Jump to content
Server time: 2018-12-16, 09:16




  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Caesar

  1. Caesar

    December 2017 Staff QnA follow up

    @Jamie, you should check out Para's profile. There was much more scope for agreement than we realised. I agree significantly with your second paragraph. I don't believe you can be 100% consistent. I didn't actually address the creation of the rules directly but more their interpretation. My position can be summed up as follows. Cases with similar facts should be treated the same. If there is divergence that requires a different judgement it should be argued well enough that any reasonable critic can see the reasoning. Be as consistent as possible. But we all understand that over times interpretations can change. As long as they are not changing so frequently or drastically that you unfairly punish those who could not have known. My point was that if you start with the idea that you can do something it unfortunately occurs that people fail to think if they should. I did notice some of that attitude when I rejoined staff briefly. Para's comment seemed to indicate that it had resurfaced. I don't speak about any particular case. I don't intend to reply further as if I haven't made myself clear yet. I probably won't. Oh and you've got that razor sharp edge. o7.
  2. Caesar

    December 2017 Staff QnA follow up

    This answer saddens me greatly. Nothing against Para personally but it is an attitude that needs to be eliminated with extreme prejudice. I understand that you can never be 100% consistent. But you should always strive to that goal. In law they have things called precedents, and while a court can distinguish (basically ignore) a case it is generally only done if a significant legal oversight has been made. There should be a doctrine of equal under the law. If a distinction has to be made it should be explained to a level that would satisfy any reasonable critic. It should be a basic intellectual exercise of the staff to start with the standard and to rigorously challenge the standard with the facts of the case to determine if extenuating circumstances must be taken into account. Only if that can in fact be justified should the punishment or outcome be changed. You should never start from the viewpoint that just because you can, you should. I know much of this comes from Rolle. While he is the "captain" of this boat I would have hoped that the admins would challenge this idea. Rolle has a tendency of making captains calls. While technically his right he does have a tendency to work against his communities best interest in his haste. He will see something he doesn't like and rather than sit back and think it through he will lead from a place of emotion, over logic. Not that I am speaking of any particular case, because honestly I haven't been paying attention. My 2c.
  3. Caesar

    Return of SVR?

    Honestly, the group would need changes. The server was different back then. But I would support it. Although hardly an unbiased observer. It might even make me come back (maybe a 10% chance) if some of our old adversaries came back to make it a challenge in the ever evolving war for dominance.
  4. Caesar

    Anti - telepathic communication rule

    I always said that this was bullshit. If a certain group of people hadn't of changed the definition of surrender and used the plain English definition it would never have been such a big issue (as was originally intended). I distinctly remember when I first saw this in a report I was totally outraged by it, but everyone else saw it as ok. It's a stupid thing to allow. Better late than never I guess. I still maintain that changed for the worse. Sure the original definition may not have been perfect, but in those circumstances it was a significant improvement. As soon as you "surrender", just stop talking. This doesn't mean wait until your radio is taken. There are other good suggestions in this thread, including in all hostile situations forcing a double mic. I am not saying the original intention was the best solution or the only one. More stating that the change in definition was poorly thought out as it went backwards. I get the annoyance here, but I also get the counterpoint. From my experience of group dynamics not everything stated is IC while playing the game. So much of this game can be done on autopilot that you don't even have to talk too much about it apart from some basics or when something interesting actually happens.
  5. Caesar

    TS and Voip - make it more fair?.

    It has the same problem as things like ACRE. It's inherently less fun. Let me explain, people when playing during lulls will not always talk about in game stuff. In my experience there is a great deal of "shit talk" going on with people just having fun. If people had to broadcast this as well they could easily get hit with Bad RP. Is it ideal that people use radio when they can RP in game? No. but it also happens for a reason. This reason is not always malicious or attempting to seek an advantage.
  6. Caesar


    You're right. But the problem in adittion to the actual source is fundamentalism. If you are a fundamentalist christian you are just as able to commit heinous acts. Luckily the western world went through a reformation that the other parts have not. We can only hope other parts of the world follow suit with rapid progress. In my view it's all wrong. But if you believe it without harming anyone. So be it.
  7. Caesar

    New Lore = Re-Whitelist?

    As other's have said. A notice would suffice. Also as suggested change the PW to force people to check the PW and hopefully lore. Seems reasonable. Easily possible. Trust me on that one. You could easily do it.
  8. Caesar

    Text RP Breakers

    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.
  9. Caesar


    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.
  10. Caesar

    Rule changes to reduce subjectivity

    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."
  11. Caesar

    NLR Clarification needed

    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.
  12. Caesar

    [GAME] What would you use to kill the person above you?

    Irony. Just irony.
  13. Caesar

    Ads on mobile

    I have. Will SS next time.
  14. Caesar

    NLR Clarification needed

    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".
  15. Caesar

    Points vs Warnings

    @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.
  16. Caesar

    Points vs Warnings

    @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.
  17. Caesar

    Points vs Warnings

    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.
  18. Caesar

    Points vs Warnings

    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.
  19. Caesar

    Points vs Warnings

    I don't agree on the leniency part. I once again think that in order to achieve the same effect the rules should be enforced, but the rules should be modified to be more lenient by their nature. I also agree that there is a clear and overwhelming difficulty in convincing the powers that be to change things because they use the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." . I do find that attitude highly distressing as firstly it's a subjective analysis and secondly it doesn't encourage us to improve anything. It encourages the server to remain "good enough", the definition of mediocrity. Changes should be made when there is a better system, these ideas should not be quashed because of a "good enough" mindset. I hate to say it but that mindset is clearly dominating the admin team right now. In fact it seems clear that to get change actually happening it has to be in reaction to a crisis or other serious failing, there is very little I have seen that indicates to me a more proactive attitude to improving things. All in all, incredibly reactive. I am not talking about every staff member here, but it seems this has become a majority opinion.
  20. Caesar

    Points vs Warnings

    Rule breaks are rule breaks. The staff should focus on consistency above all else. Consistency is what instills faith in a system. The current system is lenient enough. If anything its not leniency that is the problem. It's the rules. The rules encourage an atmosohere of #nofunallowed. Although these rules were not made in a vacuum. It is akways a few toxic individuals that ruin it for the rest.
  21. Caesar

    Draft pages

    Not even sure why staff would need to see it. As far as I am concerned if it ain't visible it ain't under staff's purview. I sincerely doubt that would even be an option regardless. Probably either we can or can't, no option either way if this is possible at all. I have a conundrum. I want option 2, but I want option 4 as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  22. Caesar

    Firefight KOS

    Your poll options are confusing as fuck to me. Considering there is debate about what is standard you should perhaps clarify this. When I say debate, are we talking about the apparent new standard of punishing regardless? You ask should FF KoS be changed, to what? You list the situations where they would be changed but there is no clear indication as to what? 1 & 3 seem to be the same, seeing as historically people were either cautioned or not guilty in cases where someone displayed actual NVFL. Can you please clarify both the poll options and the OP? My opinion is that it's still a rule break, but enough has happened to justify a caution if someone knowingly puts themselves in a situation to get shot at and had a better alternative at the time (E.G. were not already stuck in a bad place). Am I right in assuming you mean the following. 1. FF KoS should not be punished when the other side commits NVFL or other similar rule breaks. (Not guilty). 2. FF KoS should not be punished at all. 3. FF KoS should be reduced to caution like normal when NVFL is involved. Where is the option for people who believe that FF KoS should always be punished, regardless? This poll is problematic.
  23. Caesar

    Firefight KOS changed?

    I....... agree. Either a caution or even a flat not guilty would have been more appropriate. Although I am far too lazy to read the actual report so am relying on Dusty's rendition of the situation. Sometimes a real life law applies here, it's called contributory negligence. If you contributed in any way to the situation the punishment for the other party should be reduced an appropriate amount. I know we have disagreed on other cases which you would state as similar, unless there are other facts that are not shared on your post I don't think that's correct. EDIT: Based off Jade's reply I can see where she is coming from. It has a logical basis to it, I don't particularly agree. Although I entirely believe that using "precedent" at this time is a joke as so many precedents are based either off not understanding the rules or a complete bastardisation of a process. I would scrap precedent all together and remake the protocols from the ground up. Maybe use flow charts, I seem to like them atm.
  24. Caesar

    Nibba VS nibba

    Does that deem them as unprofessional? Not by itself, but the act itself is in fact unprofessional. Being able to joke amongst colleagues is totally different to what I am suggesting, you know me Mexi. Did I ever refuse to joke around with you or anyone else in a majority of situations? No. I don't even suggest that staff members shouldn't joke in public. I agree that strict professionalism may be asking too much. I just take issue with staff members using the word as a substitute for a banned word. Even if it weren't banned I would state it's use in in bad taste. You can have fun, but you should try to find that line in conducting yourself. I myself would say the line is a little more reined in than you would seem to agree. I laugh every time someone uses the word "business" as an argument. Even before the tax fiasco when everyone still considered this a community, I suggested and was personally trained in being professional. If you think what I am suggesting is too difficult you should talk to my good man Rel one day. He would bury you in points to bring your behavior more into line with his expectations, I should know. That is where I will disagree entirely, staff should be held to a higher standard. I am entirely comfortable with staff being the example for how everyone should act.
  25. Caesar

    Nibba VS nibba

    While I do maintain that the words use in most circumstances on this website are childish and unneeded from my PoV I do also understand the unfortunate cultural relevancy. I understand that it has integrated itself into people's vocabulary. In fact I clearly stated previously that I would even let people use the word "nibba". I don't think it is the word itself that is the problem from a moderator PoV, rather the intent. Use between friends on a status update is one thing. I do say that it is childish but I also accept that we are a gaming community and childishness goes with the territory. You are correct, I have absolutely no idea what that refers to. Ah well. Nibba is indeed more than a little more obvious, it's almost as if two letters were changed from a word that has obvious meaning and connotations. I have not yet seen a single person recommending points. In fact the OP agreed that the problem came less from an issue with the term but a double standard that is allowed. I would personally open up both and point based upon malice, not the word individually. Maybe I missed the person stating he would punish each and every case. I personally just find it distasteful that staff would engage in it. I have always felt that staff should hold themselves to significantly higher standards. Unless malicious, I would never point or ban somebody for it's use though.