"The real O.G."

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country


Profile Song

Caesar last won the day on April 20

Caesar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

503 Veteran

About Caesar

  • Birthday 04/24/92

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

  • Jamie

  • Benavides

  • Aristocrat

  • Blake

  • Nilin

  1. In my experience some people don't even try to hide their self interest, let alone overcome it. They strive to bask in it's glow and push others into serving it. It would be refreshing if not so destructive.

  2. “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” 
    ― Blaise Pascal

    “Subjectivity measures nothing consistently.” 
    ― Toba Beta

  3. I personally believe that if you as a text RPer find it difficult to keep up with a reasonable speed of conversation that is a problem that should have been considered before you decided down on this path. That is a very good reason why I never became a text RPer. I understand that text RPing has benefits. But adding more allowances for text RPers when it come down to their choice annoys me. I fully support your ability to text RP. But I suggest that in order to do it, you should be able to continue the flow of conversation without requiring special allowances.
  4. It sounds good, until you realize that is what got us here in the first place. Time for the west to focus on the west. Get our forces and military equipment out of these areas, hopefully the people in these countries can eventually stabilise them on their own. We are simply not helping. All we are doing is creating further instability and putting a target on our backs. Let the middle east fight their own wars. EDIT: In case it isn't obvious, these attacks are pure barbarism and I hope everyone involved in such brutal acts the most painful deaths possible. My condolences go out to all those affected.
  5. This wont happen....... The system is ambigious by design. Rolle is entirely happy with that fact and he passionately hates any form of consistency. As it stands I do not think Rolle can be convinced against this. I know I and others have made made plenty of arguments to this effect to no avail. I could be wrong but I do believe a a majority of admins are also ok with this barring a few examples, like adding distances. Don't quote on that last bit. I am not 100% sure. Removing subjectivity when the owner will fight against any form of consistency is an exercise in futility unless he excuses himself from the rule changes entirely. I don't see it happening. Examples of ambiguity I can think of. NLR and ghosting distances. Why metagaming is ok if you fuck it up. Why the person that baits gets 3 days while his hapless friends can get 7. Hell if you want to talk consistency which is related the staff cannot even present a unified look when presenting verdicts. You have admins and GM's free forming or using their own touch of flair. I've always believed consistency in both presentation and effect is a cornerstone of instilling faith in a system and it's outcomes. "It's not a defect, it's a feature."
  6. That's a little inconsistent with how we treat other matters such as combat log. I was surprised when I reentered staff that even 30 second or perhaps smaller was enough to punish someone. The problem with going for the subjective call of how bad something is where does it stop? Is 980m ok? 970m? 950m? 900m? If these distances are ok. Shouldn't they be the minimum? No, staff should pick a minimum and rule based off it. Anything less will lead to claims of bias and inconsistency. If you want to do something like this. Make a standard of x% under will be unpunished. But once again. If you do this than you may as well reduce ghe distance. The standard should be 1500m's. It's a good number that ensures no shenanigans are had. For people that respawn in the area they must leave through the most direct route out of the zone only.
  7. I have. Will SS next time.
  8. I would prefer 1500m's. That way even 1m over shouldn't cause any issues, it was the amount we had for ages and it worked very well indeed. While you're at it please change ghosting to the same area again. I suspect I know why this was changed in the first place. IIRC one of the admins added both and then Rolle saw a rule change he didn't like and reverted all the rules to their stock implementation. Wiping out the good with the "bad".
  9. @King, In reality I only find minor points of disagreement with you. Firstly I must still state that regardless of whether it is a conservative of progressive revolution my suggestion is neither. It is a relatively minor change of making a standard of where before such things were left up to subjectivity. As for your point about the UK economy, I accept that I have no power to really intervene in the Australian economy and as such don't really do much on that front myself. As for our shared interest in DayZRP, I am beginning to accept the fact that the powers that be do not like changing the system. It is what they are comfortable with and they believe that it is "working as intended". I suppose one of my points can be considered to be revolutionary, in that I believe the entire system needs a reworked from the ground up. But the actual specific proposals I have come up with have been more incremental. The only reason I believe the entire system needs to be reworked is because you can now find a report that supports any interpretation of the rules and the idea of consistency is very difficult to achieve with such moving goal posts. As for your suggestion, I am happy to say I have already done something similar. A week after leaving staff I sent a letter to the admins that outlined 6 areas where I felt that the staff team was faltering. I will not post these publicly as some of these contained very strong criticisms of current staff and would only served to drum up drama. @Kat, patronizing and condescending, ouch. This will be my last post as we are starting to go a little off topic. In regards to the OP's point. I state categorically that the OP's wishes about the situation should have no impact on the decision. Something is either a rule break, or it is not. The current lenience system strikes a good balance. It gives the person a chance to learn without points points but further rule breaks are punished. It's a much less subjective system that what the OP suggests.
  10. @King, I don't know where you got the idea that a by design mediocre system can be considered a success, maybe I just place higher demands upon the staff and the community. I understand that people disagree, what really royally pisses me off is the weak excuses that have been given to date. The most commonly stated one is that the system works. Well when you don't have anyway to measure the success or failure of a system you can state that anything is a success. Say we stop punishing people all together, how could I by the lack of objective standards given determine that to be a success or failure? The ideas I have suggested are hardly revolutionary, in fact they are by their nature traditionalist. The system was changed for the worst (IMO) some time after the admin exodus, I question why if we are so conservative by nature was it changed? For the system I am talking about I am merely suggesting we return to the system that served us so well for many years. You see the problem here? The same argument that applies for the current system applies just as much or more (by timescale) to my suggested. The only benefit this system has is that it is currently implemented. I also reject the argument that the community is resistant to change by it's nature. By all means it happens and frequently too, but there have been some rather great changes that the community has positively received. For example the increased use of cautions. Unfortunately that was in response to what I would call a crisis and it goes hand in hand with what I am stating. The only time you seemingly can hope to change or improve a system is when some serious or catastrophic happens or when the staff team is embarrassed by a faux pas. As for me personally, I have essentially given up on changing anything. It safe to say that my suggestions have been dismissed. For change to happen the staff has to want to implement it and that just won't happen. Even if the majority of the community agree with it. I do agree that the final decision is up to the admins, for me it is merely a happy coincidence that the majority of the community agrees with changing the systems I am passionate about. The truth is I see why people like Rampage, Thumper and others became so jaded. They were powerless to correct this ship's course and so started handing out some harsh criticisms and weren't too careful about sparing feelings. I don't feel my suggestion is a massive change, we already reserve the right to do things how I suggest. All I suggest is that we focus more on consistency and make it a standard. Rather than wait until someone thinks something is "bad enough". Just like I suggest for this particular situation, consistency is king. It is entirely unfortunate that Rolle still doesn't, after all this time, see the value is a fair and consistent system.
  11. I do. If you're on 27 points you did something to be on those 27 points (assuming they were handed out correctly). I guess it would be the straw the broke the camel's back.
  12. I don't like the flippant way you treat warning points. They are a part of a process that ultimately leads to people's removal. They should always be treated as a serious matter and all points should be handled in a consistent way. I believe that this attitude only serves to encourage people to treat warning points as a joke, encouraging them to push boundaries. Consistency, fairness and punishments that fit the crime are what is needed. Your answers imply that those principles are ignored. That being said, if you truly believe this way. Completely remove standard punishments at all. Let's see how well "case by case" really turns out. In one way it is a cop out as by such a definition the staff team can never be wrong. But on the other hand we all know that such subjectivity will lead to amusing outcomes when you have multiple differing levels of punishments depending on who you get. Or rather, to a worse degree than the OP already proposes. When I returned to staff I have to say I noticed where the system was failing, I tried to bring back a sense of standardisation despite objections. I believe your suggestion to be unacceptably inconsistent and illogical. Not only this I find that the desire to change or improve the system to be non existent. I have lost count of how many times all ranks of staff and the community have said a system is "fine" when presented with a better alternative. For me personally "fine" is not good enough. If a better system can be implemented it should. I also find the reasoning behind calling our current systems fine to be based on no objective facts and only on subjective reasoning. Likely because it is what people are "use to". It's a typical bureaucracy mixed in with sudden and unexpected autocratic tendencies. I suppose we can all be guilty of falling into our comfort zones. But I suggest that the admin team step up and take a good hard look at our systems and not use the "it works fine" cop out without serious evidence to back that up. I would also ask that they consider inherently better systems are they are suggested. I mean fuck, Hebi Kotei's simple change to how suggestions are treated would be a miles better system but that is essentially dead in the water.