Regarding Romek Pt. 2

A place to discuss the game in a general fashion that doesn't fit the rest of the forums.
User avatar
Neus
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5533
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Neus » Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:30 am

First of all, throwing all your chips onto the back of a situation where the party you're defending was clearly, undeniably in the wrong isn't a great idea. If these issues are so important they deserve their own topics, not to be lumped together with something unrelated.
Purp wrote:F) A portion of people don't come to you or the GMs for exactly the reason Kunai's been screaming about for the last hour. They either believe saying anything is useless and won't change anything. Another portion of people wouldn't come to GMs for their grievances, much less you. You're not an approachable person. Sorry.
The logical solution, then, is to say nothing. That will definitely change things.

If you have issues with GMs and don't bring them to my attention, then that's on you, not me. Saying I'm 'not approachable' and trying to blame me is silly.
Purp wrote:E) I've provided logs of a GM saying that godmodding wasn't a one-lined post that doesn't give anyone a chance to react.

Related Bits:

The most infamous example is when I ran an event for my group. Guards were clearly implied to be there. A person belonging to CE ran in, tacked a flyer on the wall, and left in one post without giving anyone else a chance to respond. That is godmodding. However, after this was brought to an admin's attention, this was the response.
Godmodding is forcing other characters to react or behave a certain way. It would godmodding for me to punch your character in the gut, saying they didn't have time to react, and that they were now on the floor, coughing up blood. It isn't godmodding for someone to enter a room, put a poster on the wall, and walk out. That series of events can play out very quickly, you can still react to it after the fact, and your reaction to it is not at all designated; you are free to do so in whatever manner you choose. The poster isn't invincible. You could tear it down, burn it, whatever you wanted.

There were guards implied to be there, okay. I can understand where you're coming from with that. Did you get GM permission for these guards? Were the guards represented by anything, NPCs, PCs? If you didn't get permission then, in a way, having an army of invisible guards is godmodding in itself. Something to think about. If that's the most infamous example then things must not be as apocalyptic as suggested.

---
Floofie wrote:In your reply, you say that we're fine with Egil's metagaming but shun Sarah for her usage of it, which isn't the case whatsoever.
Nothing in the original posts suggested otherwise. If that wasn't the intention then it was very poorly conveyed, because that's exactly what it suggested.
Floofie wrote:You also stated that no one has ever messaged you to inform you of things, but I have at a few odd points to state my matters in hopes of divulging information I felt was unjust. These were never replied to, and it's not so much that it saddens me, but I simply feel a tad disheartened that they haven't seemed to even reach you.
If those issues were delivered via BYOND pager then no, that's not the proper way to contact me on this. BYOND pager has issues, the website pager will sometimes cull old pages, the only way for me to be notified of these issues is if I look at the BYOND website, etc.
Floofie wrote:The last is simply a personal peeve of mine that I don't appreciate whatsoever.
If you want to give specifics in PM, I can look into it and tell you what happened and why.
Floofie wrote:In conclusion, I personally find it a sad day when the creator of a game can't sit down and try to wrap their head around every angle of conflict. This petition and thread was only made to reach out to the ones that feel as though this game, one with SUCH great potential, has some room for improvement. Some feel as though there's too much PVP, others dislike the admins (Some from personal experience, some from things they've seen, etc...), some signed just to help their friend (In this case, Romek). All I'm saying is that was discouraged and flustered me most from your reply is that you don't seem to even care whatsoever about all of this effort that was done. Everything was made to show that people were genuinely uncomfortable with things that took place. They wanted a reason to stay, knowing that things were going to improve and not feel so one-sided, as you've seemed to reinforce.
In what way you could look at my replies and responses and think 'wow he just doesn't care', I don't really understand. If I didn't care I wouldn't bother replying. I do have better things to be doing, honestly, things I would rather be doing, so maybe if that's what you got out of it anyway, perhaps I shouldn't have bothered at all.

Originally this issue was about two people, Egil and Sarah. Any other issue that was haphazardly slapped onto it by other people was not made clear, is not relevant to the original issue, or was not elaborated on. No, you don't get to assume things 'won't change' or make up some hypothetical reaction that I or another GM might have and treat it as if it's something wrong with us. Getting disgusted/angry/frustrated/depressed about your assumptions isn't healthy at all, and it probably contributes to this feeling you have that it's one-sided; well, it's one-sided because no one bloody brought it up before.

---

Ultimately I am hoping that everyone will take a few days off and cool their heads, and come to their senses. Or at least, if they still have outstanding issues, be capable of wording them and addressing them in a more clear, decisive, evidence-supported manner than they did here. I am more than happy to address concerns, I want everyone to enjoy the game, and I certainly don't want anyone to leave.

But as far as the Egil v. Sarah issue goes, I have said my feelings on it. The GMs ultimately are the ones who are handling the execution of the character and all of the rest, so if they want to take a different stance than I have, they can. If not, I don't blame them.

User avatar
Breakaway~totheweird
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Breakaway~totheweird » Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:38 am

@Cerrik

Oh, I stated that incorrectly: I love RPing away from the arena. Getting others detached from the wall to interact outside of their comfort zones is the painful part. What I can agree with, and I'm sure several others can, as well, is the crippling emphasis on PvP. What stats to get, what equipment to hoard, how willing they are to pay for 10* items. It's a driving factor in the game, and at its current state isn't conductive to the quality of roleplaying.

The GM chat channel is fine when you have lore-related questions. My personal issue is speaking to them one-on-one. Either they're busy (which is fine seeing as no one wants to stay nose deep in these messes) or want to hastily paste together unsatisfactory solutions to abstract problems.

I am referring to CE events, and not Dyst events. Sorry.
Image

Cerrik
Novice Member
Novice Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 1:29 am

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Cerrik » Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:40 am

Breakaway~totheweird wrote:@Cerrik

Oh, I stated that incorrectly: I love RPing away from the arena. Getting others detached from the wall to interact outside of their comfort zones is the painful part. What I can agree with, and I'm sure several others can, as well, is the crippling emphasis on PvP. What stats to get, what equipment to hoard, how willing they are to pay for 10* items. It's a driving factor in the game, and at its current state isn't conductive to the quality of roleplaying.

The GM chat channel is fine when you have lore-related questions. My personal issue is speaking to them one-on-one. Either they're busy (which is fine seeing as no one wants to stay nose deep in these messes) or want to hastily paste together unsatisfactory solutions to abstract problems.

I am referring to CE events, and not Dyst events. Sorry.
Kk, no worries! I see where you're coming from on everything.

Edit: I'll say, in my cases, I've had fully fledged responses. It was a bit harrowing when I talk to Chaos about my particular issue, but I just didn't let it bother me and he was quite thorough with his answer by the end.

User avatar
Zakizo
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2015 5:21 am
Location: Discord

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Zakizo » Wed Aug 17, 2016 4:48 am

Just 185 more posts until this thread breaks the Funny Quotes post count... don't give up guys, you can do it!

On a more serious note, I've seen a lot of talk in this thread about SL2 is suffering because of this or that, but if that's true then it doesn't deserved to be lumped into a singular petition with something unrelated like punishing a player. I actually like some of what's written there. Cracking down on metagaming? Fantastic, but I think the GMs are trying there already. Either way, I can't sign a petition that includes punishing a player for a story with two sides that, conveniently, neither side seems to have logs for (messenger logs do not count).

Posting this probably makes me the biggest hypocrite here, because I've had a confrontation like this with Dev years ago and much like this one, he shot it down because I lacked adequate proof. Was I happy about it? Not at all. I thought it was a bad decision, but I also think it was the right and fair one. He's told the community numerous times that if you want him to listen to your accusation, provide proof. There is a log command, but nobody used it. There was an opportunity to show everyone a pure, unbiased log of what happened, and it was passed up. That is not Dev's fault. That responsibility lay with Egil, Sarah, and whoever else was there to witness it. Sarah actually less so, because Sarah is not the one who has a problem with what happened.

Dev, I was critical of you the first time something like this happened, but I have to appreciate your consistency. My post is probably completely unnecessary, but I thought I'd give it anyway since people are apparently still hung up on this.

Everyone else, this "incident" (if it even was one) didn't even involve you. Going on a witch hunt over a situation you don't understand and saying we should punish a player over the mere possibility, not fact, but possibility, that she might have done something that might warrant a ban, and bringing up all of these other issues SL2 may have as if you want her to shoulder the blame for all those too (getting people angry might be a good way to get them in the mood to sign a petition about something, but they're doing it for the wrong reasons), is exactly why your case is getting nowhere. If Dev banned everyone right now over the possibility that they may've broken a rule in the past 24 hours alone, the player count would be 0.

Also I got ninja'd.
Image

User avatar
Breakaway~totheweird
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Breakaway~totheweird » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:00 am

Neus wrote:First of all, throwing all your chips onto the back of a situation where the party you're defending was clearly, undeniably in the wrong isn't a great idea. If these issues are so important they deserve their own topics, not to be lumped together with something unrelated.
Purp wrote:F) A portion of people don't come to you or the GMs for exactly the reason Kunai's been screaming about for the last hour. They either believe saying anything is useless and won't change anything. Another portion of people wouldn't come to GMs for their grievances, much less you. You're not an approachable person. Sorry.
The logical solution, then, is to say nothing. That will definitely change things.

If you have issues with GMs and don't bring them to my attention, then that's on you, not me. Saying I'm 'not approachable' and trying to blame me is silly.
Purp wrote:E) I've provided logs of a GM saying that godmodding wasn't a one-lined post that doesn't give anyone a chance to react.

Related Bits:

The most infamous example is when I ran an event for my group. Guards were clearly implied to be there. A person belonging to CE ran in, tacked a flyer on the wall, and left in one post without giving anyone else a chance to respond. That is godmodding. However, after this was brought to an admin's attention, this was the response.
Godmodding is forcing other characters to react or behave a certain way. It would godmodding for me to punch your character in the gut, saying they didn't have time to react, and that they were now on the floor, coughing up blood. It isn't godmodding for someone to enter a room, put a poster on the wall, and walk out. That series of events can play out very quickly, you can still react to it after the fact, and your reaction to it is not at all designated; you are free to do so in whatever manner you choose. The poster isn't invincible. You could tear it down, burn it, whatever you wanted.

There were guards implied to be there, okay. I can understand where you're coming from with that. Did you get GM permission for these guards? Were the guards represented by anything, NPCs, PCs? If you didn't get permission then, in a way, having an army of invisible guards is godmodding in itself. Something to think about. If that's the most infamous example then things must not be as apocalyptic as suggested.
That wasn't a statement geared towards blaming you. People say I'm not approachable: It's partially because I have resting bitch face on fleek, and it's partially because those people are too timid. It's not one party's fault or the others. Hell, I wouldn't come up to you unless it was direly needed (see: Roxy and other's reasons behind that).

As stated in the petition, there's various definitions as to what godmodding is. The way it was taught to me happens to involve your explanation. When it comes to actions (again, as I was taught), definite wording is a no-no. Including 'attempt' or 'try' in a post allows for more flexibility to those reacting.

To your question: Yes. I gave the opening post to Chaos and he actually reviewed it. Even commented on how many unneeded details there were about security, and my response to that was "it's a lot, but I have a feeling someone might try something". Low and behold. In the end, it was resolved with an omit (you probably despise that word). But that wasn't what rustled my jimmies. It's the fact that that one-line post-and-go nonsense could certainly be perceived as godmodding, to which Chaos did say could be seen as such. It was rectified, and I appreciate Chaos' efforts in the matter. Like I said, this was only mentioned since it directly effected me, and I can testify to things being tucked away.
Image

User avatar
Breakaway~totheweird
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Breakaway~totheweird » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:09 am

Zakizo wrote: Everyone else, this "incident" (if it even was one) didn't even involve you. Going on a witch hunt over a situation you don't understand and saying we should punish a player over the mere possibility, not fact, but possibility, that she might have done something that might warrant a ban, and bringing up all of these other issues SL2 may have as if you want her to shoulder the blame for all those too (getting people angry might be a good way to get them in the mood to sign a petition about something, but they're doing it for the wrong reasons), is exactly why your case is getting nowhere. If Dev banned everyone right now over the possibility that they may've broken a rule in the past 24 hours alone, the player count would be 0.

Also I got ninja'd.

To clarify, if you haven't read the thread in it's entirety, I suggest you do. Like I said to Raylan (sp?), whether you do or don't is your prerogative. No one is going on a witch hunt. After more information was received and considered, I stated that both players should be considered for reprimanding, not only one person. The petition was a rough draft and done in a hurry, which I've admitted fault to for the upteenth time. No one even said to have TPIQ shoulder the blame for it all. This situation was only mentioned in conjunction with other matters as a catalyst. As you can tell, people were angry from the get-go. Their displeasure wasn't conjured up on a whim about something they could honestly care less for. This particular issue was used as an example, much like the example I gave of my account with (presumed) godmodding. No one has claimed that they're perfect and haven't committed any rule-breaking. Everyone has done it. The point of the petition was to have a growing list of issues address.
Image

User avatar
Snake
Posted to Death
Posted to Death
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:14 pm
Location: Motherbase - Main Office

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Snake » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:20 am

gfdi, I wake up to get some water and this shit's still going. Can't the Chimera vs Bria incident become another thread already? Dave vs Sarah is solved already.

And this thread has nothing else to do with 'Regarding Romek' anymore.

Image when
"Show me what you've got, Snake!"
Image
Image ~ Dev, 08/16/2016.

User avatar
Breakaway~totheweird
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Breakaway~totheweird » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:23 am

If you have nothing to seriously contribute to, please refrain from posting. Thanks.
Image

User avatar
Spoops
Posted to Death
Posted to Death
Posts: 2815
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 9:25 am
Location: Somewhere

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Spoops » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:28 am

Breakaway~totheweird wrote:If you have nothing to seriously contribute to, please refrain from posting.
Snake wrote:And this thread has nothing else to do with 'Regarding Romek' anymore.
It's getting rather off topic now, and Snake is pointing this out. this discussion needs to end some time.

User avatar
Breakaway~totheweird
Intermediate Poster
Intermediate Poster
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:43 pm

Re: Regarding Romek Pt. 2

Post by Breakaway~totheweird » Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:30 am

Eventually, yeah. I responded to Dev and Zaki. Pretty sure there's a few more people who want to say their piece. As long as we're being decent, no harm's done.
Image

Locked