.

And if I find the cheatyness too egregious I can just log off and do something that I probably should be doing anyway instead of pretending to be a text-based barbarian.

As for nepotism I think when the character is done (if I'm right about the player) you'll be surprised to see how silly that accusation is.

Sure, you could befriend or align with a suspected cheatyDaev, but... would you want to, really? The idea of doing that puts the taste of bile in my mouth. I'd rather just not play a game if my options are:

1) Get tooled by cheater.
2) Join up with cheater.

So, I mean, sure, quitting is an option too, and it's the one I've opted for lately (especially since, especially with the last few years' worth of code changes, CF is more of a grindy timesink than ever.) It's just unfortunate, and I feel like there's a better way.

As for the Flow guy - I honestly hope you're right and I'm wrong.

Explain to me:

1. What constitutes cheating?

2. What kind of results have those people who are cheating achieved?

Kindly do not use any characters older than 6 years. I am sure with the prevalence of cheating you can easily point to several since 2010.

I consider myself a slightly above-average pker. I got over 75 kills at lvl 24 without a single stitch of gear being given to me by anyone, and my highest kill count character was an rp-focused conjurer at 177.

I say this because while most players never achieve these kinds of numbers, there are players that achieve WAY higher kill counts without any kind of rewards. Did Lilyth cheat? Jarlduz? Ruknubuk?

I want you to tell me how your accusations of cheating translate into overpowered monsters in game that make it not fun to play.

Here's one example of Umiron being humble. And it's from like 2 weeks ago.

Umiron admitting he is not omniscient (Zulg would never admit he didn't know everything...get it together Umi!):

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=58819&mesg_id=58824&page=2

nt

If I'm ever stopped by a cop I'm very cooperative, polite, and respectful. At the same time, it's immediately obvious which ones are steroided up douchebags in a uniform, and which ones are actually there to protect and serve.

It's cool that you tried to ad hominem me instead of addressing my actual point, though. Dominated any good social groups lately?

You've decided that the staff (which, interestingly, hardly resembles the staff of 5-10+ years ago) is corrupt to the core and cannot be trusted. At that point, revealing our character's names and whatever else you think would supposedly lend more transparency to the administrative side of the game (which I personally think would be a bad thing) is moot.

If you believe what you've written then I genuinely think the best think for you to do is leave and never come back because you are indeed correct that things are never going to be the way you want them to be. You may offer counter-points, argue, place blame, bring up the past, etc., but the fact remains that you will obviously never find contentment with CF.

As an aside, the irony of your handle does not escape me. Despite the serious tone you've taken and the personal attacks you've levied (I have almost certainly at least once been the "clown" that dealt with you in the Realm of the Dead), I have no idea who you are or what past event(s) color your opinions and and narrative. Of course, the cynic in me probably wouldn't believe you any more than you apparently believe me (or "us").

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

There's only real irony here if you aren't being very thoughtful about it. It's important to note that, as a person in a position of authority, it's a lot more pernicious for you to act under the cloak of anonymity than me; authority and power absolutely must come with accountability if they are ever going to be remotely just or fair. I also must say that I'm cognizant of (and enjoy) the fact that you, Umiron, in particular are fond of sleuthing people based on their IP, account, etc, and robbing you of context is forcing you to look at my actual words and viewpoint instead of making some sort of value judgment on me based on my personal history.

I never said that the staff was corrupt to the core or could not be trusted. You're twisting my words. I do believe there are corrupt members of the staff and that your overall policy - which lacks transparency, accountability, and consistency - makes it really hard to take your side. Imagine, for instance, if somebody had actually made a public statement that, yes, Nep cheated, and he was being let go from the staff as a direct result. How powerful that would have been! It would have been a real human moment, one that inspired actual trust.

You want to know why I don't trust you? That, and other events have always been simply swept under the rug with no apparent consequences for the person who abused their power. It's insulting because, at least in some cases, everybody knows what happened: why don't you just sack up and admit it? I think it is because, in your twisted view, that would be akin to giving up some of your power. God forbid a member of the staff did something wrong, let's just pretend it didn't happen.

You know, I do find some enjoyment in CF, just not when I'm dealing with most of the staff directly. I'm not going to leave just because I think the staff is woefully bad at administration, I'm just going to do what I've always done, which is avoid dealing with the staff when I can.

>There's only real irony here if you aren't being very
>thoughtful about it. It's important to note that, as a person
>in a position of authority, it's a lot more pernicious for you
>to act under the cloak of anonymity than me; authority and
>power absolutely must come with accountability if they are
>ever going to be remotely just or fair. I also must say that
>I'm cognizant of (and enjoy) the fact that you, Umiron, in
>particular are fond of sleuthing people based on their IP,
>account, etc, and robbing you of context is forcing you to
>look at my actual words and viewpoint instead of making some
>sort of value judgment on me based on my personal history.

I'm fond of sleuthing people based on IP? I don't know what to say besides that I'm probably the most lenient and conservative staff member who currently has the ability to see IPs and/or ban people. If I have such a reputation it's news to me, and surprising. Doubly so, in fact, because most of the players I "sleuth" accuse me of being Valg or Baer.

>I never said that the staff was corrupt to the core or could
>not be trusted. You're twisted my words. I do believe there
>are corrupt members of the staff and that your overall policy
>- which lacks transparency, accountability, and consistency -
>makes it really hard to take your side. Imagine, for instance,
>if somebody had actually made a public statement that, yes,
>Nep cheated, and he was being let go from the staff as a
>direct result. How powerful that would have been! It would
>have been a real human moment, one that inspired actual
>trust.

You're starting with the assertion that Nep cheating is/was a fact and then building an argument on top of that. If we're being honest, I don't know what went down back then but if I'm not going to take Nep at his word, I'm certainly not going to take yours over his. I wasn't around then to form an opinion based on first hand knowledge so I'm not going to assert that I know anything for certain, but I will point out that there have been many other instances where a player made a similar assertion when I knew for a fact they were incorrect. So again, it's not that I feel some allegiance or good-old-boy obligation to side with the staff so much as it is when don't know the truth and I do have to err to one side or another, I find that the players are much less reliable source of truth or an accurate narrative of the past based on what I can verify.

I haven't been at this for 20 years and I just don't know or care what happened one or more decades ago, however relevant or significant you may believe the past is. I've got too much else to be concerned with and it isn't worth the frustration. Remember, at the end of the day this is a hobby that I support for free using time I could otherwise invest in making money, having fun, or contributing to projects that make me feel far more appreciated than CF often does. I try to treat players with the respect they earn and deserve, and to help run a game that people want to play, but ultimately I have to approach CF for what it is, something that has to be fun and not taken too seriously in order to be a rational use of time.

>You want to know why I don't trust you? That, and other events
>have always been simply swept under the rug with no apparent
>consequences for the person who abused their power. It's
>insulting because, at least in some cases, everybody knows
>what happened: why don't you just sack up and admit it? I
>think it is because, in your twisted view, that would be akin
>to giving up some of your power. God forbid a member of the
>staff did something wrong, let's just pretend it didn't
>happen.

Staff members have been caught cheating and forced to leave in the past. All I can say is that in my time here, it's never happened and nor has anything been swept under a rug to my knowledge. In that regard, I think we have a fantastic team these days.

>You know, I do find some enjoyment in CF, just not when I'm
>dealing with most of the staff directly. I'm not going to
>leave just because I think the staff is woefully bad at
>administration, I'm just going to do what I've always done,
>which is avoid dealing with the staff when I can.

That sounds like a reasonable plan and frankly, the feeling is quickly becoming mutual.

>I'm fond of sleuthing people based on IP? I don't know what
>to say besides that I'm probably the most lenient and
>conservative staff member who currently has the ability to see
>IPs and/or ban people. If I have such a reputation it's news
>to me, and surprising. Doubly so, in fact, because most of
>the players I "sleuth" accuse me of being Valg or Baer.

Yes. In your own words:

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=60716&mesg_id=60739&page=

If only you could be held accountable in the same way you like to hold other people accountable for their words and actions. Wouldn't that be something . FWIW, I don't think you're Valg (you're not a big enough asshole) or Baer (you are too competent and technical.) If I had to pin an identity on you other than your own, it would be Nep, but I don't think you're him either. You sometimes do a good job imitating his purposefully opaque explanations of game mechanics, though.

>Nep cheating et al

It is a fact, but if you weren't around for it I can understand why you wouldn't take me at my word (or care too much about it). I realize it's "old news" at this point but keep in mind I'm using it as a great example of why transparency and accountability are hugely important, especially since he (as far as we as a playerbase know) never faced any consequences for it. I do get that this is a hobby and you are effectively a volunteer - you're a prolific coder and, regardless of how big of an asshole you might think I've been in this thread, I do respect and appreciate that. I'm simply arguing that this doesn't exempt anyone from being held accountable for the things they do, especially if they're in a position of authority.

>Staff members have been caught cheating and forced to leave in the >past. All I can say is that in my time here, it's never happened and >nor has anything been swept under a rug to my knowledge. In that >regard, I think we have a fantastic team these days.

Oh? Which ones? This is the first time I've seen you guys publicly cop to this literally ever. This is exactly the sort of thing that should be public knowledge. I've seen tons of silly, whimsical echoes that shame players who have been denied for rulebreaking -- interesting that this doesn't seem to happen when it's an imm.

>>I'm fond of sleuthing people based on IP? I don't know what
>>to say besides that I'm probably the most lenient and
>>conservative staff member who currently has the ability to see
>>IPs and/or ban people. If I have such a reputation it's news
>>to me, and surprising. Doubly so, in fact, because most of
>>the players I "sleuth" accuse me of being Valg or Baer.

>Yes. In your own words:
>
>http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=60716&mesg_id=60739&page=
>
>If only you could be held accountable in the same way you like
>to hold other people accountable for their words and actions.
>Wouldn't that be something . FWIW, I don't think you're Valg
> you're not a big enough asshole) or Baer (you are too
>competent and technical.) If I had to pin an identity on you
>other than your own, it would be Nep, but I don't think you're
>him either. You sometimes do a good job imitating his
>purposefully opaque explanations of game mechanics, though.

Ultimately, there's a difference between being *able* to research an associate a player with past characters, and constantly doing so. Overall, the system is designed to allow BOTH Immortals and players the separation between past characters. It takes a specific desire and effort to make these associations, which in day-to-day business isn't needed or wanted. That extra effort is done when that information is beneficial to what's going on, such as in his above post where Umiron states he will do some snooping to get context as towards the poster's sensibilities. Similarly, in a rules violation where we need to know whether we're dealing with a consistent/repeat offender. As a perfect example of taking each as they come, there's at least one very active player that if I'm correct, had once been a trouble-maker and banned for quite a time. They've since come back, have not been problems, and so is treated as any other character would be.

>>Nep cheating et al
>
>It is a fact, but if you weren't around for it I can
>understand why you wouldn't take me at my word (or care too
>much about it). I realize it's "old news" at this point but
>keep in mind I'm using it as a great example of why
>transparency and accountability are hugely important,
>especially since he (as far as we as a playerbase know) never
>faced any consequences for it. I do get that this is a hobby
>and you are effectively a volunteer - you're a prolific coder
>and, regardless of how big of an asshole you might think I've
>been in this thread, I do respect and appreciate that. I'm
>simply arguing that this doesn't exempt anyone from being held
>accountable for the things they do, especially if they're in a
>position of authority.

I've played CF for 20 years, but most as a player, so I'm just going to pass on any Nepenthe topic given I was a player any of those times.

>>Staff members have been caught cheating and forced to leave
>in the >past. All I can say is that in my time here, it's
>never happened and >nor has anything been swept under a rug to
>my knowledge. In that >regard, I think we have a fantastic
>team these days.
>
>Oh? Which ones? This is the first time I've seen you guys
>publicly cop to this literally ever. This is exactly the sort
>of thing that should be public knowledge. I've seen tons of
>silly, whimsical echoes that shame players who have been
>denied for rulebreaking -- interesting that this doesn't seem
>to happen when it's an imm.

Again, I've not been around to be involved in such, but as a business Manager, but no private business I've ever been involved in have we ever had a policy of publicly informing "customers" of what repercussions occurred to "staff" in an incident. Sometimes a punishment is firing, sometimes it's dock in pay, sometimes it's lack of promotion. If they remain on "staff", it's never done good to air that laundry. It's handled one way or another, and moved on. Similarly, if a player gets punished for cheating, we don't air that to the world for the vast majority of offenses. Dock in exp, or slay, or whatever according punishment, then move on. As far as cheater gechoes, I've ONLY ever seen them on denied characters, which said characters no longer exist. No-one ever sees "TMNS gets eaten by an angry fido" or "Isildur got whacked by Biff Plankenchest", etc. (Names picked at random, no offense guys).

Isildur didn't deserve that. For shame Jormyr...for shame.

PS I am positive at least 1 IMM has laughed at my sad-ass mob-deaths that happen way too frequently (half of these get the #FML on twitter lol) so no worries

Oh man nostalgia

For you all to start ip checking and ban this pos waste of time. You(all current staff/and most old staff imho) are awesome! Don't let this #### #### make you feel bad.

I understand the urge to reply, I truly do. But know that the majority of the player base is very satisfied with how awesome the staff has been reentry (you can't please absolutely everyone).

Sometimes you just have to ignore the vocal minority, even though they do yell the loudest at times. Just know that you guys are doing a fantastic job.

Despite agreeing on a fundamental level with some of what the other guy is spouting, I'd rather have the current Imm staff happy and feel appreciated for the awesome job they are currently doing than right past wrongs or whatever.

I love me some Umi. (Someone make a button... IC).

All things being equal I don't think "righting past wrongs" is that important - if you think that's my main argument here, then I think you have the wrong idea. I'm not that petty, or at least, I'm not trying to be.

What's important to me is that that type of thing doesn't continue to happen in the future, and despite Umi's protestations to the contrary, the fact that the staff's overall monolithic policy hasn't really changed makes me dubious that you people couldn't (and aren't) getting away with the same old crap in 2015 CF.

Do I appreciate the imm staff? Of course - I don't think they're vicious assholes out to ruin someone's day. They do tons of free work for the game, whether they're a coder or a description writer or whatever. They absolutely should be lauded for this hard work. There's no question about that.

At the same time, this doesn't mean we can't strive for a better, more respectful (for both the players and the imms) and respectable policy. All I want is transparency, something that CF has historically treated as poison for some reason. We're not allowed to know the full mechanics of skills, spells, or edges, we're not allowed to know who was given what insane PK reward by which imm, we're not allowed to know which imm is pulling us into the ROTD for whatever reason, and so on.

And when transparency is forcibly breached in CF, the imms tend to react in a tantrum-y "take your ball and go home" fashion, like when a certain quest got set to unavoidably mobdeath you if you did it the "old" way, or when the entire wands system got revamped to the current (fairly awful, imo - there are literally barrier spots in HELL now) setup in response to wandlists being leaked repeatedly. Just because I think the imms deserve to be lauded for their hard work doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to take them to the table over nonsense like this. I just know things could be better, and all it would take is a simple policy shift towards more transparency. It's mindblowing when you consider that half the original hell trips were 90-100% comprised of imms - so I ask again, how is anyone supposed to respect the rules of this game when the imms, historically, haven't? Has anything, anything at all changed from a policy standpoint that makes you believe this crap isn't still going on?

Transparency, accountability, and consistency. Those three things are required to maintain the respect of anyone you want to govern or enforce a system on.

You value transparency, accountability, and consistency from the admin staff of the game. I find more value in active development and in game presence/interaction. I believe you have a point, but *right now* you aren't going to get what you want and you can only piss people off by continuing to ask.

Let it go.



Let it go....




Conceal don't feel don't let it show.


In all seriousness, now is the time to shut up. For both of us.

>Remember, at the end of the day this is a hobby that I support
>for free using time I could otherwise invest in making money,
>having fun, or contributing to projects that make me feel far
>more appreciated than CF often does.

This hits me right in the feels, bro. I know I don't know everything you do for the game, nor could I possibly speak on behalf of the entire community, but I think a lot of us would agree that this statement hurts. It hurts because we really do understand what it is to feel under-appreciated, but we do truly appreciate what you do.

Forget this guy. Keep up the good work.

Since we're in the criticism business today..

1) You cite a bunch of past events as "cheating behavior" and "abuses of power". Have you witnessed any lately (last 3 or so years)? Moreover, do you have any proof other than something anecdotal?

If the answer is no. Is transparency for the sake of transparency worth losing the staff in droves over? That is one possible outcome of this line of thinking.

2) Along those lines, do you want CF to have with no governance? Do you think that is beneficial?

(Are you personally angling for anarchy? Because many of your posts hint at that as a possibility.)

3) I see a lot of accusations and rhetoric in your (fairly articulate) posts, but little of substance. You want more transparency, concrete examples of what sort of system you envisage?

If you want a new system, you need to be concrete on what sort of system that is. As best as I can tell your only concrete solution is "be visible in RoTD".

4) Do you believe all infractions and rule breaches are created equally?

Is it fair to lop off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread, metaphorically speaking? If I catch a new player (week old) passing gear on a level 8, for instance, is that the same as an experienced veteran of 15 years dumping high end gear on his alt via an intermediary?

5) Would you be happy for the staff to post logs of, say, all the behavior we have to deal with? Log things in a public forum so that people can see the crap we have to put up with on a daily basis?

Is that something you'd want with transparency? Are we happy to start logging evidence and throwing it up on a public forum every time someone posts a log of me RoTD'ing them. Maybe we should. If the staff are visible as punching bags on alternative forums, players should be equally visible and held accountable for their actions too. Would that benefit you as a player?

Also bear in mind, while players can (and will) frequently conceal their identities. Staff cannot. You're the best demonstration of that actually, since you still visibly bear a grudge against Daev many years after the fact. The point is not whether it is warranted or not, but this demonstrates that staff ARE frequently held accountable for their actions by the player base and in many cases this is a perception of the staff member that is perpetuated in an unofficial echo-chamber (like Dios) with minimal or flimsy evidence to back it up.

We should be so lucky to have the same standards of judgment applied to us as most of our players enjoy today.

Edits: Edited to ensure I do not personally promise something I cannot deliver on. And to add point about staff vs. player anonymity. Grammar and formatting.

>Since we're in the criticism business today..
>
>1) You cite a bunch of past events as "cheating behavior"
>and "abuses of power". Have you witnessed any lately (last 3
>or so years)? Moreover, do you have any proof other than
>something anecdotal?
>
>If the answer is no. Is transparency for the sake of
>transparency worth losing the staff in droves over? That is
>one possible outcome of this line of thinking.
>

Well, admittedly most of the worst things (Sebeok et al) is ancient history. Cabdru was also more than 3 years ago, and it's definitely hard to top that in terms of cheating "prolificness." I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence - I'm not sure what would even constitute actual proof at this point. In any event, I don't mean to suggest that I believe there's some sort of mass immspiracy cheatring going on, or anything like that. I'm merely pointing out that the overall policy has not changed since those days, the particular dude who did it is still on staff, even, and so I can think of no substantial reason why it couldn't happen again or isn't still happening in a more low-key manner. Added transparency would make shady behavior a whole hell of a lot less likely to fly under the radar.

Would transparency alone would drive staff away? I'd be very disappointed if yes. I'm not trying to create a bunch of paperwork for you guys or anything. I just want some of the information that's already readily accessible by imms to be made available to players. But if the answer is still yes, I guess I'd have to think about it more. It would be disappointing, that's for sure.

>2) Along those lines, do you want CF to have with no
>governance? Do you think that is beneficial?
>
> Are you personally angling for anarchy? Because many of your
>posts hint at that as a possibility.)
>

I'm not an anarchist by any means. I believe in law and order, and I believe in enforcement of the rules. I just believe in equal and consistent enforcement of the rules. However, I don't believe that's fully possible without transparency. There's a good reason why the court system is largely public and subject to review in America.

With that said, there are some rules I'd probably straight up remove (or maybe just heavily reword) due to their inherent "unenforceability." For example: it's currently incredibly vague what constitutes botting, and there are no end of serial whiners who think that a trigger that spams "c sleep" on "They aren't here" is against the rules. In most cases, this sort of thing is basically the same as using a macro (and can actually get you killed if you screw it up.) The point is when you have to make a totally subjective judgment call on "is this botting or not?" you end up in another situation which lends itself more to selective enforcement than anything else. For that rule, for instance, I'd probably just make it more along the lines of "Is this guy responding to a turing test tell? Okay, great, he's not cheating." Anything beyond that is tilting at windmills.

>3) I see a lot of accusations and rhetoric in your (fairly
>articulate) posts, but little of substance. You want more
>transparency, concrete examples of what sort of system you
>envisage?
>
>If you want a new system, you need to be concrete on what sort
>of system that is. As best as I can tell your only concrete
>solution is "be visible in RoTD".
>

Here are some basic ideas (which I will go into more detail about below):
1) Visibility in the ROTD. To a large degree this is a simple respect thing, but it also provides for more personal accountability. It's a terrible, terrible idea all-around for any sort of authority figure to use anonymity in the course of enforcing anything.
2) Public records lists of PK rewards, how people earned them, which imm gave them out, etc. Helps establish consistent standards. I'm aware this is sort of available via PBFs, but it would be much better if it was in a formatted list which included active characters. This way, if someone does have some insanely overpowered reward, maybe it could get caught and dealt with before it stops mattering. I don't think this would be a particularly bad nerf for the rewarded people, either, because, I mean... they still have a special something that nobody else has. They just don't get to pull a surprise grenade out of their hat against anybody who hasn't played against them yet.
3) Public records of ROTD logs, or any sort of enforcement. If somebody gets denied or sitebanned, I'm willing to bet you guys already have a policy of making a note about it in some sort of log somewhere. I'd love for this information to be public (sans IP addresses and whatnot, of course.) I go into this below, but it bears repeating: if people see firsthand what you guys have to put up with, and see you doing a good and reasonable job, it can really only improve the feedback.

I know some of this sounds like a lot more work, but you could pretty much automate all of it.


>4) Do you believe all infractions and rule breaches are
>created equally?
>
>Is it fair to lop off a hand for stealing a loaf of bread,
>metaphorically speaking? If I catch a new player (week old)
>passing gear on a level 8, for instance, is that the same an
>experienced veterans of 15 years dumping high end gear on his
>alt via an intermediary?
>

I understand that there are circumstances that can mitigate stuff. That ignorant-of-the-rules newbie transferring Bilkon's silver shirt to his other character probably doesn't deserve a siteban or probably even a deny, and so on. When I talk about consistency I'm not talking about taking it to extremes like this, and I don't think punishments even need to be draconian at all in most cases. I just want there to be a very clear outline of what circumstances mitigate punishments, and so on - and no, I don't think "help permagroup" (etc) really cover it. The goal is to remove as much wiggle room as possible -- ultimately this helps the staff more than the nebulousness we have now, because if you can point to a document that lays things out very clearly, it's hard for some putz like me to say you aren't doing your job.

To a large degree I'm also talking about drastic PK rewards than rules enforcement. It's mindblowingly stupid to me that something like a scavenger hunt might net one character a minor xpadd, and another character a legacy (i'm not positive about this particular example, so take it with a grain of salt). Regardless, if the staff insists on giving tremendous PK rewards (which I think is a bad idea in general), shouldn't it be clear what you actually have to do to earn them? Shouldn't there be some kind of consistent structure as to what rewards are merited for what situation? Food for thought, at least. As I stated before, I think the whole thing should be public: who has what PK reward, how they earned it, and which imm gave the reward. If you really believe this is currently being handled fairly, you should also believe it would survive public inquiry.

>5) Would you be happy for the staff to post logs of, say,
>all the behavior we have to deal with? Log things in a public
>forum so that people can see the crap we have to put up with
>on a daily basis?
>
>Is that something you'd want with transparency? Are we happy
>to start logging evidence and throwing it up on a public forum
>every time someone posts a log of me RoTD'ing them. Maybe we
>should. If the staff are visible as punching bags on
>alternative forums, players should be equally visible and held
>accountable for their actions too. Would that benefit you as a
>player?

Yes, I'd love to see this. I think the proscription against ROTD logs on QHCF is silly, and I think the proscription against imms posting on QHCF is also silly. I absolutely believe turnabout is fair play here. People on both sides might be more inclined not to act like jackasses if they know the results and circumstantial details of any ROTD trip will be made public. I don't doubt for a second that you guys have to deal with no end of crap from full-time troublemakers, and I genuinely believe this could cut down on it or at least make people more sympathetic to what you have to deal with. Maybe I'm just old school, but I believe that public shaming works pretty well to curb bad behavior. And when people know for a fact their actions will be made public, they tend to be on their best behavior.

However, I don't think it's necessarily about turning anyone into a punching bag. It's about removing the 'fog of war' - with more transparency, the truth generally wins.

Then you have access to all the ridiculous stuff you want to see without hassling everyone else. Most of your 'ideas' already exist anyway or are totally useless outside of administration of the game. Why does it matter who 'An Immortal' is in ROTD? Do you really abuse the rules of the game so much that is actually a concern of yours? For hundreds of other players it is never an actual issue because we don't really end up there that often..or ever.

>Do you really abuse the rules of the game so much that is actually a concern of yours?

Almost every single one of my major characters in recent history has been harassed by an (always anonymous, of course) imm in some asinine way or another. TBH I wish I could voluntarily put up a "leave me the hell alone" flag, and just give up any chance of imm exp for the promise that they wouldn't bother me unless I'm somehow cheating. This has not necessarily always been in the form of a ROTD trip, mind you, but as far as I can remember it's never been caused by an infraction of the rules. Actually, I did get pulled in awhile back on an accusation of permagrouping, but I genuinely have no idea what the hell they were talking about, and didn't get overtly punished (though getting transfered to the ROTD is punishment enough and is generally enough to make me want to delete, because, despite any protestations to the contrary, it's an obvious sign that at least one person on the staff has decided you should be pissed on). Take that as you will.

FWIW, while I'm not suggesting it's super common, I'm apparently not the only person who has had this sort of experience on CF over the years. See Bethanny's death thread.

Finally, no offense, but you're drunk, high or possibly just trolling if you think they'd ever let me imm. They're not going to let the guy rocking the boat have access to the wheel. Hey, maybe I should just try marrying one, or at least getting chummy enough to have one's personal email. I bet it would really never be an issue for me then.

Is it possible you're doing something to provoke the repeated "harassment"?

I mean, nobody ever bugs my characters. Can't even remember the last time I was in the ROTD.

I mean, I love to troll me some Cobble, but FFS you need to troll him on the correct things. Otherwise you're just funnyone with a new handle.

Mostly.

So at the start of all your posting, you actually were trying to state a point. Now you are just making yourself look really silly because your current choice of actions is to take shots at people who disagree with you *BECAUSE OF THEIR HANDLE* (see your responses to Jalim and TMNS and even your self admitted refusal to acknowledge Artifical further).

In short, *YOU* have just given the greatest reason out of *ANYONE ELSE* as to why your own idea for more transparency is a horrible one, so thank you for that. Have a delightful day.

That I doubt anyone gives a #### if we lose this particular player that made this thread. He seems like a complete asshat that can't let go of the past and is clearly delusional.

I would go as far to say I don't want this player around, and rarely do I ever consider CF to be a better place with one less person. But in this case, I think it would be.

Staff is AWESOME, and administration is seriously in better shape and direction than it ever has been in. Keep up the good work guys, some of us are really falling back in love with the game lately, and that is largely because of the love and care the staff running it has put into it lately. It shows.

Still, it's not about me taking shots at people who "disagree with me", and it's very disingenuous for you to say so - you can plainly see Homard disagreeing with me above, and I was very polite to him. You can plainly see Raltevio and I having a polite discussion about it even though I'm pretty sure he isn't in line with 95% of what I'm saying, so it's not like I have some hateboner for the staff, either.

The Artificial/TMNS thing is more about me not interacting with forum trolls whose primary means of argument is ad hominem. Are you seriously going to deny that there's a QHCF pile-on crew that's basically not worth interacting with? Come on, you've been around too long for that Dest. And no, I'm not even really using their past behavior to justify this, I'm just using it to mock them a little. They opened up with ad hominems on me in this thread - so no, I'm not going to really want to play ball with that.

That I've been playing for 20 years and I've never been harassed by an Imm? Am I doing something wrong? Am I not special, too?

I got pulled into ROTD twice. Forgot my description past level 10, and named a character after a city in Europe (who knew, I'm murrcan).

I've been playing for more than 20 years. I've rotd a bunch. But _never_ once from something out of my control. Realize that you set the stage for this stuff whether you like it or not. YOU are in control of all the things that requires imms to punish/address you. You write your desc / role. You control how you deal with other players. You control whether you use all the little things that aren't expressly against the rules but are absolutely against fair play. Basing arguments on other people's behaviour to enhance you own experience/ability is a remarkably weak one. We're playing a game. Not at work. Treat it as such. As you mentioned that you aren't the only one being "harassed" doesn't seem to be the case. The overwhelming part of this thread reads that imm staff are the #### right now. Like it or lump it. But I doubt it'll change or you for that matter. Try chess.

>I just want some of the
>information that's already readily accessible by imms to be
>made available to players.

I think you need to think about the "why" of this. Do you think that making certain things "public" will modify behavior on the part of certain imms that you feel needs to be modified?

I'm not sure there's that much behavior going on that needs to be modified. Furthermore, if there is transparency to other staff and the rest of the staff is okay with this behavior then I don't see what transparency to players really buys us. It will result in certain players being really pissed about {take your pick}, the staff saying, "Yeah, we don't have a problem with how this particular staff member acted," and ####storm after ####storm ensuing.

Now I very much do see the benefit of having "intra-staff" transparency. That is, when a staff member pulls someone into the ROTD and/or hands out a punishment it might be beneficial for one or more other staff to "see" that action. 99% of the time I would expect this visibility to not have any affect; they would see the other staff member's action, judge it to be kosher, and not say anything. But maybe 1% of the time it sparks some intra-staff discussion that results in the decision being rolled back.

>I just believe in
>equal and consistent enforcement of the rules.

That's a good goal, but largely unattainable. Esp. when you have multiple staff. Even if it were a single person doing all the rewarding and punishing it would be difficult to achieve perfect consistency.

>With that said, there are some rules I'd probably straight up
>remove (or maybe just heavily reword) due to their inherent
>"unenforceability." For example: it's currently incredibly
>vague what constitutes botting

So tighten up the definition. Botting is scripting your character's actions and walking away, i.e. the player isn't paying attention and is unavailable to interact with the game.

If a character is out spamming somewhere and is shown an echo "A plaintive voice from the trees wonders, 'Is anybody listening?'" and then doesn't respond within 20 seconds (while continuing to cast spells or use skills) then that guy's probably botting.

>2) Public records lists of PK rewards, how people earned them,
>which imm gave them out, etc.

This seems like a terrible idea. I actually like that players w/ rewards can bust them out and surprise people.

I wouldn't object to a public list of PK-relevant rewards so long as characters don't appear on the list until they're no longer active.

I also wouldn't object to additional intra-staff visibility for PK-relevant rewards so that if someone thinks something's out of whack they can raise the issue and start a discussion.

>Maybe I'm just old school, but I believe that public shaming
>works pretty well to curb bad behavior.

Gotta disagree here. The people who are serial jackasses are not likely to alter their behavior by ROTD becoming public. Often they're the ones trying to post these logs on Dio's. Think about who we're talking about here and ask yourself whether that person is likely to react positively to the scorn of the player base.

>Well, admittedly most of the worst things (Sebeok et al) is
>ancient history. Cabdru was also more than 3 years ago, and
>it's definitely hard to top that in terms of cheating
>"prolificness." I don't have anything other than anecdotal
>evidence - I'm not sure what would even constitute actual
>proof at this point. In any event, I don't mean to suggest
>that I believe there's some sort of mass immspiracy cheatring
>going on, or anything like that. I'm merely pointing out that
>the overall policy has not changed since those days, the
>particular dude who did it is still on staff, even, and so I
>can think of no substantial reason why it couldn't happen
>again or isn't still happening in a more low-key manner. Added
>transparency would make shady behavior a whole hell of a lot
>less likely to fly under the radar.

Honestly, it's probably worth avoiding naming and shaming past staff (or players) based on speculation. I don't see this as productive. However, I will not say that everything was peachy back then. Whether a lack of communication, transparency, ethical behavior, or something else entirely was to blame I think there was a dysfunction. It could have been multiple factors. I just don't know- I was a player and a very isolated one at that.

>Would transparency alone would drive staff away? I'd be very
>disappointed if yes. I'm not trying to create a bunch of
>paperwork for you guys or anything. I just want some of the
>information that's already readily accessible by imms to be
>made available to players. But if the answer is still yes, I
>guess I'd have to think about it more. It would be
>disappointing, that's for sure.

It could, yes. If the (hypothetical) new system is poorly implemented or construed. About the only thing keeping me in the CF Imm circuit right now is the shared sense of community and the other staff. Would I hang about if I had to deal with constant misinformation, rumor-mongering and daily verbal abuse from the peanut gallery? No. I'd go do something more productive with my time. I expect other staff members would too and if one or two key members left, I'd expect a cascade.


>I'm not an anarchist by any means. I believe in law and order,
>and I believe in enforcement of the rules. I just believe in
>equal and consistent enforcement of the rules. However, I
>don't believe that's fully possible without transparency.
>There's a good reason why the court system is largely public
>and subject to review in America.

That's good. CF isn't a country, it isn't even a village. It's an internet community. Some people act differently on the internet because 1) anonymity (which is why your handle makes me chuckle) 2) lack of consequences for being a ####head due to 1).

I noticed you glossed over the subsequent bit of text in my initial response to you. I do, however, think it remains pertinent to this debate:

"Also bear in mind, while players can (and will) frequently conceal their identities. Staff cannot. You're the best demonstration of that actually, since you still visibly bear a grudge against Daev many years after the fact. The point is not whether it is warranted or not, but this demonstrates that staff ARE frequently held accountable for their actions by the player base and in many cases this is a perception of the staff member that is perpetuated in an unofficial echo-chamber (like Dios) with minimal or flimsy evidence to back it up."

This is one of the biggest arguments against transparency that I can think of. Because transparency, handled poorly, will be a -very- destructive thing. This is evidenced by the somewhat recent issue with one Imm stepping into Empire to demote a player (upon request by an Empire Imm), and players on Dios seeing this without the background context. It was assumed that the Imm just jumped into Empire and started mucking with it because.. I don't know? I guess if you give people half a story, they'll fill in the blanks and change the

(Heads up for any avid readers of PBFs. I promoted an Imperial in the wee hours based on a request by an Empire Imm recently. When that shows up, if the PBF is purchased, it wasn't a secret Empire-Herald alliance. I mean, I get that Empirald is a serious force to reckoned given Herald's incredible cabal powers.. but rest easy, this isn't the case.)

>With that said, there are some rules I'd probably straight up
>remove (or maybe just heavily reword) due to their inherent
>"unenforceability." For example: it's currently incredibly
>vague what constitutes botting, and there are no end of serial
>whiners who think that a trigger that spams "c sleep" on "They
>aren't here" is against the rules. In most cases, this sort of
>thing is basically the same as using a macro (and can actually
>get you killed if you screw it up.) The point is when you have
>to make a totally subjective judgment call on "is this botting
>or not?" you end up in another situation which lends itself
>more to selective enforcement than anything else. For
>that rule, for instance, I'd probably just make it more along
>the lines of "Is this guy responding to a turing test tell?
>Okay, great, he's not cheating." Anything beyond that is
>tilting at windmills.

Honestly I hadn't really considered this much. I'm not CF's greatest beat cop. There will be discussions around this thread though. I'm curious to know my colleague's opinions on being clearer and consistent on a few minor things like the stuff you've mentioned, if it is unclear to players.

>Here are some basic ideas (which I will go into more detail
>about below):
>1) Visibility in the ROTD. To a large degree this is a simple
>respect thing, but it also provides for more personal
>accountability. It's a terrible, terrible idea all-around for
>any sort of authority figure to use anonymity in the course of
>enforcing anything.

My personal opinion is more or less aligned with yours. This one needs to be debated and decided by the staff. Though honestly, I'm not sure the system isn't the way it is currently for a reason (I'm not convinced our own libertarian leanings are validated here.) I'll discuss this a bit more below.

>2) Public records lists of PK rewards, how people earned them,
>which imm gave them out, etc. Helps establish consistent
>standards. I'm aware this is sort of available via PBFs, but
>it would be much better if it was in a formatted list which
>included active characters. This way, if someone does have
>some insanely overpowered reward, maybe it could get caught
>and dealt with before it stops mattering. I don't think this
>would be a particularly bad nerf for the rewarded people,
>either, because, I mean... they still have a special something
>that nobody else has. They just don't get to pull a surprise
>grenade out of their hat against anybody who hasn't played
>against them yet.

Again I'm not a fan of mechanical rewards in general. I'd rather mechanical rewards be minor, or not exist at all. This is not a popular opinion amongst most players or staff though (which is unsurprising since the current staff seem to be a pretty representative sample of the players in general. Some merits and demerits with this sort of thing. Unintended consequences aside..

Merits:
- Would be a check against any (future) bad stuff that you've outlined.

Demerits:
- Could lead to misinformation if automated as low level staff need to approach a high level staff member to "okay" a reward.
- Needs to have a transparent and impartial staff to remain in place (which probably defeats the point of this initially.)
- Detracts coding resources from other potentially beneficial code changes.

Other (situational by player):
- Would undoubtedly reduce the volume of mechanical rewards given out. Imms wouldn't want to rock the boat.

>3) Public records of ROTD logs, or any sort of enforcement. If
>somebody gets denied or sitebanned, I'm willing to bet you
>guys already have a policy of making a note about it in some
>sort of log somewhere. I'd love for this information to be
>public (sans IP addresses and whatnot, of course.) I go into
>this below, but it bears repeating: if people see firsthand
>what you guys have to put up with, and see you doing a good
>and reasonable job, it can really only improve the feedback.
>
>I know some of this sounds like a lot more work, but you could
>pretty much automate all of it.

This is not as simple as it sounds. In essence Imms would need to manually gather a "case file" by character and post it. Otherwise data would need to be taken from multiple sources. I don't think it could be hard-coded, and certainly not without a great deal of work.

In this sense the administrative load would be high which would, no doubt, have unintended consequences (further relaxation of standards). Also I am on the fence as to the benefit. More likely this would lead to massive flame wars etc. Or an increased incidence of spiteful behavior against players and staff.

Finally, I need to sit back and consider that the current system was likely implemented for a reason. I personally have no experience with any other system in game. For that reason, altering what is in place now makes me rather uneasy.

>I understand that there are circumstances that can mitigate
>stuff. That ignorant-of-the-rules newbie transferring Bilkon's
>silver shirt to his other character probably doesn't deserve a
>siteban or probably even a deny, and so on. When I talk about
>consistency I'm not talking about taking it to extremes like
>this, and I don't think punishments even need to be draconian
>at all in most cases. I just want there to be a very clear
>outline of what circumstances mitigate punishments, and so on
>- and no, I don't think "help permagroup" (etc) really cover
>it. The goal is to remove as much wiggle room as possible --
>ultimately this helps the staff more than the nebulousness we
>have now, because if you can point to a document that lays
>things out very clearly, it's hard for some putz like me to
>say you aren't doing your job.

I wish it was that easy. I mean, to a large extent this is debated between different national legal systems (Common Law in some courts in the US, UK etc. versus Civil Law in European nation states.)

We might be able to sit down for half a decade and write a 10000 word extensive "Rule book to CF" and cover every possible outcome for rule breaking? That's what a Civil Law system would seek to do. Would it be worth the man-hours? Doubtful.

Could we start filing "cases" and set judgment based on precedent like Common Law systems? Maybe. Again I don't think it would be resource friendly. A high administrative burden would take its toll.

Can our current system of rules be tweaked a bit? Possibly. I mean that would need to need to be discussed. Administrative and moderation stuff needs to be kept as light as possible so we can focus on fun stuff for players.

>To a large degree I'm also talking about drastic PK rewards
>than rules enforcement. It's mindblowingly stupid to me that
>something like a scavenger hunt might net one character a
>minor xpadd, and another character a legacy (i'm not positive
>about this particular example, so take it with a grain of
>salt). Regardless, if the staff insists on giving tremendous
>PK rewards (which I think is a bad idea in general), shouldn't
>it be clear what you actually have to do to earn them?
>Shouldn't there be some kind of consistent structure as to
>what rewards are merited for what situation? Food for thought,
>at least. As I stated before, I think the whole thing should
>be public: who has what PK reward, how they earned it, and
>which imm gave the reward. If you really believe this is
>currently being handled fairly, you should also believe it
>would survive public inquiry.

This was under discussion (negative and positive ImmXp and mechanical rewards, I mean) by the staff recently. We'll see what comes back consensus wise. It will be a democratic process though.


>>5) Would you be happy for the staff to post logs of, say,
>>all the behavior we have to deal with? Log things in a
>public
>>forum so that people can see the crap we have to put up with
>>on a daily basis?
>>
>>Is that something you'd want with transparency? Are we happy
>>to start logging evidence and throwing it up on a public
>forum
>>every time someone posts a log of me RoTD'ing them. Maybe we
>>should. If the staff are visible as punching bags on
>>alternative forums, players should be equally visible and
>held
>>accountable for their actions too. Would that benefit you as
>a
>>player?
>
>Yes, I'd love to see this. I think the proscription against
>ROTD logs on QHCF is silly, and I think the proscription
>against imms posting on QHCF is also silly. I absolutely
>believe turnabout is fair play here. People on both
>sides might be more inclined not to act like jackasses if they
>know the results and circumstantial details of any ROTD trip
>will be made public. I don't doubt for a second that you guys
>have to deal with no end of crap from full-time troublemakers,
>and I genuinely believe this could cut down on it or at least
>make people more sympathetic to what you have to deal with.
>Maybe I'm just old school, but I believe that public shaming
>works pretty well to curb bad behavior. And when people know
>for a fact their actions will be made public, they tend to be
>on their best behavior.
>
>However, I don't think it's necessarily about turning anyone
>into a punching bag. It's about removing the 'fog of war' -
>with more transparency, the truth generally wins.

See above. All in all, a lot of my opinions mesh with yours, however, CF is a team effort and a community driven game. As such I want this game to be enjoyable for as many of our community as possible, irrespective of my personal leanings.

Post-edit edit: And honestly, this debate touches on something which I hold quite dear to heart otherwise I would not be responding. I dislike abuse of power. I dislike poor governance and I appreciate transparency, BUT it has taken me several hours to read this thread and respond in a careful, considered way. That's several hours which I could have spent immteracting with the 13+ characters I am currently significantly involved with. Or amending the current work-in-progress Lyceum area file. Or fixing up map links on the Wiki so we have a function WorldMap for new players (see: http://www.carrionfields.net/CFwiki/WorldMap) Or working on new player resources (better Newbie Guide). Or working on an advertising plan. Or working on my area fixes for our Area Team so I can get a new area live for the players etc. etc. The list goes on. You see why this isn't a huge priority for most of us.

#### it, maybe I'll just go learn to be fluent in Mandarin instead

..

I needs about a week of solid work (I suspect) before it gets up and running.

>Honestly, it's probably worth avoiding naming and shaming past
>staff (or players) based on speculation. I don't see this as
>productive. However, I will not say that everything was peachy
>back then. Whether a lack of communication, transparency,
>ethical behavior, or something else entirely was to blame I
>think there was a dysfunction. It could have been multiple
>factors. I just don't know- I was a player and a very isolated
>one at that.
>

Fair enough.

>It could, yes. If the (hypothetical) new system is poorly
>implemented or construed. About the only thing keeping me in
>the CF Imm circuit right now is the shared sense of community
>and the other staff. Would I hang about if I had to deal with
>constant misinformation, rumor-mongering and daily verbal
>abuse from the peanut gallery? No. I'd go do something more
>productive with my time. I expect other staff members would
>too and if one or two key members left, I'd expect a cascade.
>

I can see how this is a risk, but at the same time, it seems like the people who are disposed to that kind of behavior are going to just find reasons to do it anyway. With more information available, it's probably harder for them to convince "regular people" of something that isn't true.

>I noticed you glossed over the subsequent bit of text in my
>initial response to you. I do, however, think it remains
>pertinent to this debate:
>
>"Also bear in mind, while players can (and will) frequently
>conceal their identities. Staff cannot. You're the best
>demonstration of that actually, since you still visibly bear a
>grudge against Daev many years after the fact. The point is
>not whether it is warranted or not, but this demonstrates that
>staff ARE frequently held accountable for their actions by the
>player base and in many cases this is a perception of the
>staff member that is perpetuated in an unofficial echo-chamber
> like Dios) with minimal or flimsy evidence to back it
>up."
>

Sorry -- I didn't mean to gloss over this, I actually missed it entirely. Thank you for reposting it. My response to this would be: wouldn't the echo chamber effect be dulled somewhat if there was more transparency? Let's say Daev didn't do anything wrong back then. If there had been some kind of imm response on it other than (mostly) radio silence, the whole thing could have gotten straightened out. In any event, I'm not sure if some random putz on the internet (me) being upset about it counts as 'being held accountable' - he's still around as an imm in a quiet capacity, is he not?

>This is one of the biggest arguments against transparency that
>I can think of. Because transparency, handled poorly, will be
>a -very- destructive thing. This is evidenced by the somewhat
>recent issue with one Imm stepping into Empire to demote a
>player (upon request by an Empire Imm), and players on Dios
>seeing this without the background context. It was assumed
>that the Imm just jumped into Empire and started mucking with
>it because.. I don't know? I guess if you give people half a
>story, they'll fill in the blanks and change the
>

Well, I can think of ways you could make notes of this, but it would involve some coding work. I do agree that, especially in this community, that's a risk. I think people take personal offense when (what they perceive to be) some stranger shows up and rock their boat, cabal-wise.

> Heads up for any avid readers of PBFs. I promoted an Imperial
>in the wee hours based on a request by an Empire Imm recently.
>When that shows up, if the PBF is purchased, it wasn't a
>secret Empire-Herald alliance. I mean, I get that Empirald is
>a serious force to reckoned given Herald's incredible cabal
>powers.. but rest easy, this isn't the case.)
>

You know, I've always wondered what would happen if you gave a cabal item to Olin and then tossed anyone who came to raid for it

>ROTD, PK rewards, etc
It's cool to find someone on staff who at least partially agrees with me on that stuff. The stuff you listed about PK reward (demerits, etc) is definitely food for thought -- though for the first one, you could pretty easily make a note of that sort of thing. The code investment here probably isn't as onerous as you might think it is (I happen to be a coder, so I'd know), but I'll admit it is still an investment that could be used elsewhere.

>ROTD log stuff

Given what you've said, this does sound like a lot of work, especially if the data is spread out. Tbh this idea is where I was shakiest anyway - I can fully agree that this is the sort of thing that would have unintended consequences.

>I wish it was that easy. I mean, to a large extent this is
>debated between different national legal systems (Common Law
>in some courts in the US, UK etc. versus Civil Law in European
>nation states.)
>
>We might be able to sit down for half a decade and write a
>10000 word extensive "Rule book to CF" and cover every
>possible outcome for rule breaking? That's what a Civil Law
>system would seek to do. Would it be worth the man-hours?
>Doubtful.
>

Well, I don't think anyone's in an uproar about some random newbie being spared the wrath of god. At the same time, I don't think a basic handbook would be too much trouble - in particular, for things that aren't necessarily "breaking the rules" but can apparently get you called into the ROTD or otherwise harassed. How much looting draws attention? What about multikilling? What about foul language -- is there anything that's still verboten even on something like a duergar or orc, races that are established to curse crudely all the time? If I go around dropping legitimate F bombs on a character instead of "farkin'" or "furgin" or whatever, is someone going to pull me in and say I'm going OOC? Likewise, what about sex references? I could see something like a fire giant literally threatening to rape someone, for instance. Basically: there are a variety of nebulous lines I've apparently crossed in my time on CF, and maybe I'm just autistic or something, but it would be nice to have the exact location of those lines cleared up.

>This was under discussion (negative and positive ImmXp and
>mechanical rewards, I mean) by the staff recently. We'll see
>what comes back consensus wise. It will be a democratic
>process though.

I am pretty excited to hear this. Honestly, it might behoove you guys to open discussions like this to the public. That's just my opinion, though.

>Post-edit edit: And honestly, this debate touches on something
>which I hold quite dear to heart otherwise I would not be
>responding. I dislike abuse of power. I dislike poor
>governance and I appreciate transparency, BUT it has taken me
>several hours to read this thread and respond in a careful,
>considered way. That's several hours which I could have spent
>immteracting with the 13+ characters I am currently
>significantly involved with. Or amending the current
>work-in-progress Lyceum area file. Or fixing up map links on
>the Wiki so we have a function WorldMap for new players (see:
> http://www.carrionfields.net/CFwiki/WorldMap) Or
>working on new player resources (better Newbie Guide). Or
>working on an advertising plan. Or working on my area fixes
>for our Area Team so I can get a new area live for the players
>etc. etc. The list goes on. You see why this isn't a huge
>priority for most of us.
>

Yeah, I realize in retrospect this is a pretty onerous thread. Thanks for taking part in it, and sorry if it took up too much of your time. That map is hot, and looks like it was extremely painstaking to build (although I can think of how you might grab some of that information from the old wiki, with the original formatting, in a scripted fashion for the unfinished parts -- if you don't already have something like this/if you want, email me for more details on this and I might be able to pull something together for you. Believe it or not, I'd like to contribute something other than drama threads, if I can.)

>#### it, maybe I'll just go learn to be fluent in Mandarin
>instead

Haha, I'd go for Sindarin myself.

>Sorry -- I didn't mean to gloss over this, I actually missed
>it entirely. Thank you for reposting it. My response to this
>would be: wouldn't the echo chamber effect be dulled somewhat
>if there was more transparency? Let's say Daev didn't do
>anything wrong back then. If there had been some kind of imm
>response on it other than (mostly) radio silence, the whole
>thing could have gotten straightened out. In any event, I'm
>not sure if some random putz on the internet (me) being upset
>about it counts as 'being held accountable' - he's still
>around as an imm in a quiet capacity, is he not?

Not to my knowledge.

>Well, I don't think anyone's in an uproar about some random
>newbie being spared the wrath of god. At the same time, I
>don't think a basic handbook would be too much trouble - in
>particular, for things that aren't necessarily "breaking the
>rules" but can apparently get you called into the ROTD or
>otherwise harassed. How much looting draws attention? What
>about multikilling? What about foul language -- is there
>anything that's still verboten even on something like a
>duergar or orc, races that are established to curse crudely
>all the time? If I go around dropping legitimate F bombs on a
>character instead of "farkin'" or "furgin" or whatever, is
>someone going to pull me in and say I'm going OOC? Likewise,
>what about sex references? I could see something like a fire
>giant literally threatening to rape someone, for instance.
>Basically: there are a variety of nebulous lines I've
>apparently crossed in my time on CF, and maybe I'm just
>autistic or something, but it would be nice to have the exact
>location of those lines cleared up.

The Chinese have a proverb (I am told) and it goes something like this: "The tallest tree always experiences the strongest winds."

With respect to multikilling and looting, that is pertinent. If you are clustered somewhere around the mean (average) with respect to this behavior, you probably won't get in trouble. If you're in the tail of the normal distribution you can expect to get in trouble.

How much is acceptable? I don't know there's a finite figure as this is not a static thing. It is largely colored by player perceptions. Ask around on Dios now and again and see what comes back. If you find yourself at odds with the majority (or outside their expectations) then it might be worth considering.

OOC is never recommended. Swearing in an explicit manner is never recommended though some of that can sort of be handled with RP as you mentioned.

I mean I can't really give you a play-by-play on all of these individual things. So much of it is context dependent. Are you emoting teabagging some guy's corpse after griefing him? If so, no one is going to slap a gold star on your character and proclaim your RP to be stellar.

As a rule of thumb, if you'd be upset by someone doing something to you, you probably shouldn't be doing said something to someone else. If you lack empathy or a sense of social common sense, run it by someone whose judgment you can trust.

>>This was under discussion (negative and positive ImmXp and
>>mechanical rewards, I mean) by the staff recently. We'll see
>>what comes back consensus wise. It will be a democratic
>>process though.
>
>I am pretty excited to hear this. Honestly, it might behoove
>you guys to open discussions like this to the public. That's
>just my opinion, though.

We'll see what comes back. I know it seems like the staff can be opaque and disconnected at times, but I'm often surprised how frequently player and staff interests align. Case in point: players on Dios talking about certain fairly powerful class edges less than half a day after the staff had discussed the power threshold of some edges and revised the cost.

>Yeah, I realize in retrospect this is a pretty onerous thread.
>Thanks for taking part in it, and sorry if it took up too much
>of your time. That map is hot, and looks like it was
>extremely painstaking to build (although I can think of how
>you might grab some of that information from the old wiki,
>with the original formatting, in a scripted fashion for the
>unfinished parts -- if you don't already have something like
>this/if you want, email me for more details on this and I
>might be able to pull something together for you. Believe it
>or not, I'd like to contribute something other than drama
>threads, if I can.)

The Wiki software certainly doesn't help. I was trying to write a basic parser to format Dios maps into a CF Wiki ready format, but other stuff took over.

>>#### it, maybe I'll just go learn to be fluent in Mandarin
>>instead
>
>Haha, I'd go for Sindarin myself.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever duck out of CF for good.

Oh, and one final thing. I don't know why you keep getting heckled in the game. I mean, there's a 95% chance you're doing something wrong RP-wise or shady with respect to rules on your characters. If it really, genuinely has you stumped, mail a character list to Raltevio@carrionfields.com and I will pass it up the chain for feedback. If you opt to do this, and a trend is discovered, I will pass said feedback along (though, obviously this might mean hearing criticism of your playstyle, and you'd have to be willing to accept it. If criticism isn't something you do well, probably worth leaving alone.)

I figure you cannot address what you don't understand though, if it is a case of not understanding it. In that sense this might be something to consider.

NT

The main issue is the php scripts built into the Wiki software that basically chop out, or convert lots of ASCII characters into something stupid.

So doing Dios-style maps is a bit of a challenge.

I realize this might be a little above your paygrade (or you might simply not have access to it), but it honestly sounds like somebody should just hack a solution to this into the software itself. This is easier than it sounds if what you're using is open source - I make mods for things like OSTicket all the time for my businesses.

I'd also be surprised if nothing like smarty's {literal} tag exists for whatever software you're using. But I'm not personally familiar with whatever wiki package you're using.

There's almost definitely a fast, scriptable way to fix this though.

I helped quite a bit with Zulg's original wiki and have maintained a sizable amount of the current one on QHCF.... and made the youtube video intro....

Some people like trying to help out when I'm not posting like an idiot (which I'm trying to fix).

But it never really amounted to much. It's probably fair to say that the Wiki software doesn't really facilitate text maps, but is rather built for a Wikipedia style site. I'm sure that, in no small part, makes it tough on contributors.

But mostly I think people are just too busy, or not motivated.

.

Maybe someone could hand draw a map and scan it in?

I'd offer to do it, but I'm working 12 hours a day 6 days a week through the Christmas season.

And I can do some rudimentary art and graphics design stuff myself (I dabble). The issue with pictures is problems with linking. Which is why we decided text maps, while being dated, are probably superior to any other format.

While not as pretty, text maps are functional.

If you can't see the difference between a trigger spamming sleep (which will ensure you don't get lagged out by trip, say, and can spam for hours) vs manual spam, you are a complete and utter idiot.

If only we had some transparency so I could use your past posts to reinforce my assertion.

My guess is that you are Sultan. That's why you have given up making accusations on dio's. But the language matches, the complaints match. Here you are calling people whiners for trigger use. Amusingly, I did a quick search and turned up Sultan saying that people were whiners for complaining about being multikilled, because he claims it is easy to avoid any class and only a retard wouldn't do it. Then he explains that the reason he full sacced people for not fighting him if they could help it.

My current got pulled in by an anonymous imm, asked to explain why I was doing something (short log outs). I explained about a bug that could be worked around with a short log out. He explained that they thought I was doing it to leave aggro mobs to kill newbs. I explained what I normally did with said aggro mobs which didn't put newbs at risk. I think on that occasion I just forgot they were on my tail. All ended well, although I decided to live with the bug after that, instead of using a quick log out to fix it.

nt

In my one major disagreement/fight with the staff, I posted my log, and was told it was all lies by a specific staff member.

If they had just posted their log, it would have been all done with. Maybe I did over-react? Maybe it wasn't 10 seconds from the first echo to the second, maybe it was 4 minutes. Etc.

As someone who claims every character, whose handle is my actual name (TMNS = TheManNamedSam), I'm all for just laying the facts on the table (re: punishment...not stuff like OBS/edges/skills/etc) and letting people make their own decision.

I'm in the Isildur camp that this would cause a lot more trouble than it would be worth. I think it would shock some players to see some of the nonsense though.

For instance, the recent RotD log on Dios posted and promptly deleted was me, and I don't mind owning up to it. As it was my first serious tour of being a beat cop. I regret making the mistake of letting the player derail me from the initial purpose of bringing them into the room (which honestly I had anticipated to just be a polite talk/slap on the wrists). Baptism by fire I guess. I made a mistake there, I handled it poorly and I was worried for a while it would reflect badly on the staff generally. Regardless, there was a precedence for the talk before it rapidly devolved into nonsense.

I stand by the consequences of my actions though and if some staff members feel anonymity is important (despite my personal opinions) we're a team and I stand by that decision. Wizi in RotD is an either/or, either everyone does it, or no one does it.

Basically...you got caught up in the drama.

Just be up front, then firm and strong with everything else.

Honestly, I don't know what the spam #### is like on your end, but if someone is just ranting non-sensically, why not just dip out of the RotD and leave them there?

.

>why not just dip out of the RotD and leave them there?

This probably causes more problems than it's worth, even with trolls. You've still got an angry dude sitting in the ROTD, and now he's angrier because it's harder for him to get out.

In a lot of ways I can agree with Umi's solution, which is draconian but probably effective, where he just slams them with -500 XP and moves on. However, if they resolve the problem quickly (in this case, a crappy desc --> a decent one), I think the punishment should be removed. In this way the imms aren't saddled with as much of an administrative job, but the player also doesn't get permanently hosed for what might be an innocent mistake.

I, for one, can state that this year (2015), the staff has been more friendly, helpful, empowering, and transparent than nearly ANY OTHER YEAR since I started playing (2004).

You ask the IMMs for transparency, but to my knowledge you're just an anonymous flamer (as I don't see any concrete character interactions cited, etc) who wants to #### in everyone else's cheerios.

And I personally, like my cheerios with milk, not ####.

Go pound salt if you don't like the IMM staff. Seriously.

I see the usual QHCF trolls have found this thread. Did you notice how I'm not responding to Artificial's posts anymore? Yeah, there's a reason for that. I will say one thing: perhaps you should consider that, if my motivation was to piss in everyone else's cheerios, this sure is an awfully high-effort way and roundabout way to do it. If you're going to direct ridiculous ad hominems at me, at least try to make them make sense.

Where's all your evidence? Where are your RotD logs that show you getting griefed by the IMMs? My email is the same here as it is on dio's, #### everyone knows it. Send me an emails showing all these rules violations that the IMMs are doing against you and I'll gladly say "I'm a stupid ####ing piece of ####. Anon-Dude is totally right".

I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong or being an idiot (both of which happen with regularity), but all I see here is you just being a giant tool and taking shots at people for stuff that makes no sense.

Is there a pattern where certain IMMs favor players? Yes, and THIS WILL ALWAYS BE TRUE, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF TRANSPARENCY YOU ASK FOR. Is there sometimes a situation that seems, how shall I say it, "not ideal?". Yep. People are flawed. Sometimes #### happens.

You sure seem convinced that there is a vast conspiracy out to get you (dio's trolls, anonymous IMMs) and I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

I've quit CF when I thought the staff (and actually...it was just one member of the staff) was "against me". The longest I've ever quit CF, to be honest. After Jindicho I didn't roll Ghrim until 8 months later. Didn't even look at the forums. So, again, if you don't like the IMMs or the players (which is what your posts put forward as your position), then WHY THE #### DO YOU KEEP PLAYING?!?!?!

I've refrained from posting at all in any forums, but this discussion is somewhat interesting.

Did I say interesting? I meant ridiculous.

1) First, the somewhat personal attacks. You admitted that you have been hassled by immortals, in one fashion or another. Can you expand on what you mean by hassle? I, for one, generally appreciate immortal interactions. I don't strive it, but if there is one, I consider it a gift and an opportunity to expand on why I play this game - goals and RP. It furthers my character.

By stating a negative tone when you speak about the immortal interactions, it tells me about your playing style; moreso, it tells me about how you view yourself as a player. You're likely one of the 5% of the playerbase who affects the game negatively. Whether that is breaking the rules (which apparently you have done and got caught for), griefing people, playing in an unsavory manner that attracts immortal attention, whatever. You draw the attention because of how you play. Immortals have better #### to do then to be spying people for crappy behavior. Grow up. You talk about accountability and public service and whatnot - how about you be accountable for your behavior and realize that there is a pattern to your playing style that attracts "unwarranted and negative" immortal interaction?

People are accountable for their actions. You should be accountable for yours instead of having "big brother" troll your ass.

** PS you may think that I'm a player who is over-rewarded and an "immortal favorite." I'm going to say that I generally play the devil's advocate in any serious discussion in CF (look at any of my posts where I provide a dissertation such as this). I'm also going to say that I make the game fun for both myself and people I play with. I don't act like an asshole, I don't grief, and I don't cheat. Can you say the same about yourself?

2) Transparency. This issue has, and will always haunt, CF. In fact, it will always haunt any sort of mud, internet game, whatnot when there is the proverbial big brother looking over your shoulder.

That being said, transparency, in the method and spirit of which you are asking, won't "solve" anything. Solely for two reasons: 1) people are accountable for how they play and 2) this isn't a democracy.

We, as the playerbase, can provide advice. There can be a survey on how things should be changed (in fact, I think there are a few ongoing surveys on facebook?). Imms can ask our opinions directly and listen to our response. The result? They CAN but do NOT HAVE to accept our suggestions. That is because this is not a democracy. We don't have access to the code, we can't freely change the game. We're playing a game that a select few have ultimate power over. There is no such thing as a power balance between them and us - they hold the sway, and they always will. That is how the game is set up.

Sure, you and others can provide the age old rhetoric of this game won't exist without the playerbase. And yes, it is true. But this game does exist, admittedly with a lower playerbsse than before (the factors of which is subject to another discussion and does not necessarily arise from any single immortal or collective immortals). So the big question is why?

PEOPLE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR BEHAVIORS. Umi knows this, most decent people know this. They #### up, there are repercussions. And I'm not the only one who will say that the current admins are good people. They like adding to this game and they like playing this game. As you admit, they aren't here to get you, or any other players. If you think having more transparency so that the immortals will be accountable to the PLAYERBASE, you're sadly delusional.

3) Transparency regarding rewards. A hot topic.

I'll have to agree that sometimes the rewards are over the top. Case in point, my character who had an average 33 damage whip that befuddled and muddled. I wasn't expecting that when I lost my 40 charge flail due to a bug, and I was glad I used it. I would regularly send up prays telling them this and that and seeing if they think it's overpowered. But my thoughts are that they wanted to test out the whip that was made 10+ years ago and just have someone #### around with it.

But I digress. Conforming to one of the principle themes that I stated, what do you think transparency regarding rewards will do?

You're acting under the assumption that any rewards are not overseen internally among the immortals. We don't know that, or if there is a system in place among the immortals that level 52 can only give X type of rewards Y times, 53 can only give Z type of rewards T times. I know for a fact that there was a discussion among the immortals about the whip I was given. So there is accountability among the immortals. In fact, for what anyone know, certain rewards might have to be vetted by the higher ups. And they certainly are not, and will not be, asking permission from US to give rewards. Because it's a reward. It's a gift. As is this game. You have expectations, and perhaps rightfully so, but grossly misplaced.

CONCLUSION

Play the game for fun. It's a game. If you aren't having fun playing the game, stop playing. Umi, nor any of the immortals, won't bat an eyelash. Because, unlike you, they aren't here with a gross expectation. They don't know if people will appreciate their work or care that they are giving up thousands of hours of THEIR lives to support a free game. They are here for their own reasons, whether it is to support a game that has been a big part of their lives, gain more experience as a coder, work on their hobby, or have a creative outlet in their lives.

In fact, if you really think about it, the time invested in this game by either immortals or the players is whether the game is fun. The imms try to make a fun environment (I dare anyone to challenge this). Do you honestly think that "more transparency" will make this a fun environment?

** Excuse the grammar and spelling

By "hassled" I am referring to things like: items being taken away by imms, imms switching into mobs and telling me I'm a prick (and arguably implying my pfile might be altered in negative ways accordingly), being ROTD'd to "pull me aside and tell me something" (what, you couldn't have sent me a character note instead of putting me in jail for 24 hours?), and so on. I should consider this a gift and a chance to RP? In some cases, maybe. It would just be nice if just once this came in the form of something that was fun instead of pissing on my character from the get-go.

I don't think the current admins are bad people (well, maybe Dest. Just kidding. Sort of.) I never said that. I think, by and large, they are awesome. I'm just not really trying to get into a competition over who can brown-nose the best here. If my posts have given you the impression that I think the staff is corrupt to the core, I will state again: this is false.

RE: transparency, rewards, and so on: if there's currently some kind of oversight on this in immland, it's plainly still insufficient. Should they have to ask permission from us to give rewards? I'm not really suggesting that, but at the same time, if a huge portion of the playerbase can agree that a particular reward is overpowered, maybe something ought to be done. And of an imm consistently gives out rewards that are out of whack, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to give out rewards anymore - I mean, if you're ignorant of the mechanics of PK to that extent, there's no shame in admitting you maybe shouldn't be the one handing out shotguns to halflings.

You know, this would all be solved if we just got rid of powerful PK rewards entirely. I don't mind if some guy roleplays learning magic on his warrior and maybe gets "c invis", but personally I believe there are some things that are just ridiculous and unnecessary.

> (well, maybe Dest. Just kidding. Sort of.)

C'mon man, don't start this negativity about staff members again. Nothing constructive will come from it.

You're right, that was uncalled for. He's absolutely not a bad person just because I might disagree with some of how he handles Empire.

Man let it go, from what I have read (... and I will admit some of it has gotten so long I feel the point you are trying to make has been totally lost.) you seem to be really hung up on past transgressions.

Having also first started playing in what 93 or 94, I have seen (and also done) some dodgy things. But since returning I have had nothing but classy interactions and the two times I have been pulled up and questioned on something I have found it to be nothing but a respectful exchange.

Their are Imms at the moment who say they dont play (And this should be enough) ... So that means all their time goes into bug fixing dealing with all manner of good and bad all day for a game that others can enjoy.

All I can see of late is a lot of positive things far more than any negatives. So thats where the focus should be.

>not all of our
>players can't be trusted to approach the game with the honesty
>and sportsmanship that would be required without them, and if
>we stepped in at that point we'd be met with smug claims that
>we have no legitimate recourse for doing so.

I see what you did there...