Proposed Rule Changes

[vietminh]

First off I want to say thank you, thank you to the admins who donated their time over the years (or months for newer admins) enforcing the rules. It's a completely thankless job but know that despite my misguided past behaviour that I do thank you for it.

Second off, I want to start by acknowledging a reality. For a variety of reasons there are on average fewer players on the server now than there was even one year ago, let alone 3 or 5 years. In concert with that, there are fewer new players joining now than there was before, they are still some, but I think it is fair and accurate to say that the BFV community has more or less (perhaps 80% or 90%) congealed into a core group of people who actively play the game. To these people, the rules are well known - they have been constant and have not really changed much since they arrived. That holds true whether you started playing 2 years ago or 10 years ago - the rules are well known.

I am not about to use that as a jumping point off into a dramatic change, I recognize that there is a legacy system in place and some things just aren't going to change (for example, it's an all maps server, that is what it is - I for one support it though I know not all do).

But I am proposing some modest rule changes to accommodate the reality we face now which is this: we as a community do not require a set of rules that are targeted towards new players in a growing community who may not know the rules and need a lot of leeway to learn them i.e. rules that suited the server well in 2008 but not in 2017.

Rather, we as a small, tight knit community that all know the rules would be best served by procedures that respect everyone's right to play here but do not tolerate chronic, habitual, abuse of the rules over time. Further, we need a set of procedures that do not allow the people who commit said abuse over time to be allowed to fall off the radar on a month to month basis and not face enforcement.

I propose these amendments to the Player Reports & Repeat Offences located at http://forum.helloclan.eu/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=6984.

Proposed Change #1

Current Rule

Excessive insulting:

Chat logs from our stats will suffice: bfv/stats/index.php

All parties will receive the punishment should they all continue to be involved.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings.

After 2 warnings from players, at least 3 seconds apart, the player(s) will receive a ban between 12-24 hours depending on severity which is up to admin interpretation when they deal with the report.

Each warning expires after 1 map.

Amendment

Excessive insulting:

Chat logs from our stats will suffice: bfv/stats/index.php

All parties will receive the punishment should they all continue to be involved.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings.

After 2 warnings from players, at least 3 seconds apart, the player(s) will receive a ban between 12-24 hours depending on severity which is up to admin interpretation when they deal with the report.

Each warning expires after 6 maps.

Reasoning

A change to 6 maps brings the rule in line with the low end of warnings on the main rape rule. Also it addresses the complaint by Mr. Orange and others that people seem to be carrying on bad language and excessive insults across multiple maps. I do not believe the people doing this need a generous expiration of their warning, being warned twice per map rotation should be sufficient.

Proposed Change #2:

Current Rule

Inappropriate names:

A link to the player’s stat profile will suffice.

When seen, the player will be asked to change their name by an admin in-game.

Should the name be particularly offensive/derogatory, the player will receive a 12 hour ban unless they let us know they have chosen another, more appropriate, name.

Amendment

Inappropriate names:

A link to the player’s stat profile will suffice.

When seen, the player will be asked to change their name by an admin in-game.

Should the name be particularly offensive/derogatory, the player will receive a 24 hour ban unless they let us know they have chosen another, more appropriate, name.

Reasoning

Again, 24 hours brings this rule in line with a standard punishment. I do not see any reason for excessive lenience here.

Proposed Change #3

Current Rule

Teamkilling/destroying friendly vehicles:

Video evidence preferred, but not required, and a link to the map’s stat page required.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings.

Each player/vehicle killed will result in a 1 hour ban after the 2, required, warnings on top of the base 24 hour ban.
If no warning is given, they get 2 hours per teamkill/friendly vehicle destruction, unless they've been banned in the last 14 days, in which case the above applies.

Amendment

Teamkilling/destroying friendly vehicles:

Video evidence preferred, but not required, and a link to the map’s stat page required.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings.

Player will receive a minimum 24 hour ban plus 12 additional hours for every player killed and 6 for every vehicle destroyed (unless they've been banned in the last 30 days, in which case the above applies),

Reasoning

I think this rule will create a strong deterrent because if someone decides to go on a rampage they could face serious time for teamkilling. Vehicle destruction being a less serious offence is weighted as half that of a teamkill.

Proposed Change #4

Current Rule

Disruptive play:

Video evidence preferred, but not required, and the map stat page required.
Player warnings will count as admin warnings.


Giving away player positions: If it’s not the end of game/the person being compromised is actively playing then the player will receive a 6 hour ban should they continue after 2 warnings. These warnings expire together after 3 maps.
If no warning is given, they get 2 hours per position given away, unless they've been banned in the last 14 days, in which case the above applies.


Blocking vehicle spawn/repair/rearm points:

After being asked to move at least 2 times with at least 3 second gaps, the player will receive a 12 hour ban. These warnings expire together after 2 maps.
If no warning is given, they get 2 hours per blocked spawn/rearm/repair point, unless they've been banned in the last 14 days, in which case the above applies.

Giving away vehicles:
After being asked to not do it, 2 times with at least 3 second gaps , the player will receive a 12 hour ban per vehicle if they do it again.
If no warning is given, they get 2 hours per vehicle given away, unless they've been banned in the last 14 days, in which case the above applies.
These warnings expire together after 3 maps.

Excessive Team-Switching:

A link to the map's stats page is required.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings. In this offence, at least two warnings must be given between occurrences. If they are warned accordingly, they will receive a 6-hour ban from the server. If no warning is given, they will receive a 2-hour ban for each instance of team switching after the third time.

Warnings expire after 3 maps.

Amendment

Disruptive play:

Video evidence preferred, but not required, and the map stat page required.
Player warnings will count as admin warnings.


Giving away player positions: If it’s not the end of game/the person being compromised is actively playing then the player will receive a 24 hour ban should they continue after 2 warnings. These warnings expire together after 6 maps.
If no warning is given, they get 12 hours per position given away, unless they've been banned in the last 30 days, in which case the above applies.


Blocking vehicle spawn/repair/rearm points:

After being asked to move at least 2 times with at least 3 second gaps, the player will receive a 24 hour ban. These warnings expire together after 6 maps.
If no warning is given, they get 12 hours per blocked spawn/rearm/repair point, unless they've been banned in the last 30 days, in which case the above applies.

Giving away vehicles:
After being asked to not do it, 2 times with at least 3 second gaps , the player will receive a 24 hour ban per vehicle if they do it again.
If no warning is given, they get 12 hours per vehicle given away, unless they've been banned in the last 30 days, in which case the above applies.
These warnings expire together after 6 maps.

Excessive Team-Switching:

A link to the map's stats page is required.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings. In this offence, at least two warnings must be given between occurrences. If they are warned accordingly, they will receive a base 24 hour ban plus 12 hours for each instance of team switching after the third time.

Warnings expire after 6 maps.

Team switching to discover enemy positions or blow up NVA Tunnel:

Video evidence is required. 

Player warnings will count as admin warnings. If after being asked to not do it, 2 times with at least 3 second gaps the player will receive a 24 hour ban if they do it again. Thereafter the player will receive an additional 24 hours for every person killed or tunnel destroyed.

Reasoning

Generally speaking - as before penalties increase and expiration time increases. I increased the penalty for blocking spawns for the sake of consistency even though I do not think it warrants it.

Teamswitching - This has in particular become a more prominent problem on the server as numbers have dwindled because it becomes that much more disruptive when teams become uneven. The point needs to be made that this it is not tolerated. It's also an issue I've heard discussed among many seasoned players.

Teamswitching to spy on the other team - This rule would have to be added to the main list to go along with the amendment here but I think it is worth it. Certainly it's not something I have personally witnessed but I take Pinky at his word that it occurred. It's not just bad sportsmanship to do this it's downright wrong and should be punished.

Proposed Change #5

Current Rule

Spamming:

A link to the map’s stat page is required.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings.

Player will receive 6 hour bans for each block of text they continue to spam after the 2 warnings, in addition to a 12 hour ban for the rule breaking.

These warnings expire together after 3 maps.

Amendment

Spamming:

A link to the map’s stat page is required.

Player warnings will count as admin warnings.

Player will receive 6 hour bans for each block of text they continue to spam after the 2 warnings, in addition to a 12 hour ban for the rule breaking.

These warnings expire together after 6 maps.

Reasoning

Again consistency, change to 6 map expiration.

Proposed Change #6

Current Rule

Repeat offenders:

Warns and kicks must still be issued prior to all bans.

Bans do not need to be issued at the time of the incident, but can be applied after review.



Should a player break the rule, and be punished (kicks, bans), twice or more within a 1 week period they will receive a 24 hour ban.
If a player has received a ban or kick in the 14 days prior to the latest incident, no warning is required.

If, after their 24 hour ban, they break the rule again within 1 week, they will receive a 2 day ban with a 1 week cool off.

Should they still continue to break the rule within the cool off period of their last ban, their next ban will be longer based on the following:

3 days (1 week cool off)
1 week (2 weeks cool off)
2 weeks (2 week cool off)
3 weeks (3 week cool off)
1 month (1 month cool off)
2 months (1 month cool off)
3 months (1 month cool off)
6 months (1 month cool off)
9 months (1 month cool off)
1 year (1 month cool off)
Permanent

If they do not break the rule within the cooldown period, their next ban will be for the period directly above unless they do not break the rule for the cooldown time again at which point it will decrease again. It will decrease like this until they reach the 24 hour ban and are back on par with other, rule abiding, players.

Gameplay and chat rules don't count separately here. If a player was banned for 24 hours for main raping, then does enough insulting when they return, that will be a 2 day ban for insulting. However, bans are not on cooldown while the player is banned. This way, if they receive a 3 day ban, return and break another rule they get the next level ban, which is 1 week.

Amendment

Repeat offenders:

Warns and kicks must still be issued prior to all bans.

Bans do not need to be issued at the time of the incident, but can be applied after review.



Should a player break the rule, and be punished (kicks, bans), twice or more within a 1 week period they will receive a 24 hour ban.
If a player has received a ban or kick in the 30 days prior to the latest incident, no warning is required.

If, after their 24 hour ban, they break the rule again within 1 week, they will receive a 3 day ban with a 1 week cool off.[

Should they still continue to break the rule within the cool off period of their last ban, their next ban will be longer based on the following:

1 week (2 weeks cool off)
2 weeks (2 week cool off)
3 weeks (3 week cool off)
1 month (1 month cool off)
2 months (1 month cool off)
3 months (1 month cool off)
6 months (1 month cool off)
9 months (1 month cool off)
1 year (1 month cool off)
Permanent

If they do not break the rule within the cooldown period, their next ban will be for the period directly above unless they do not break the rule for the cooldown time again at which point it will decrease again. It will decrease like this until they reach the 24 hour ban and are back on par with other, rule abiding, players.

Gameplay and chat rules don't count separately here. If a player was banned for 24 hours for main raping, then does enough insulting when they return, that will be a 2 day ban for insulting. However, bans are not on cooldown while the player is banned. This way, if they receive a 3 day ban, return and break another rule they get the next level ban, which is 1 week.

Reasoning

By increasing the length of time needed to ban without warning for 14 to 30 days it's insured that no one can slip through the cracks here - if you break the rule twice within a week and get banned you're on notice for the next month before consequences kick in. For when they do I've eliminated the 2 day ban, it goes straight from 24 hours to 3 days to 1 week. This ensures again that the player faces immediate consequences to escalating their poor behaviour. If this does not deter them they go straight to a 1 week ban where the long cool off periods start to kick in.

Altogether this ensures that no one slips through the cracks.

In addition I propose these amendments to the Courses Of Action located at http://forum.helloclan.eu/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=7274.


Proposed Change #7

Current Rule

Ban evasion

Players that decide to evade their ban will find their new key permanently banned. Should they play for an extended period of time under another key, such as an hour or more, then that time will be added onto their existing ban.

Amendment

Ban evasion

Players that decide to evade their ban will find their new key permanently banned. In addition, they will have another 1 week added to their existing ban time. If the player evades their ban a second time this will increase to 1 month. If a player evades 3 times they will be permanently banned and can only appeal this ban in the forums. If the player evades any subsequent bans given to them they will be permanently banned again with no chance of appeal

Reasoning

For this one I just can't believe ban evasion is treated so lightly. I saw Lesuk get banned the other day and within 2 hours he was back playing on the server again but because it was less than an hour he won't face additional ban time - but even if was it would be nothing at all. If someone can't obey the rules that's one thing, but if they can't obey the punishment handed down as a consequence of breaking the rules they should be treated accordingly. Ban evasion isn't trivial, it should be the most serious offence.

 

[El Alamein]

Hi vietminh,

First I just want to say that I genuinely appreciate the level of thought and effort you've put into this. I hope this will provide a forum of constructive discussion and productive debate that may result in diplomatic compromise.

Overall I agree with your proposals, though I will wholeheartedly admit to a political bias towards favoring stricter enforcement of rules. I'm certainly open to dialogue on potential revisions and I'm willing to modify my stance should someone argue compellingly against these changes.

The point with which I agree with you most strongly is the ban evasion. I too am surprised that it's treated as a tiny infraction when, on almost any other website I'm a part of, ban evasion constitutes a serious offense. For instance, on Wikia, if you sockpuppet (use a secondary account) to get around a ban on your principal account, it typically results in an auto-permaban. No questions, no debates, you're gone. And people don't do it because they know what will happen. Now I'm not saying ban evasion here should be an auto-permaban. After all, BFV is not identical to Wikia. But I do think it should be seen as a dishonest subversion of admin authority and server rules and should be taken far more seriously as far as punishments go.

These are just my thoughts for now, and I look forward to hearing from the rest of you.

~The Deadliest Warrior

 

[vietminh]

Thanks Deadly, I appreciate you taking the time to read through my proposal and comment.

I am genuinely disappointed that with 60 odd views that this has garnered such a low response. Anyone whom I've talked to is interested in evaluating whether punishment should increase yet only 5 people have voted so far and of those 3 say no - I'm sure I can guess which 3 they are.

It truly does seem to be the case that the community loves to bitch and complain about issues without taking any action. If figured that would be the case but I put this here so when the bitching occurs it can be referenced.

 

[TonyB]

Here is what I have to say, three bans for any reason and you are perma-banned. BOOM

 

[RoBoDuCk]

Vietminh,

I'll admit I had to skim this instead of fully digesting it. This has to do with lack of free time and not because I think the issue lacks validity. What parts I did read, I endorse. Especially the amendment on teamkilling which I've always thought should be severe. The main reason I like this change is it factors in the amount of damage the offender is doing. AKA if you blow up 6 vehicles instead of 1 your punishment is harsher. NICE idea imho.

Thanks Deadly, I appreciate you taking the time to read through my proposal and comment.
I am genuinely disappointed that with 60 odd views that this has garnered such a low response. Anyone whom I've talked to is interested in evaluating whether punishment should increase yet only 5 people have voted so far and of those 3 say no - I'm sure I can guess which 3 they are.

I'll more thoroughly read your other points when I have time. One thing you might consider, revisions are easier to swallow if delivered in bite sized chunks. I like where you are going with these, but I want them to be independently evaluated and adopted for their merits. Instead of lumped together and thrown out like the quintessential baby with the bath water. I think this is especially likely of happening as our current server leaders manage this place despite not having enough time to do so. I'm not saying you are wrong by the way, only that bombardment may not yield you as many results as a surgical strike in a place where our leaders have already expressed they are stretched thin. I think this is the true reason why you got 60 reads and only 6 votes tbh.

yet only 5 people have voted so far and of those 3 say no - I'm sure I can guess which 3 they are.

As far as guessing who voted for or against your proposal, that's a bit counterproductive to your goal if you ask me. (A) your critics could feel intimidated and may further fight your proposals if they feel they are being publicly shamed. (B) voting in the polls is anonymous for a reason. A vote by its nature may not yield the results you want. And the general voting populace is not to blame for that (C) trying to persuade and find common ground is better to achieving your goals than prejudging what someone will decide and counting them out early. You leave them no room to surprise you.

FYI as an individual player I have no problem telling you that I voted yes. I don't feel that this is irresponsible as its not official. If it were to be taken up in the Admin Forum I'd fully read it and most likely vote yes there too after careful consideration.

 

[HoloDuke]

Hi vietminh,

Just like Robo, I could only read through these but cannot yet respond because of time - I very much agree with the intent - to improve the server experience for players and to bring consistency to all infractions. It will just take me some more time to respond in detail to each item.

Thank you for the detailed proposal and investment of your time.

 

[vietminh]

Thanks guys, for clarity I wasn't taking a stab at you or the people who voted against my proposal. rather, I am taking a stab at the people who are willing to come to the forums or type their complaints on the server but not be part of a solution being offered.

But you've both raised some good points about making this easier to digest. I'll edit the "reasoning" section and turn it into a summary that quickly explains what would be changed.

 

[HoloDuke]

vietminh,

I am working on my reply - I think your current format is good and very detailed, showing before and after. We just need a good way to individually reply to it.

Maybe, once I reply, people can use my format to reply to individual amendments (copy and paste).

 

[HoloDuke]

vietminh, here is my feedback. Please let me know if I misintrepreted any proposals when I paraphased:

Change 1:
Expand Excessive Insulting warning cool down from 1 map to 6 maps

I agree with this one.

Change 2:
Expand Inappropriate Names minimum ban to from 12 to 24 hours

I agree with this one.

Change 3:
Expand Teamkilling/destroying friendly vehicles minimum ban from 1 hour to 24 hours + 12 additional hours for every player killed and 6 for every vehicle destroyed

I would vote to just increase minimum ban to 24 hours. Assessing intent is already very hard especially for player reports that have to be reviewed based on logs. The tk / destroy friendly vehicles repeat offenders are often subtle and these can look like and often intentionally look like an inadvertent action.

Change 4:
Expand Disruptive play:Give Away Position minimum ban from 6 to 24 hours and warning cool down from 3 to 6 maps.  Expand with no warning from 2 hours to 12 hours and ban cool down from 14 days to 30 days.

I support the increasing the ban times. I think the cool down days should fall in line with our existing progressions (starting at 24h and then increasing).

Change 5:
Expand Spamming warning cool down from 3 to 6 maps.

I agree with this one

Change 6:
Repeat Offenders:
- Expand no warning cool down for 2 or more infractions in 1 week from 14 days to 30 days
- Expand next infractions within 24h of a ban from 2 days to 3 days
- Significantly increase cool downs and resulting bans, especially early in the cycle:
From 3 day ban / 1 week cool down to 1 week ban / 2 week cool down
etc.

I agree that stronger penalties for repeat offenders would be good and should be discussed - I don't know if these are the right levels. There are only a few players that fall into this category so any changes would have minimal impact to the general player population.

Change 7.
Significantly expand penalties for ban evasion.  From extending ban by ban evasion play time to a minimum of 1 week for first evasion, 1 month for second, permanent for third.

Ban evasion is an issue that would be better served with more severe penalties. However, it isn't always easy to detect. For now, I would vote to double the ban or extend it to 1 week (whichever is shorter) for every evasion that is caught and to see how that works.

_______________________________

Overall, I think your intent with these proposals are to encourage repeat offenders to stop their behavior - which I think is good and important. I think it could have some impact on new players who do not know the rules, but admins and players alike are pretty good at educating new players on rules during the warning phases.

 

[Capt. Canada]

Greater legislation and punishments for players who did not care about rules or punishments previously?

 

[vietminh]

Greater legislation and punishments for players who did not care about rules or punishments previously?

I'm not sure I follow you here Canada. You're granting me that the status quo does not work but seem to be suggesting that it be kept anyway. I can easily throw that back on you - how about we just get rid of the rules altogether because rule breakers don't respect them?

What I am suggesting is that we stiffen up the punishments so that the consequences hit home earlier, so that the rules cease being something between toothless and a minor inconvenience. If that doesn't change behaviour then you're right, nothing will, but at least we won't be dealing with a set of rules that make the guilty look innocent because they fail to reach the minimum threshold of enforcement. SK and Ice have made it easier to report issues but it does seem futile because even if someone was reported 3 times in a month under the current rules the most they would get is a 24 hour ban on each go. They'd also have to be warned according to an overly defined set of procedures.

Under my proposal if they want to break rules they'll face immediate consequences which is simpler from all involved. If they want to evade their bans they'll quickly find themselves permanently banned. How else do you deal with people who break the rules and refuse all attempts at rehabilitation?

Last but not least - and I am going to call you on this because I can tell you're an intelligent guy -
you made a caricature of my proposal. Save for adding one rule (not spying on the other team), I did not increase legislation I simply increased punishments and as Sellout and Robo pointed out I actually simplified the rules in a few cases by making a 24 hour ban the standard across the board.

I like your humour and I like that you're an intelligent guy, and I know you command a lot more respect than I do because of my incident. But I find it frustrating that 12 months off the server you're coming here to make quips instead of a contribution. Agree or disagree with me, I don't care, make a real contribution, don't just be a fair weather friend.

 

[Capt. Canada]

Yes, I'll concede that my inactivity on the server makes my opinions less credible and probably irrelevant; I generally only come on here to amuse myself and others.

Actually, I found nothing wrong with your proposals at all. My point was that unless you enforce the rules you already have, then there is not really a reason to change any rules. Your modifications are sound, but it all comes back to enforcement. If they aren't enforced, then they are toothless. I also feel that the players who repeatedly break the rules really do not care what punishment they may face. If they did, then they would have changed already.

I worded my previous response poorly; I sort of knew I did when I wrote it. I sacrificed clarity for conciseness, and I apologize for that.

 

[hard_rice]

I thought I posted this already on this thread. Will Ferrel in the Movie Elf calls himself a self deprecating name and all the other elves are aghast.

We should all play nice in the sandbox.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... J6Po_mtcjw

 

[RoBoDuCk]

Thanks guys, for clarity I wasn't taking a stab at you or the people who voted against my proposal. rather, I am taking a stab at the people who are willing to come to the forums or type their complaints on the server but not be part of a solution being offered

I see, you have a valid point there as well. Some of the loudest, howling voices are also some of the worst troublemakers as well and never contribute to the solutions. I laud your effort for positive change that is well thought out like yours clearly is.

 

[vietminh]

My point was that unless you enforce the rules you already have, then there is not really a reason to change any rules. Your modifications are sound, but it all comes back to enforcement. If they aren't enforced, then they are toothless..

I agree, and this is something I failed to fully address both in my reply and in my initial post. I think another issue is that with measurably less admin presence enforcement has become a significant issue. As you pointed out in pinky's nagi thread, we've got 16 admins for a server that averages 5 players. I'd venture to guess I've played more often than anyone in this thread in the last 4 weeks. I saw vmax last night and I've seen him on game tracker a couple of times. I've seen Iceskater 2 times, sellout 3 times, deadly 4 or 5 or times, radagast once. Basically the server gets admin presence for one or two hours, once or twice a week whereas a year ago it was more like 4 hours every weeknight and all afternoon and evening on the weekends. I'm not naming and shaming anymore here, I'm just citing the reality of the situation.

As well, I reported 3 people for main rape last weekend and no action has been taken. I don't blame anyone for that because sifting through logs is extremely time consuming, but it certainly bolsters pinkys heretofore baseless argument that reporting accomplishes nothing. It's my fault for not having video evidence, I never got around to installing that in time. But at the same time, why would I go to the effort of catching someone when all they're going to get is a 24 hour ban that because of the current rules doesn't really stack up over time?

I personally think we should drop the requirement of both video evidence and sifting through logs and simply develop a list of trusted players who can report and have the reports acted on by an admin. But I didn't propose that because I realized that what I was basically proposing was more admins and more community reporting which we don't need a rule change to accomplish. Either because it can happen without it or it's actually just impossible at this point.

Hence my idea for lowering the bar for punishment so that infrequent or lower reporting rates can stack up like the original rules intended. Those rules were at least functionally enforced a year ago, but that does not seem to be true anymore and thus we must adjust to the times. Likewise the players who used to be constantly babysat must also adjust to having less oversight. If they can't do that then I don't see it as unfair to give them very harsh punishments.

Again personally I would prefer if we gave specific warnings to specific people that they are on notice for the rest of all time and if they screw up once more they're gone forever. It really isn't unfair at this point to do something like that after someone has been warned, kicked, even banned several times over the last 5 years. I'm on notice for forever even if it isn't explicitly a rule, why isn't nagi? Why isn't doen? Why isn't Rex? I'm not at all saying that unwritten rule for me is unfair or that others should suffer with me because misery loves company. I'm saying it's completely fair so why not extend that to others? Pinky does have a point, if you're a person who speaks English and is active on the forums you get treated differently than a person who never comes here and says a word. I've heard nagi for example described as a force of nature, that's bullshit. Nagi is a person choosing to break the rules and should be treated as such. Again though, I didn't propose this because I know it won't fly.

And therein lies the real problem, the philosophy of running this server has been to maintain it as a monument to what it once was instead of adapting it to suit the needs of the day and the needs of the community. The rules are a sacred script written in stone on this monument. They are not for mere mortals, players, admins, or anyone else to question.

Sorry Canada my rant isn't directed at you you just sparked some thought.

I worded my previous response poorly; I sort of knew I did when I wrote it. I sacrificed clarity for conciseness, and I apologize for that.

Thank you for this and for taking the time to reply, it's much appreciated.

 

[HoloDuke]

Hi vietminh,

we've got 16 admins for a server that averages 5 players. I'd venture to guess I've played more often than anyone in this thread in the last 4 weeks. I saw vmax last night and I've seen him on game tracker a couple of times. I've seen Iceskater 2 times, sellout 3 times, deadly 4 or 5 or times, radagast once. Basically the server gets admin presence for one or two hours, once or twice a week whereas a year ago it was more like 4 hours every weeknight and all afternoon and evening on the weekends. I'm not naming and shaming anymore here, I'm just citing the reality of the situation.

There are 16 admins precisely because the desire is to provide as much coverage as possible. In my opnion, your statement above is inaccurate. I would estimate that the server has an admin presence for at least 5-10 hours per day - which to your point, is still not ideal.

I often monitor remotely to watch for infractions - I often see them too late to take action (to much time has passed) or am not able to join for other reasons. I am currently not as active as I used to be but I still see who is on. Vmax has always been (and still is) on quite a bit. DeadlestWarrior and hard_rice are on frequently as well. I also have see Killzone, NME, and Stalker on. Recently IceSkater has been on more frequently as have I than we were in the months prior. Radagast and Rambo_FD have periods where they were among the most active admins (or even players).

As well, I reported 3 people for main rape last weekend and no action has been taken. I don't blame anyone for that because sifting through logs is extremely time consuming, but it certainly bolsters pinkys heretofore baseless argument that reporting accomplishes nothing.

You have a point here. REX2, however, is serving a 1 week ban (ban evasion aside) ending today while Nagi and REX609's reports are pending review.


Lets wait for IceSkater (or/and SK) to respond with his/their latest thoughts and see where the discussion takes us.

 

[vietminh]

Well I had typed up a lengthy reply but I accidentally hit the wrong button and lost it all lol. So I'll reply with a much condensed version which I'm sure everyone will appreciate more anyway hahaha.

First, thank you to everyone who took the time to reply here, I value your input whether you agree with me or not, I wanted to engage people and that's exactly what happened.

Second, and by far the most important I think we would all agree - I want to give a huge thank you to Ice for dedicating his time to going through and amending and cleaning up the rules. I know how long it took me to just copy and paste this stuff, read it, and amend it. I can't imagine how long it took to boil it all down and re-formulate it. We should all appreciate the massive effort and dedication Ice has put into this server - especially in light of so many people who do not. So once again, thank you Ice, I greatly appreciate your effort here.

I don't expect everyone to go through and read the new rules, though I suggest you should, but i want people to see at least one before and after so here it is.

BEFORE

Teamkilling/destroying friendly vehicles:

Giving away player positions: If it’s not the end of game/the person being compromised is actively playing then the player will receive a 6 hour ban should they continue after 2 warnings. These warnings expire together after 3 maps.
If no warning is given, they get 2 hours per position given away, unless they've been banned in the last 14 days, in which case the above applies.

AFTER

Giving Away Player Positions:

If the player being compromised is actively playing, or if it's not the end of the map, the player will receive a 24hr ban. If the person had accomplished the feat of giving away a player's position multiple times, an addition of 2hrs will be added per position given away.

I mean just look at that, it's not convoluted, it's not hard to follow, there's no excessive warnings or complicated expiration of warnings. It's just nice and straightforward!