Sharkith
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,798
Hi folks,
OK my biggest concern in reporting this thread is to make the replies by GOA clear for everyone, to avoid misquoting them and to help clear the air on what has happened.
I personally learned a lot here. My intention was never to help one side win over the other as some tried to accuse me of doing. It was to subject some of the key perceptions that where evident in the debates here to some productive scrutiny.
Producing a petition and then bringing it to GOAs attention makes a very clear statement. The petition has 250+ signatures. No matter if you are in support of GOA or on the other side with TT you simply have to acknowledge the significance of that statement. GOA have at all times taken the claims seriously and have been helpful and constructive. They are as keen as many of us are to clear this up. With this in mind I want to turn to the claims we made and to give you their response:
Claim 1 There is a minority of players who habitually engage in alarm clock raids and who are intent on griefing the whole server.
For understandable reasons GOA are concerned that things would be made worse if they had intervened in the other more recent threads. I tend to agree with them.
Claim 2 TT's actions were not against the spirit of the game (SoTG)?
Now this was slightly more tricky to deal with because for obvious reasons on first response GOA would not discuss individual players accounts.
So I had to return to this a few days ago and put it to them in a more general less divisive way:
I also pushed harder on the issue the petition addresses as follows:
OK so far so good. One idea that I had floated on the forums was the possibility of players entering into a voluntary charter in response to AC raids. To present it in its original context as I put it to GOA I have to recite some of the info I have already given you.
Fair point!
That is basically where it ends just to be clear I finished by saying the following:
I think the answers they gave are very clear. The last point is a very interesting one. I honestly had no idea we were operating in such a restricted view of the SoTG all this time. However I found it helpful to be able to explore it like this and I hope you find it helpful in clearing up any further misunderstandings about what can and cannot be done in the game. They are also clear on what has happened -
a) no way of finding out if it was consistent behaviour but they are concerned that an antisocial element are doing it.
b) their interpretation of the SoTG should now be much clearer.
Sharkith
OK my biggest concern in reporting this thread is to make the replies by GOA clear for everyone, to avoid misquoting them and to help clear the air on what has happened.
I personally learned a lot here. My intention was never to help one side win over the other as some tried to accuse me of doing. It was to subject some of the key perceptions that where evident in the debates here to some productive scrutiny.
Producing a petition and then bringing it to GOAs attention makes a very clear statement. The petition has 250+ signatures. No matter if you are in support of GOA or on the other side with TT you simply have to acknowledge the significance of that statement. GOA have at all times taken the claims seriously and have been helpful and constructive. They are as keen as many of us are to clear this up. With this in mind I want to turn to the claims we made and to give you their response:
Claim 1 There is a minority of players who habitually engage in alarm clock raids and who are intent on griefing the whole server.
GOA said:It is not possible to see over such a long period any such pattern. Without the benefit of an indepth investigation however, my subjective impression (based on my not very reliable memory) is that it is not the same individuals for each attempt. I believe the last two raids were done by some of (but not exactly) the same players but at least some of the earlier raids were from different guilds and individuals.
I'm sorry to sound so negative, but there is little possibility of an indepth investigation corroborating your claims. In any case we would first have to agree that such an act could be considered grief play and then establish that the intention of these players was to disrupt. As I have explained to you previously, making the call that taking enemy relics in a legitimate manner can be griefing is not one that we are comfortable in taking. Furthermore, establishing intent in incidents stretching back over such a long period is unrealistic.
I understand your concerns and I entirely see what you are driving at. The sticking point is simply this. The 'antisocial element' are playing the game in a legitimate manner. For us to come out and say that they are griefing opens up a very undesirable can of worms. I am aware that these raids are unpopular and that many players have strong opinions about them, however there is no evidence that it is part of a concerted campaign against other players nor is there any realistic way of collecting such proof. The sentiment on the forums is clear but I would suggest that the players who are part of the RvR community on Freddyshouse are not entirely representative of the server as a whole. Many players are unconcerned by concepts such as AC raids, and some players are actively for them. Much like any other contentious topic, our policy must be to stay clear of telling people how to play and must instead focus on upholding our Code of Conduct.
For understandable reasons GOA are concerned that things would be made worse if they had intervened in the other more recent threads. I tend to agree with them.
Claim 2 TT's actions were not against the spirit of the game (SoTG)?
Now this was slightly more tricky to deal with because for obvious reasons on first response GOA would not discuss individual players accounts.
GOA said:Thank you for your comments. We are not able to discuss the details of actions taken against other accounts. We remind you that in all cases, actively assisting an enemy realm at the expense of your own is always considered to be against the spirit of the game and as such can be punishable depending on the circumstances.
So I had to return to this a few days ago and put it to them in a more general less divisive way:
Sharkith said:Is it GOA's view that lowering a keep that contains a relic from 10 to 1 would be in contravention of the SoTG in 'all' cases?
For example, if a guild declared that a relic was obtained through dishonourable means and that as a result it was opposing such action as against its principles of honourable warfare. Would that be deemed as against the spirit of the game? To put the same thing more directly does GOA envisage that it might be possible to have a relic keep lowered to 1 and still be in keeping of the spirit of the game?
GOA said:Firstly I can't think of any situation where such an act wouldn't be against the spirit of the game. Obviously there are additional complications since the cluster with guilds that may be active on more than one realm to take into consideration. While that wasn't the case in this instance, it's a small part of why we felt that there should be a clear message from us regarding this situation.
I also pushed harder on the issue the petition addresses as follows:
Sharkith said:Finally. In the case of TT and Black Falcons you stated clearly in your post that it was the combination of 'intent' with the action that led you to interpret it as a breach of the SoTG. Given the additional information now available that has clearly identified the direct concerns of a significant proportion of the player base. Does GOA think that in this case they may well have risked backing up an antisocial element in the game at the expense of that group of players?
GOA said:Your other question is fairly simple to answer. We aren't stupid and we are aware of how the more vocal members of the community might take our decision. We do not however avoid taking decisions because they will be unpopular. Our concern is for the quality of the game and for the expectations of players that the rules and the spirit of the game will be upheld in all cases. Once we ad concluded our investigation we were in no doubt about how we should act, we were fully expecting it to be an unpopular decision but it was stillone we felt we had to take. We are not making any judgements on AC raiding and neither are we condoning or discouraging any playstyle. We simply made a call on the action taken by TT/BF and I made it as clear as possible that the AC issue was entirely irrelevant to that decision. Regardless of the motivations of TT/BF we would still have made the same call if for example they simply wanted to restore relic balance after a successful primetime raid.
OK so far so good. One idea that I had floated on the forums was the possibility of players entering into a voluntary charter in response to AC raids. To present it in its original context as I put it to GOA I have to recite some of the info I have already given you.
Sharkith said:For example, if a guild declared that a relic was obtained through dishonourable means and that as a result it was opposing such action as against its principles of honourable warfare. Would that be deemed as against the spirit of the game? To put the same thing more directly does GOA envisage that it might be possible to have a relic keep lowered to 1 and still be in keeping of the spirit of the game?
I am asking this because it might well be possible for the community to generate a voluntary (emphasis on voluntary) charter where guilds sign up to certain principles of honourable warfare. In this they could tell their realm that they either do or don’t condone dishonourable raids for relics and what actions their guild will take as a result of such raids. It is an entirely voluntary thing, made within the spirit of a ‘code of warfare’ negotiated by guilds and alliances amongst themselves. Not binding and it is up to the guilds and persons concerned what they do. Do you think this is possible within the SoTG?
GOA said:Your point about the voluntary charter is as unworkable as a voluntary charter about not adding or not doing late night raids. I am assuming that this charter would be published on Freddyshouse, but for those guilds or individuals who do not read the forums, it would be entirely moot. It places too much emphasis on playing the forums over playing the game.
Fair point!
Sharkith said:To clarify the idea behind a charter was simply a voluntary thing to communicate how clearly one's guild feels about any aspect of the game. Not being able to act out one's views of the game as one sees fit undermines the whole spirit of roleplay and actually restricts the game as a roleplaying game. It turns it into a realm versus realm version of counterstrike which is ironic because I originally stopped playing that game to get more from my time here.
You are however the authority on this and your message is very clear. I promise you I will be faithful to your replies. I for one now know the terms of reference I am playing under. I never knew they were so restricted.
GOA said:You suggest that the terms of reference are narrow but I would submit that they are not. Play your realm and if you can't bring yourself to support your side against the enemy then at the very least don't hinder them. That's pretty much it. I would suggest that a much better way of making a stand on this matter would be to log into an enemy realm and assist with a retake. That way you are playing the game in the way that it is intended, you aren't preventing your original realm from mounting a normal defence but you can still make your point and send the same message in a much more material way.
Sharkith said:Whatever you say your position is deeply inconsistent. On the one hand you claim you will not tell people how to play and on the other you have very clear views on how they should play. Telling me that I can express my views on honourable play by logging into Midgard is restrictive by the very fact I have to do that because I cannot make that statement as a Hibernian. Maybe I have pride in my realm and I do not wish to see it acting in a way that undermines its credibility according to that code. Your views clearly override my ability to express those views in a material fashion in the game and hence that is a deep contradiction.
GOA said:I disagree that my position is inconsistent. The game allows for many different play styles and we do not endorse or discourage any legitimate choices that players make with their playtime. We do however insist that players remain within the rules that we set. This is not limiting legitimate choice but delineating the framework that players are able to act within. In situations where the edges are blurry we hope that cases like this will help to define that grey area.
My suggestion in the last reply regarding logging into an enemy realm was mostly aimed at those Albion players who felt strongly about the AC issue, obviously as a Hibernian player you already have the option to pursue a resolution ingame.
I thank you for your constructive feedback
That is basically where it ends just to be clear I finished by saying the following:
Sharkith said:thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. It is very clear what you mean. We might still disagree on whether or not the parameters you provide are restricting but that is not critical to my original query and I would like to acknowldge that you have cleared this problem up.
I think the answers they gave are very clear. The last point is a very interesting one. I honestly had no idea we were operating in such a restricted view of the SoTG all this time. However I found it helpful to be able to explore it like this and I hope you find it helpful in clearing up any further misunderstandings about what can and cannot be done in the game. They are also clear on what has happened -
a) no way of finding out if it was consistent behaviour but they are concerned that an antisocial element are doing it.
b) their interpretation of the SoTG should now be much clearer.
Sharkith