Disparity, Exceptions, Differences

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

Following on from previous interactions: HERE

Abstract:

Q1: Is anything being done or altered to amend or remove 'Roleplay over rule play'? As it stands it seems to be based on whichever GMs/Admins are online.

It originally started as a guide or recommendation. Not a rule. Why is it being used incorrectly as a form of punishment? (See: http://www.dayzrp.com/t-ruleplaying-3-days)

Always prioritize role play over rule play.

There is nothing in there to strictly adhere to in their case and there is no evidence suggesting that they did not role play.

A1. The rule doesn't have to strictly adhere that something is forbidden and people will be banned for it to be punishable. The rules are guidelines. Not all situations are covered in there and they never will be. Players use these guidelines to know what is allowed or not allowed in game, along with their common sense and it usually works alright. The staff uses those guidelines to determine what is punishable and what it not, depending on the circumstances. We will also punish for things which are not present on the rule page at all if we determine that the actions were not fair play or in good role playing spirit. All these things are here to stop people from using the gray areas to their advantage. Things like having to role play instead of using rules to your advantage shouldn't even be mentioned, it should be self explanatory on a RP server.

Follow on: I can appreciate that is why there was a change in rules to remove grey areas by making more things possible or give the ability to punish something that is detrimental to the role play environment.

The criticism ultimately boils down to: "What is role play".

We have seen a number of reports recently where people start with one topic and gradually move on to mentioning "Role Play, over rule play" as some form of specific thing. It is vague and stated as a guide. It mentions no consequences, alternatives, methods.

It also appears to be highly subjective which follows on to my next point.

---

Q2: Is anything being done to remove the disparity between verdicts based on which GMs are discussing a particular case? I can appreciate differences based on scenarios and each being different, however a number of people deciding on verdicts (as we assume they do) are providing a consensus that goes well out of the norm.

It would be appreciated if someone could allay our concerns on this issue.

A2. Every verdict is signed by multiple staff members, if that group does an incorrect verdict you can always appeal it and get a different group to look at it. A big majority of these appeals are denied because the original verdict is found correct, which would indicate that these groups are rarely wrong. In the end you will have to trust staff that they will uphold the rules that they feel are fair and treat everyone equally. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, that some verdicts are biased or that different groups translate the rules differently?

/Rolle

Follow on: Of course we know how the appeal process works. However the fact of the matter is that if a committee of multiple staff members is unsure it appears to be an embarrassment which impacts their credibility. This has been noted and talked about a number of times but it is getting to the point now where it is becoming increasingly obvious (especially for the rule mentioned above) that people have no clue what is and isn't punishable without intervention.

In the case of the "Role play over rule play" situation, you really need to clarify this. Otherwise further embarrassments will continue.

---

(Q3): Why are verdicts being altered in a ban appeal when a committee (as mentioned above) has agreed to a punishment (even if it is incorrect)? Which could very well be based on one person's opinion.

There are a number of factors that are becoming increasingly worrisome.

Quick edit: Is it fair for me to respond to your follow ups here or should we do it elsewhere?

Create a thread, too bothersome here.

/Rolle

Follow on: As we can see here the verdict has been changed with what I can assume based on THIS with one person's opinion.

Link: http://www.dayzrp.com/t-ruleplaying-3-days?pid=625746#pid625746

Surely a report's result cannot be edited on the whim of one person regardless of it being in a ban appeal?

If that is not the case then it only shows the increasing disparity in what the staff thought of the original verdict. Alongside issuing the kill as legitimate and clearing the RDM.

In conclusion, there have been a number of discrepancies outlining some serious flaws which need to be worked on otherwise the credibility of staff is becoming increasingly doubtful.

[Valkerion 0]

Somehow i knew that report would cause trouble i didnt think it would go as far as to question staffs credibility though....

As well as getting multiple Rules clarified

Although i do question it sometimes personally myself....

dear me what have i started?

[Mikachu 37]

Somehow i knew that report would cause trouble i didnt think it would go as far as to question staffs credibility though....

As well as getting multiple Rules clarified

Although i do question it sometimes personally myself....

dear me what have i started?

Nah don't think of it like that

In my personal opinion challenging authority and questioning decisions is always healthy, it is the constant community feedback which makes this mod and site so special. The staff feedback thread and suggestiosn forum exist for a reason - we actually care what people think.

Questioning motives and 'credibility' is important if you honestly feel down about them, without trust and support the staff team are useless and this community will be as good as dead. The best way is for staff and the public to work together and find middle grounds and fix problems.

[Valkerion 0]

Somehow i knew that report would cause trouble i didnt think it would go as far as to question staffs credibility though....

As well as getting multiple Rules clarified

Although i do question it sometimes personally myself....

dear me what have i started?

Nah don't think of it like that

In my personal opinion challenging authority and questioning decisions is always healthy, it is the constant community feedback which makes this mod and site so special. The staff feedback thread and suggestiosn forum exist for a reason - we actually care what people think.

Questioning motives and 'credibility' is important if you honestly feel down about them, without trust and support the staff team are useless and this community will be as good as dead. The best way is for staff and the public to work together and find middle grounds and fix problems.

I agree with you

but sometimes it saves a lot of hassle to just keep quiet and walk along so to speak.

Honestly i could write a full piece on every single staff member in this community and what i really think about each and every one of them good and bad but i dont think it will really get anywhere plus in my head i can see my self writing something about some of the staff that they could easily take the wrong way and it would lead to my personal ban which is another reason i dont bother.

I dont want to trash on people for what i believe are pretty obvious wrong doings either and sometimes it perplexes me that they dont actually notice them themselves if they cant notice it themselves they will probably be equally as blind to my opinions and pointers.

I mean who am i to tell an Admin/Gamemaster or whoever how to do his/her Job?

Just how i feel about it personally.

[Roland 12160]

I don't see how uncertainty of staff members about certain situations can be equal to an embarrassment or even lower our credibility. Every situation is unique and for every single one we have to come up with an answer. Sometimes these answers are not easy to get because of the complicated nature of the report, it's only normal. We are not godly deities with answers to everything and the snap of a finger. Mistakes happen and that's why we have the possibility for ban appeals to be created, where these mistakes can be brought up.

Nykkes appeal you linked on was voted on and the majority decided the outcome, FYI I was on the opposing team to deny the appeal. The verdict was not changed at a whim of a single person, but rather after 8 hours of discussion in the admin chat and 3 rage quits (I hate you Papa). Yes, it shows disparity, disparity is good in my book. If everyone thought the same thing about report situations voting on them or having multiple staff members having to sign the verdicts would be pointless.

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

Disparity is good when part of a discussion. Caesar overruled the appeal originally, only to be criticized by you and reopened. It is clear that had happened. So again one must question why that happened in the first place and also why was it allowed to happen.

Secondly, the disparity is an issue when a verdict may vary from one day to the next on the same report, based on the specific staff members involved in finalizing the report. I am not talking about a bias. I am talking about the sheer confusion caused when people are unable to to clarify the extent or links to a rule. The easiest solution is to remove "Role play over rule play as a rule" and make it a recommendation as a form of guidance, or adapt it so that it isn't used incorrectly as was the case linked (only to be revoked and then replaced with RDM even though the staff viewed the kill as legit).

If everyone thought the same thing about report situations voting on them or having multiple staff members having to sign the verdicts would be pointless.

I agree to the full extent. It also begs the question why an appeal was finalized without being discussed but I digress. I am referring specifically to staff not knowing what the hell "role play over rule play" means. We can see it being unclear through the report, in other discussions and reports. It just shows that if the staff only know vaguely what it means, how the hell can a new-ish community member?

Hence, the credibility issues.

[Roland 12160]

Disparity is good when part of a discussion. Caesar overruled the appeal originally, only to be criticized by you and reopened. It is clear that had happened. So again one must question why that happened in the first place and also why was it allowed to happen.

Yes, it's pretty clear what happened. I as the owner have veto rights on pretty much everything done around here. I wasn't part of the original discussion and felt that the ban appeal was done incorrectly and wanted to discuss is more, so I blocked the verdict.

Secondly, the disparity is an issue when a verdict may vary from one day to the next on the same report, based on the specific staff members involved in finalizing the report. I am not talking about a bias. I am talking about the sheer confusion caused when people are unable to to clarify the extent or links to a rule. The easiest solution is to remove "Role play over rule play as a rule" and make it a recommendation as a form of guidance, or adapt it so that it isn't used incorrectly as was the case linked (only to be revoked and then replaced with RDM even though the staff viewed the kill as legit).

Well, that's a possibility in all complicated situations, especially when it's a first occurrence of such situation, it is unavoidable. It doesn't only apply to the ruleplay rule, the confusion about how a rule or multiple rules should be applied can happen with anything - NLR, KoS, RDM. The verdicts have always had this disparity since we're all different, but the main point always was to protect and promote proper role play and fair play. I don't see how removing one of the most important rules on the server will help in improving this. It may help to clarify it, but there's a limit on how much clarification is needed, we can't explain everything in smallest detail and give it out handed on a silver platter. I think people should think and reflect on their actions themselves and always question their actions if they are legit in a role play environment or not.

If everyone thought the same thing about report situations voting on them or having multiple staff members having to sign the verdicts would be pointless.

I agree to the full extent. It also begs the question why an appeal was finalized without being discussed but I digress. I am referring specifically to staff not knowing what the hell "role play over rule play" means. We can see it being unclear through the report, in other discussions and reports. It just shows that if the staff only know vaguely what it means, how the hell can a new-ish community member?

Hence, the credibility issues.

I think all staff members know what is means, the problem being with every person having a different view on to what extent it should be applied. Some think it's only for extreme cases where it is obvious that the person used the rules to get advantage over others and did not plan to RP at all. Others, like me, think that the rule should prevent from even smallest attempts at using the rules to one advantage and role play and fair play should always be first. I especially dislike the attitude where people have KoS rights on someone and have a possibility to RP it out but shoot instead because "the rules say I can". That for example is ruleplay for me and I realize it's controversial.

Quoted from a different thread in the staff forums:

We will never ever be able to write rules which cover everything and are perfect, thus we shouldn't follow them to the letter but use them as a guidelines for our users and when judging reports. Additionally server admins can deviate from these rules in any way they deem necessary and punish players if they consider the situation legit or not covered by the rules but is inappropriate. We shouldn't be prisoners of our own rules and be bound by them, as there will always be people who try to exploit that on the Internet. It's different in RL where they describe everything in smallest detail in the law book which is like 2000+ pages, we can't have that

[Ghost of Gijs 5]

Honestly i could write a full piece on every single staff member in this community and what i really think about each and every one of them good and bad but i dont think it will really get anywhere plus in my head i can see my self writing something about some of the staff that they could easily take the wrong way and it would lead to my personal ban which is another reason i dont bother.

This is off-topic, but I wanted to respond. You don't know half of it, Valkerion. You don't know how much staff members are begging you to write that feedback. They'd love you. Do you know how little actual feedback they get? Most of it is "ur active, keep it up" and it's fucking useless, no offence.

Occasionally someone comes along and writes down what he really feels, and while staff may not always agree they are glad it is written because at least they can do something with it.

There are people that will take offence but if they do so publicly they will be dealt with accordingly, because they have no right to take offence as long as the feedback wasn't offensive. "I think you're a dick" isn't feedback.

Actual feedback is extremely rare. Most of it is internal feedback. I've read internal feedback and I've written my own. It's blunt and honest and everyone prefers it over what goes in the public thread.

[Valkerion 0]

Honestly i could write a full piece on every single staff member in this community and what i really think about each and every one of them good and bad but i dont think it will really get anywhere plus in my head i can see my self writing something about some of the staff that they could easily take the wrong way and it would lead to my personal ban which is another reason i dont bother.

This is off-topic, but I wanted to respond. You don't know half of it, Valkerion. You don't know how much staff members are begging you to write that feedback. They'd love you. Do you know how little actual feedback they get? Most of it is "ur active, keep it up" and it's fucking useless, no offence.

Occasionally someone comes along and writes down what he really feels, and while staff may not always agree they are glad it is written because at least they can do something with it.

There are people that will take offence but if they do so publicly they will be dealt with accordingly, because they have no right to take offence as long as the feedback wasn't offensive. "I think you're a dick" isn't feedback.

Actual feedback is extremely rare. Most of it is internal feedback. I've read internal feedback and I've written my own. It's blunt and honest and everyone prefers it over what goes in the public thread.

well in that case if it is true what you say then iveill go through every single staff member st some point and write what I truly think about them probably within the next week or so

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

Yes, it's pretty clear what happened. I as the owner have veto rights on pretty much everything done around here. I wasn't part of the original discussion and felt that the ban appeal was done incorrectly and wanted to discuss is more, so I blocked the verdict.

You missed the key point, It is good you veto'ed it. That shows initiative and also promotes and shows that a single person answer should not be done.

Has that been changed? Is it still being done? Had you veto'ed a diplomatic vote for that appeal I would criticize you but in this case you did the right thing.

What I am concerned on, is that scenario and what it means for all the other ban appeals being done by a single point of view.

Well, that's a possibility in all complicated situations, especially when it's a first occurrence of such situation, it is unavoidable. It doesn't only apply to the ruleplay rule, the confusion about how a rule or multiple rules should be applied can happen with anything - NLR, KoS, RDM. The verdicts have always had this disparity since we're all different, but the main point always was to protect and promote proper role play and fair play. I don't see how removing one of the most important rules on the server will help in improving this. It may help to clarify it, but there's a limit on how much clarification is needed, we can't explain everything in smallest detail and give it out handed on a silver platter. I think people should think and reflect on their actions themselves and always question their actions if they are legit in a role play environment or not.

I agree that you are promoting role play at least that is the aim. Questioning one's next steps and reflecting on them to ensure you provide a good experience is key to the health of the server. Hence why "Role play over rule play" is an excellent GUIDE. A rule of thumb.

It should be:

If you are in doubt: "Role play over rule play"

That is guidance. In its current form the line in the rules tells them nothing different than what is in the section just above it. I am not saying remove that part from the rules. I am saying do not rely on that statement as it tells people nothing.

Use it as guidance and a phrase that they should keep in the forefront of their thoughts when playing.

Promote the idea that they need to question themselves:

"I can kill this guy. How can I add role play to that? Where can I do this? Why would I want to do this? Who should be involved? How can I make it enjoyable"

That should be the mental exercise. Not "I need to do an execution cus I have to otherwise I get punished for obeying the rules".

That is the difference.

I think all staff members know what is means, the problem being with every person having a different view on to what extent it should be applied. Some think it's only for extreme cases where it is obvious that the person used the rules to get advantage over others and did not plan to RP at all. Others, like me, think that the rule should prevent from even smallest attempts at using the rules to one advantage and role play and fair play should always be first. I especially dislike the attitude where people have KoS rights on someone and have a possibility to RP it out but shoot instead because "the rules say I can". That for example is ruleplay for me and I realize it's controversial.

Quoted from a different thread in the staff forums:

We will never ever be able to write rules which cover everything and are perfect, thus we shouldn't follow them to the letter but use them as a guidelines for our users and when judging reports. Additionally server admins can deviate from these rules in any way they deem necessary and punish players if they consider the situation legit or not covered by the rules but is inappropriate. We shouldn't be prisoners of our own rules and be bound by them, as there will always be people who try to exploit that on the Internet. It's different in RL where they describe everything in smallest detail in the law book which is like 2000+ pages, we can't have that

The thing is, they had KoS rights and did role play, there is nothing saying otherwise and no evidence points to either side. It seems like the verdict was slapped together by people who poorly understand the "rule" or did not clarify what they meant. Except, now Caesar has said that it is in fact RDM (even after a number say differently), I imagine to try and save-face as that was the only thing that had some potential evidence to back it up (lets face it that accidental car deaths happen and are known to happen), even if the staff overlooked this also.

I can agree that straight out killing someone is not the best way to do it but then you have a serious problem with the way KoS rules work.

If I have the right to kill someone I should have the rules to protect me. Say I had been robbed and could identify the culprit without a shadow of a doubt. I retrieve a new weapon somehow and I kill him at range. Are you saying that I am liable to be punished for not potentially role playing it out?

If that is the case then we should remove the revenge timer and KoS rights entirely.

I empathize with your aims but in fact they do no nothing more than cause confusion and reinforce disparity. Punish those that are worthy of being punished. Protect those that follow the rules. Encourage role play but do not push role play above rule play, while encouraging them to keep standards high. Both have their place in certain scenarios. Ban those that push boundaries. Not the ones that were following the rules and doing everything expected of them but not to a section of staff that do not know the meaning of the 'rule'.

[Caesar 434]

The appeal was not originally handled by myself solely. But by the admins who later were on the side of the majority vote. I do not handle appeals by myself and never have unless it cannot be avoided. Rolle even stated that a vote was had and you can probably assume we didn't vote without a discussion. Please fully read the replies you are given and use these to further your points. Otherwise we will not get anywhere in this discussion.

You state that you want Role play over rule play to be nothing more than a guide. A guide would be fantastic if everyone adhered to it without needing to be prodded, but we do not exist in such beautiful bliss. People do tend to find those grey areas, whether or purpose or by accident. When they go too far they need to be pulled back a bit. I also think how the situation was handled was appropriate, Nykke was later "vindicated" even if what he did was truly poor form.

Your tend to exaggerate your points SumoS. Firstly you accuse us of slapping rulings together when we spend as much time as is needed to come to a conclusion, I would have thought you would have remembered this. If anything the standards of judgements have only become more stringent since you were in staff.

Your claims are almost insulting, so rather then myself and the others who reviewed the case making a ruling from the facts that we had that seemed to fit the evidence we were in fact covering up for negligence? You should know me better SumoS. If a mistake was made I would be the first to lead the charge to fix it. After all we are only human and if people cannot understand that mistakes are made then they should try to hold themselves to the same standard.

Your example is nothing like the situation and fails to include many of the relevant details necessary to make an appropriate comparison.

Your last post was full of wild accusations, I had hoped for better.

[Papa Emeritus II 16]

8 hours of discussion in the admin chat and 3 rage quits (I hate you Papa).

I was 2 out of 3 rage quits.

I hate you more then you hate me.

<3

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

The appeal was not originally handled by myself solely. But by the admins who later were on the side of the majority vote. I do not handle appeals by myself and never have unless it cannot be avoided. Rolle even stated that a vote was had and you can probably assume we didn't vote without a discussion. Please fully read the replies you are given and use these to further your points. Otherwise we will not get anywhere in this discussion.

Rolle's phrase indicates that 'you' did grant the appeal here. Had it been a democratic vote among the admins already then I doubt Rolle would have acted as he did. While I agree with the original verdict by yourself and the eventual verdict by Papa, one has to question how it went about and what can be improved. Either by you communicating or making it more transparent.

I suggest you continue to respond more to my points rather than attempting to use futile posts which explain nothing and everything (if you get what I mean).

Furthermore, you also indicate that you did complete ban appeals when it was necessary on your own. You did do it in the past so it isn't difficult to surmise that this happened again when you returned. Perhaps you were out of the loop a while and were not aware of changes? If so, then no big deal.

You state that you want Role play over rule play to be nothing more than a guide. A guide would be fantastic if everyone adhered to it without needing to be prodded, but we do not exist in such beautiful bliss. People do tend to find those grey areas, whether or purpose or by accident. When they go too far they need to be pulled back a bit. I also think how the situation was handled was appropriate, Nykke was later "vindicated" even if what he did was truly poor form.

It would not be a guide if you intended it to be that. Close the doors in the rules without using 'role play over rule play' as a specific rule as that seems to undermine many of the other rules and what they mean. What happens is people get punished for sticking to the rules AS THEY ARE STATED. If what you are saying is the case then the rules need to be adapted to reflect it.

I understand why the rules were redrafted to be less clear cut. However, there comes a point where people really do question the reach and scope of it. Do not forget the fact that levels of role play are subjective which makes the rule more-so a pointless exercise.

Your tend to exaggerate your points SumoS. Firstly you accuse us of slapping rulings together when we spend as much time as is needed to come to a conclusion, I would have thought you would have remembered this. If anything the standards of judgements have only become more stringent since you were in staff.

Me?! No! Never!

Seriously though I know full well the system as it was. We had more critical staff back in the day from a much broader scope of personalities and we did work however long it would take to base a conclusion. However, we did not make these mistakes this generation did. I can see your statement for what it is. Nothing relevant to this discussion. Wishful thinking on your part.

As you said:

we do not exist in such beautiful bliss

Perhaps you should be more self critical.

Your claims are almost insulting, so rather then myself and the others who reviewed the case making a ruling from the facts that we had that seemed to fit the evidence we were in fact covering up for negligence? You should know me better SumoS. If a mistake was made I would be the first to lead the charge to fix it. After all we are only human and if people cannot understand that mistakes are made then they should try to hold themselves to the same standard.

Your example is nothing like the situation and fails to include many of the relevant details necessary to make an appropriate comparison.

Your last post was full of wild accusations, I had hoped for better.

Bah I fell short of my goal!! You know me where I do not beat around the bush. I call things as I see it. I state them in an open way so that you can take what you want away from this discussion.

Also:

Your example is nothing like the situation and fails to include many of the relevant details necessary to make an appropriate comparison.

Sources? Details? Share them and bring them to light.

Wild accusations? Call it that if you wish. If you wish to remain close minded then surely that will affect the community in a number of different ways.

There are a number of truths in there that really do need to be worked on and reviewed by the staff team. it is clear as day that there are doubts where there was none. As a long standing member with a lot at stake I compel you guys to at least examine the failings and take action to improve and make it more transparent so that any issues of trust can be turned around.

Overall, from your input so far: There has been no answer to any of the concerns.

P.s. It's good to have you back with your tenacity and sense of morals. Honestly they are better off having you back at least so that you can question them and promote discussion.

In other news:

Un-appeal-able Ban Verdicts:

Link

Is this even moral? Is this allowed? By doing this, they have set a precedent to punish people without the ability to appeal the verdict.

This also begs the question that the discussion about "role play over rule play" and how it has a big question mark over its head. Get it sorted or remove it as it currently used.

Another questionable concern:

Ninja edits AFTER a report is active to punish people. I can appreciate that the rules would be amended after the report but changing them to dramatically change the outcome of a report is extremely unethical. Plus the fact that without the chance to appeal there will be no further discussion on the verdict and what is required of it.

Things need to change, especially in regards to "Role play over rule play".

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

Wrong section. Can this be moved to a more relevant section please...

[Guest Biiddy]

Moving to DayZRP mod suggestions.

[Caesar 434]

Rolle's phrase indicates that 'you' did grant the appeal here. Had it been a democratic vote among the admins already then I doubt Rolle would have acted as he did. While I agree with the original verdict by yourself and the eventual verdict by Papa, one has to question how it went about and what can be improved. Either by you communicating or making it more transparent.

Read carefully:

Oh no you didn't.

Being discussed again in the admin team.

It was discussed, chose to not believe me if you wish. We cannot both be right and since I was actually there I think I will stick with the information I have from actually being there. But I suppose you know best SumoS ...

I suggest you continue to respond more to my points rather than attempting to use futile posts which explain nothing and everything (if you get what I mean).

Not at all, I was correcting an assertion of yours.

Furthermore, you also indicate that you did complete ban appeals when it was necessary on your own. You did do it in the past so it isn't difficult to surmise that this happened again when you returned. Perhaps you were out of the loop a while and were not aware of changes? If so, then no big deal.

Assume this if you wish, but in my day when kids were never on your lawn and had respect for things we still had multiple GM's or admins agreeing on verdicts. Including this particular one.

Me?! No! Never!

Seriously though I know full well the system as it was. We had more critical staff back in the day from a much broader scope of personalities and we did work however long it would take to base a conclusion. However, we did not make these mistakes this generation did. I can see your statement for what it is. Nothing relevant to this discussion. Wishful thinking on your part.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I remember exactly how it was when you were in staff. It certainly wasn't bad but it wasn't better as you state.

Perhaps you should be more self critical.

But seriously, if I was anymore self critical/reflective I would be crippled by inaction. But again I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here.

All these petty disagreements aside, I agree with you in many ways. I do agree that the way the rule is written is perhaps not the best. I also agree on the point about unappealable verdicts. I do not agree with the assumptions you have made throughout your posts both about my actions and the situation in general which I why I dissented so much in my first post.

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

But seriously, if I was anymore self critical/reflective I would be crippled by inaction. But again I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here.

All these petty disagreements aside, I agree with you in many ways. I do agree that the way the rule is written is perhaps not the best. I also agree on the point about unappealable verdicts. I do not agree with the assumptions you have made throughout your posts both about my actions and the situation in general which I why I dissented so much in my first post.

You have my respect and are the one I would say would be the most forward thinking, critical and constructive administrator (based on your past history and as the resurrected badmin).

In regards to the appeal. If it was discussed why did Rolle take it back to 're-discuss'? Surely if it was a diplomatic answer among the admin team he would already be made aware of it and not reacted as he did? If that is not the case why did he react the way he did in such a fashion?

Again, more questions arise with the alternative. I guess that does explain the verdict where their rights to appeal were revoked? We know he was against it by a vote and already vetoed it once.

I can see why you would dissent as it is a difficult subject. These 'assumptions' are all logical leaps from each of the discussions that have been happening recently. Since you came back the issues have cropped up on this recurring topic.

I am not saying you are the cause of these issues but your presence highlights them by your disagreements and discussions with the team, which is beneficial. You being there is a good thing and I can see how what I wrote can be negative but what can be seen clearly is that there have been some decisions that can affect the staff's reputation. I hope that this discussion promotes some thought into the future and simple ways to promote transparency which is sorely lacking at this moment in time.

All that remain are questions which should be answered. Easiest way to allay concerns.

[Proxzor 3]

I don't see how uncertainty of staff members about certain situations can be equal to an embarrassment or even lower our credibility. Every situation is unique and for every single one we have to come up with an answer. Sometimes these answers are not easy to get because of the complicated nature of the report, it's only normal. We are not godly deities with answers to everything and the snap of a finger. Mistakes happen and that's why we have the possibility for ban appeals to be created, where these mistakes can be brought up.

Nykkes appeal you linked on was voted on and the majority decided the outcome, FYI I was on the opposing team to deny the appeal. The verdict was not changed at a whim of a single person, but rather after 8 hours of discussion in the admin chat and 3 rage quits (I hate you Papa). Yes, it shows disparity, disparity is good in my book. If everyone thought the same thing about report situations voting on them or having multiple staff members having to sign the verdicts would be pointless.

I think the main reason with the Ruleplay of Roleplay issue that each particular player including staff members views this problem different. Even since I was staff I saw multiple GameMasters and even Admins viewing rules different and I think this has always been a major problem inside the staff. Person A might have acted different than Person B, and the same has always occurred between staff itself.

I can understand why people and staff all view this problem in their own way. After all, each human being is unique and we all have our own opinions and thoughts. The problem in my eyes that has always made this a big problem is that the rules have a lot of flaws. Sure there are a lot of open things in the rules to leave a bit of common sense in there, but I think this is the main reason why some people like Sumos view it as an embarassement or question the 'authority' because there is this confusion inside staff as well.

I recall an event inside staff, where I asked three different admins about a thing, and got three different answers. When I brought this forward to you, it developed into a serious conversation about said rule and why there was a confusion inside staff about this particular thing. I think that the definition of 'Ruleplay' is really wide, there a thousand possible things that can be considered Ruleplay and thus there will also be some sort of a ocnfusion inside staff and the community.

Reports are done in a form of common sense, the staff reads the report, reads every single post thoroughly and will imagine their own little story of what happened and will act according on that. Like I said, it is inevitable that people will act different according to their own 'view' of it. I've been staff, I know how difficult it sometimes may be to make the right decision in a report, I myself have made mistakes in reports, and have seen mistakes made in a report. The staff is human, but besides that you can change this. Even though Ruleplay is a really wide term, you can help the staff and the community to clarify this in a better way. Perhaps a thousand words are required to define and describe the term Ruleplay, and I know it might be a hassle and a lot of work. But atleast you have some ground to stand on, if its set on paper, than atleast the staff shouldnt atleast have a different verdict/opinion with reports.

As regarding to the problem of people being punished even though they admit their mistakes etc. I think that is quite weird, I remember when we did reports we always gave lower punishments if the accused person indeed saw that he made a mistake and it actually was a honest mistake. Mistakes happen, we're all human and we are all assholes on the internet.

[Ghost of SumoS 3]

[align=justify]You see, you can't just throw such a 'bomb': "ABOOSE" and leave without explaining yourself correctly. It's simply not fair, you're pointing a false finger towards Thumper. I find you attitude wrong. I will bother, I want to see this through. First of all I would recommend a conversation on Team-Speak. Furthermore, cut that disrespecting attitude, no one owes you anything. You don't want to play here? Fine, so be it. No one is 'abusing' or breaking the rules. I'm 'bothering' because I find your 'abuse' remarks insulting, no one should be treated like that. Thumper did all he can to warn you enough times, you chose to ignore.

Okay you're not getting the message, apologies.

I'm not pissed with Thumper or any of the admins. I'm just disappointed. I gave my reasons in my first post. Let's all get along forget about this nonsense and get back in game again, but please have some courtesy to ignore the rules and play beyond them for the sake of Roleplay.

http://www.dayzrp.com/t-rp2-kos-tp-19-42-04-05-2014?pid=646521#pid646521

Another example how "Roleplay over ruleplay" is not functioning as intended.

Here you can clearly see a situation where the rules were followed to the letter which ends in bad RP. In its current form all it does is mean that a person can be equally punished for both with no leeway towards decent roleplay.

Remove "Roleplay over ruleplay" as a rule or alter it.