cRPG

cRPG => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wrangham on July 16, 2013, 01:28:12 am

Title: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 16, 2013, 01:28:12 am
EDIT: ADMIN RESPONSES

Listed below are the consolidated responses from admins concerning the scope of their authority and their understanding of the official server rules. I have edited the formatting of a few responses for clarity's sake. Please use this thread to consolidate the various (and conflicting) positions of admins on their interpretation of server rules and/or the apparently complete lack of oversight.

Canary: No oversight ensuring admin competence. Bro-coding is not against the rules. "The only (NA) admins who have assuredly been directed to the rules" are new.
(click to show/hide)

Shadowren: No oversight ensuring admin competence. Bro-coding is against the rules.
(click to show/hide)

IG_Saint: No oversight ensuring admin competence. Bro-coding is not against the rules. Do not "expect a lot of profesionalism [sic] from a bunch of unpaid admins in a mod."
(click to show/hide)

Granpappy: (Ignored question about oversight.) Bro-coding is not against the rules. Necessary to provide screenshots to adequately describe bro-coding.
(click to show/hide)

Kelugarn: Bro-coding is not against the rules.  "Making a thread bitching and moaning about how someone didn't take the game seriously enough is not going to get you anywhere."
(click to show/hide)

Muki: Bro-coding is against the rules.
(click to show/hide)

==================
Original Post below
==================

Yesterday, Kolee and Khmer purposefully threw a match on NA1 so their friend could win. The only admin on at the time, Granpappy, did nothing about it. Moments later, I described to Granpappy what happened as precisely as I could. Granpappy told me that the scenario I described was not against the rules, both in-game and again in a forum thread on the issue: "I'll let another Admin lock the thread for you Wrang"

Question 1: What measures are taken to ensure admins actually understand the rules?

http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/rules-and-guidelines-(please-read-this-before-posting)/

Admin Kelugarn on the issue: "Forcing duels in NA_1 and NA_2 is against the rules, and instances of bro-coding which negatively affect your team are also against the rules. . . This is game is about team play, intentionally hurting the performance of your team is no different from team killing and team wounding."

Why does Granpappy not understand that this kind of bro-coding is against the rules? Why do members of the community need to create threads to remind some admins that the rules exist?  Will Kelugarn be forced to admin the admins in perpetuity? More on Kelugarn to come!

=======================================

Frustrated by the only online admin refusing to take action on an obvious violation, I created the following thread in the ban request forum.

http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/kolee-and-angkorwat_of_chaos/

Question 2: Why was no action taken against Ragnar_Ulfson who "didn't see what happened either" yet continued to post no less than nine separate times in my thread?

How can admins expect the playerbase to take ban requests seriously when the majority of responses are irrelevant mudslinging? Admins selectively enforce rules, personally flaunt them, and do a disservice to the entire community-driven ban request section.

===============================

After I told Granpappy about Kolee and Khmer throwing the match, he did not take any action. He offered an excuse - "dueling is not against the rules." Except: dueling IS against the rules, except in limited situations where players consent to it. I have been playing cRPG for a while. I am a generally articulate and responsible player. I have never been the subject of any admin warn/ban/kick/mute/etc. And yet when I identify a problem to an admin, instead of being taken seriously I am treated with the most dismissive possible attitude. Granpappy even came to my ban request thread and added his own insipid commentary: "I'll let another Admin lock the thread for you Wrang"

What is the end result of all this? Kelugarn says "intentionally hurting the performance of your team is no different from team killing and team wounding," and then locks the thread, preventing any other players from contributing relevant commentary. Kolee and Khmer get off with a warning. Here are Kelugarn's three most recent admin actions for team killing and team wounding, you know, those actions that are no different than throwing a match:

Kelugarn gives a warning (bro-code throwing a match)
http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/kolee-and-angkorwat_of_chaos/

Kelugarn gives a 2h ban (teamwounding)
http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/ban-request-try_cikel/msg823421/#msg823421

Kelugarn gives a 16h ban (teamwounding)
http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/good-ol'-prayamantus/msg823901/#msg823901

Kelugarn bans and then unbans 2 players who are new to the community. Their first infraction ever.
http://forum.meleegaming.com/na-(official)/unban-faldemir/msg819730/#msg819730

Question 3: if bro-coding your team to defeat is the same as teamwounding why isn't the punishment?

Kolee and Khmer have been around a while. What is their prior ban/warn record? Why are they treated much more leniently than two new players? I guess the only positive thing to take away from this all is the admins don't expect veterans like Kolee and Khmer to understand the rules, probably because the admins don't either.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Gmnotutoo on July 16, 2013, 02:20:51 am
People like me who don't kill peasants should be banned too because I'm "hurting" the performance of my team.

Or when I RP my Jedi character and peacefully walk around the map until someone attacks me first.

Ban anyone having fun. The OP demands it.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Miwiw on July 16, 2013, 02:26:40 am
People like me who don't kill peasants should be banned too because I'm "hurting" the performance of my team.

Oh, you do it too? I sometimes just simply walk by a peasant. Why would I kill him when he's not able to kill anyone at all. Of course it could be a fake peasant though with 8-10 PS. :P

Anyway, can't say much to OP. This stuff sometimes happens. I usually directly attack anyone when facing him, especially clan members.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Shadowren on July 16, 2013, 02:32:28 am

Question 1: What measures are taken to ensure admins actually understand the rules?

Question 2: Why was no action taken against Ragnar_Ulfson who "didn't see what happened either" yet continued to post no less than nine separate times in my thread?

Question 3: if bro-coding your team to defeat is the same as team wounding why isn't the punishment?

Q1- Read rules, ask other admins if unsure and learn as you go  :D

Q2- Idk i don't play every day to be caught up in all the drama. (ask another admin)

Q3- Bro-Coding is against the rules. Easy warn/kick/ban

Don't forget to have fun tho and remember that its just a game!  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Smoothrich on July 16, 2013, 02:52:47 am
Granpappy has always been a moron with no understanding of the rules, and has even been caught rejoining servers for multiple lives, and when called out on it said he'd start banning cav who spawnkill because in his opinion, THAT is against the rules.

Don't expect anything but nonsense from that guy.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Rumblood on July 16, 2013, 04:03:28 am
Yesterday, Kolee and Khmer purposefully threw a match on NA1 so their friend could win.

Well that is one opinion of what happened. Kolee and Khmer may have their own opinion.

I asked you specifically, "Were they forcing duels?". Your answer: "No." So Kelugarn's reponse of "forcing duels is against the rules" do not apply.

What happened? "They were walking past each other and did a little up block and went on by." So they weren't interfering with teammates attempting to kill that player, so again, "instances of bro-coding that negatively impact your team" also didn't apply.

The only thing you described was players choosing to bypass each other, and since as you personally described it, there were other players alive on both teams, the round was not being delayed.

The rules are enforced as written. In lovely Smoothrich's example, the rule that says you cannot switch characters as I did 2 years ago, which allows you to spawn again in a round did not exist. Now that it does exist, it has been adhered to and enforced as written.

In this case, choosing not to attack the closest enemy also is not against the rules with the above caveats (forcing duels, interfering with teammates via bro-coding, or delaying the round by refusing to engage as one of the last alive). Otherwise, by that interpretation, I would be forced to ban dozens of players every round, including every cavalry that races past each other to spawn rape wouldn't I?

I'm sorry you didn't get the result you felt you deserved. However, you provided no screenshots that could perhaps have filled in where your words have failed to describe a situation where rules were broken. I feel bad for you that you've allowed the loss of a round to consume you for such a long period of time. Shadowren's reminder to have fun and remember that it is a game meant to be played as such as very pertinent.


Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Strudog on July 16, 2013, 09:27:22 am
Well that is one opinion of what happened. Kolee and Khmer may have their own opinion.

I asked you specifically, "Were they forcing duels?". Your answer: "No." So Kelugarn's reponse of "forcing duels is against the rules" do not apply.

What happened? "They were walking past each other and did a little up block and went on by." So they weren't interfering with teammates attempting to kill that player, so again, "instances of bro-coding that negatively impact your team" also didn't apply.

The only thing you described was players choosing to bypass each other, and since as you personally described it, there were other players alive on both teams, the round was not being delayed.

The rules are enforced as written. In lovely Smoothrich's example, the rule that says you cannot switch characters as I did 2 years ago, which allows you to spawn again in a round did not exist. Now that it does exist, it has been adhered to and enforced as written.

In this case, choosing not to attack the closest enemy also is not against the rules with the above caveats (forcing duels, interfering with teammates via bro-coding, or delaying the round by refusing to engage as one of the last alive). Otherwise, by that interpretation, I would be forced to ban dozens of players every round, including every cavalry that races past each other to spawn rape wouldn't I?

I'm sorry you didn't get the result you felt you deserved. However, you provided no screenshots that could perhaps have filled in where your words have failed to describe a situation where rules were broken. I feel bad for you that you've allowed the loss of a round to consume you for such a long period of time. Shadowren's reminder to have fun and remember that it is a game meant to be played as such as very pertinent.




If there were a lot of people still playing on the server than i guess what you say is correct, but if there were 3-5 people then that is bannable, because you are helping your Bro's win.

My understanding of the rule
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: RobertOfDrugsley on July 16, 2013, 10:55:52 am
People like me who don't kill peasants should be banned too because I'm "hurting" the performance of my team.

No, Sir, you should be banned because we cannot tolerate such leniency towards the peasantry! Next they'll wanna vote!
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Molly on July 16, 2013, 11:05:27 am
No, Sir, you should be banned because we cannot tolerate such leniency towards the peasantry! Next they'll wanna vote!
You haven't been seen in the Gentlemen's Club - therefore you're just common filthy rabble and peasantry yourself! Away with him!
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Dexxtaa on July 16, 2013, 01:16:59 pm
I'd just like to say that the Remnants of Stratia extensively used and coined the term bro code.

The price of its widespread use (and subsequent removal from legal play) of the bro code was the mass banning of the entire RS clan from the (then) only North American servers there were.

I guess it didn't help that Pik Nik danced on the body of the admin of the time after we started running exclusive assassination missions on the guy every round.


Bam. Some old timer history lesson for you. I miss you Pik Nik.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 16, 2013, 03:53:06 pm
People like me who don't kill peasants should be banned too because I'm "hurting" the performance of my team.

Or when I RP my Jedi character and peacefully walk around the map until someone attacks me first.

Ban anyone having fun. The OP demands it.

People like you should be banned for posting condescending straw-man sophistry. If you want to peacefully walk around the map and not fight then do it on another server - I am sorry if this inconveniences you but griefing the entire server by ignoring the official rules is not an acceptable alternative.

Q1- Read rules, ask other admins if unsure and learn as you go  :D

Q2- Idk i don't play every day to be caught up in all the drama. (ask another admin)

Q3- Bro-Coding is against the rules. Easy warn/kick/ban

OK lets straighten this out.

1) Admins should ask other admins if unsure.

2) Admin Shadowren is unsure about something.

3) Admin Shadowren asks another admin and responds to a player's greivance.

3.5) Oops that isn't what happens at all. Shadowren decides (1) was a bad idea; its better to just tell the players to find an admin who cares. Why should Shadowren care? How many terrible Spiderman reboots do we need before people realize that with power comes responsibility?

Well that is one opinion of what happened. Kolee and Khmer may have their own opinion.

Why didn't you ask Kolee and Khmer what happened? You were the only admin online in the presence of 30+ players who had just witnessed a potentially bannable offense!

Quote
Otherwise, by that interpretation, I would be forced to ban dozens of players every round, including every cavalry that races past each other to spawn rape wouldn't I?

No. Please stop playing stupid. Every single man, woman, and child who has spent more than an hour on NA1 knows exactly what Kolee and Khmer did and why it is different than cavalry riding past one another.

Quote
I'm sorry you didn't get the result you felt you deserved. However, you provided no screenshots that could perhaps have filled in where your words have failed to describe a situation where rules were broken. I feel bad for you that you've allowed the loss of a round to consume you for such a long period of time. Shadowren's reminder to have fun and remember that it is a game meant to be played as such as very pertinent.

The result I deserve is an admin team who cares more about the community than their friendship with trolls. I do not care about losing a round. I care that when a player like myself brings up an issue with admins he is summarily dismissed by an admin who does not understand the rules (you) and then has a legitimate ban thread locked with a token response by another admin (Kelugarn.) I care that when I post a thread like this with three simple questions to the admins, several admins stop in to share their off-topic comments and ignore serious questions. Or worse, pull a Shadowren and answer those questions in a way that shows they didn't bother to read the OP / just don't care.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on July 16, 2013, 04:08:07 pm
no-2-2 there's a difference between not engaging someone when there's 30v30 still, and not engaging the last enemy when you're standing 3 feet away from them, and then you lose the round without an attempt at fighting the enemy, that should be punishable.  You just wasted the time and efforts of your whole team.

I don't understand bro-coding, if I see my clanmate on the other team, I'm going out of my way to kill them if I get the chance.  It's a video game, if the guy facing you is on the enemy team, try to kill them (or run away). Standing around, or getting in the way of your teammates trying to kill the enemy, should be bannable. 

I know if a teammate is standing next to an enemy and not attempting to kill them, I'm going to fly in there and try to hit the enemy and have no regrets if I accidentally hit the bro-coding teammate. 
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: IG_Saint on July 16, 2013, 04:16:45 pm

Question 1: What measures are taken to ensure admins actually understand the rules?

Question 2: Why was no action taken against Ragnar_Ulfson who "didn't see what happened either" yet continued to post no less than nine separate times in my thread?

Question 3: if bro-coding your team to defeat is the same as teamwounding why isn't the punishment?

1: None, mainly because the rules are incredibly vague. Go take a look at http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/official-server-rules/ (http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/official-server-rules/). Then come back here and tell me which rule applies to this situation. Admins are trusted enough to use their own judgement in situations like this, but not every admin is going to have the same opinion.

2: Has nothing to do with admins. Admins can only lock and move threads in the unban sections. That's all the forum rights they have. Taking action against Ragnar would be something a global moderator would have to do.

3: One admin considering it the same as teamwounding, doesn't mean that every admin does. Again, there are no official rules on this issue. Personally, I have no problem with "bro-coding", as long as it doesn't result in intentional teamwounding.

Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: obitus on July 16, 2013, 04:20:20 pm
This is pretty irritating.  For example I recently helped out a teammate by surgically horsebumping the enemy he was fighting, and instead of stabbing the bastard on the ground and getting that sweet, sweet cavalry assist he was irate because I fucked up him and his enemy buddy's duel.

If only there was a duel server where people could go to duel without others interfering  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Strudog on July 16, 2013, 04:49:35 pm
This is pretty irritating.  For example I recently helped out a teammate by surgically horsebumping the enemy he was fighting, and instead of stabbing the bastard on the ground and getting that sweet, sweet cavalry assist he was irate because I fucked up him and his enemy buddy's duel.

If only there was a duel server where people could go to duel without others interfering  :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But then people don't get to see how amazing you are at duelling
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 16, 2013, 04:51:58 pm
1: None, mainly because the rules are incredibly vague. Go take a look at http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/official-server-rules/ (http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/official-server-rules/). Then come back here and tell me which rule applies to this situation. Admins are trusted enough to use their own judgement in situations like this, but not every admin is going to have the same opinion.

Thank you for responding to the question. Here are the rules broken:

violation #1 Common sense rule

"Do not come crying "it's not prohibited in the rules" if you invent a new creative way to be an idiot and get punished." cRPG is a team game. More specifically, NA1 is a team battle server. There are many other servers players should use if they want a new set of rules. Some clans set up their own servers for this reason.

Rule of thumb: If you are not helping your team to win the round you are doing something wrong.

Violation #2 Bypassing the autobalance"

Refusing to kill your friends is bypassing autobalance. Autobalance picks your teammates and your enemies. If Kolee and Khmer let some random player walk past then maybe this wouldn't be bro-coding. But they let their friend past because "autobalance be damned, I make the rules!"

Violation #3 Leeching

"bro-coding" with the opposite team is consider leeching "Not contributing is leeching"
Refusing to kill your friends is not contributing. Players cannot decide to contribute only when they are the last players left and forced to do so.

Violation #4 Delaying

Please tell me you don't need chadz to specifically say "don't avoid fighting until just you and your bro are the last guys alive so you can fight with an audience."

2: Has nothing to do with admins. Admins can only lock and move threads in the unban sections. That's all the forum rights they have. Taking action against Ragnar would be something a global moderator would have to do.


Thank you for the response. Obviously admins and global moderators need to work together to eliminate this kind of behavior. It undermines the authority of the process.

3: One admin considering it the same as teamwounding, doesn't mean that every admin does. Again, there are no official rules on this issue. Personally, I have no problem with "bro-coding", as long as it doesn't result in intentional teamwounding.

There are official server rules on this issue. It is not too much to ask for an admin team to be on the same page regarding official server rules. It is not too much to ask for an admin team which actively takes steps to ensure fellow admins know the rules. Otherwise you get this kind of worst-case scenario, where Granpappy refuses to even acknowledge that rules were broken and Kelugarn swoops in to lock the ban thread with a slap on the wrist.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Kalam on July 16, 2013, 06:14:39 pm
There are official server rules on this issue. It is not too much to ask for an admin team to be on the same page regarding official server rules. It is not too much to ask for an admin team which actively takes steps to ensure fellow admins know the rules. Otherwise you get this kind of worst-case scenario, where Granpappy refuses to even acknowledge that rules were broken and Kelugarn swoops in to lock the ban thread with a slap on the wrist.

From reading both yours and Granpappy's post, there isn't a clear way to see what happened. Checking the logs doesn't reveal anything in this situation, either.

If you feel you were wronged, just wait till it happens again. Report it again. Don't stop reporting it in admin chat. You never know who's watching. Generally speaking, admins will avoid taking action if they don't see it themselves. The solution often involves long-term spectating, and the 'crime', if it occurs, often goes unpunished until the perpetrators commit it a second time in plain view of the admin.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: IG_Saint on July 16, 2013, 06:31:47 pm
I probably should have put this in my other post, but nothing I say is an official response in any way. It's just my opinion, I have nothing to do with, nor any knowledge of this situation, or how the NA admins operate in general.

That said, you completely missed this part of my post: "Admins are trusted enough to use their own judgement in situations like this, but not every admin is going to have the same opinion." The common sense rule is exactly what I'm talking about there.

Bypassing the autobalance is something entirely different, it was implemented to stop people trying to endlessly joining one team, then the spectators and back again till they got the team they wanted.

Leeching only applies when the person is not contributing to the team for a longer time and usually repeatedly. Chatting, being afk for a couple of seconds, running away from somebody you know you can't beat, all of those could be interpreted as not contributing and none of them should result in a ban. Muuki's post is his opinion, my opinion is that "bro-coding" really isn't an issue.

The rules are honestly just there as rough guidelines and most of them can be interpreted in 50 different ways, the admins in question are the ones that interpret the rules and decide which action (if any) needs to be taken.

Your entire problem is that you think these guys hurt your teams win chance. I dread the day a rule that forbids that gets implemented. That day will be the death of fun in crpg.

You also seems to expect a lot of profesionalism from a bunch of unpaid admins in a mod.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: HarryCrumb on July 16, 2013, 06:32:10 pm
From reading both yours and Granpappy's post, there isn't a clear way to see what happened. Checking the logs doesn't reveal anything in this situation, either.

If you feel you were wronged, just wait till it happens again. Report it again. Don't stop reporting it in admin chat. You never know who's watching. Generally speaking, admins will avoid taking action if they don't see it themselves. The solution often involves long-term spectating, and the 'crime', if it occurs, often goes unpunished until the perpetrators commit it a second time in plain view of the admin.

If you don't know who are the perpetual bro-coders then you just don't play on NA_1 enough.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 16, 2013, 07:02:57 pm
Hi global moderator. Please refer to OP specifically question #2 concerning irrelevant forum posts in the ban request section. Thank you for your attention.

From reading both yours and Granpappy's post, there isn't a clear way to see what happened. Checking the logs doesn't reveal anything in this situation, either.

You cannot capture brocoding with screenshots or by looking at longs. There were 30+ players who can all tell you exactly what happened. A disinterested 3rd party who was on the server at the time:
Quote

I usually don't like to stick my head into stuff like this, but Wrang is absolutely right... This was ridiculous.

I was on a x5 multiplier and lost it because of this. Sherben comes right up to AngkorWat and Kolee, salutes them both, then proceeds to go forward and kill 3 people in the back (ultimately resulting in the loss of the round).

People are so used to this by now, that's why most people are saying "Who cares man?" or "Relax, it's no big deal."

Instead of letting more players comment the thread is bogged down with Granpappy and Ragnar's irrelevant banter and locked within minutes by Kelugarn, an admin obviously sympathetic to Kolee and Khmer:


If we served bans for every player that bro-coded on occasion then we'd end up banning half of the NA population. The only time when bro-ing it up is close to "game breaking" is when the last man alive is getting hugs from the entire enemy team, and even when that happens it only lasts for a few seconds before someone goes for the kill. . . Try and remember that it's just one round in a mod about internet horses and two-handed swords, and sometimes the other people that play like to be creative and have fun in ways other than murderorgy2010. Making a thread bitching and moaning about how someone didn't take the game seriously enough is not going to get you anywhere.

This is an admin? He admits that there is a monumental problem where half the NA population is griefing the other half and doesn't care because it would be too much work to actually enforce the server rules, so "stop bitching and moaning." I am definitely going to get admins to take action with your suggested strategy of "don't stop reporting."
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: RandomDude on July 16, 2013, 07:09:37 pm
I think Kalam and Saint said everything that needs to be said from an admin point of view. With that said, if it's a big problem on NA and it's causing people to lose rounds (and fun imo) it should be curbed somewhat.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Molly on July 16, 2013, 07:10:52 pm
I don't like this wrangham guy.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Turboflex on July 16, 2013, 07:24:53 pm
I don't know what's wrong with people who "bro code" like this. Putting a priority on nutcupping someone while shitting up the game for everyone else? What's the point anyway? Its more fun to kill your buddies when you see them on opposite team.

Good work Wrang taking the time to expose the shameful cheating going on amongst some player cliques around here and the admins who seemingly tolerate or even endorse it. It's easy to blow this stuff off and take the low road but in long term it damages the gameplay found on c-rpg servers and causes people to quit.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Vodner on July 16, 2013, 07:53:30 pm
Ganking clanmates who are in TeamSpeak with you is some of the most fun you can have in the game.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: RandomDude on July 16, 2013, 08:06:27 pm
Ganking clanmates who are in TeamSpeak with you is some of the most fun you can have in the game.

Yeah killing Clan mates is my favourite thing to do, especially if they're an archer.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: obitus on July 16, 2013, 08:21:43 pm
I've seen a new level of trolling today as a teammate not only stood neutral but acted as a human shield for his clanmate enemy.  Naturally I plowed through both of them, as I would have done in any situation.  When I was reported for TW I had a hearty chuckle.

I think it's a great idea to troll.  Someone will end up doing this every round, or get paid gold to.  Naturally they will use a skipfun (save your KD) on the opposite team from their clan banner stack.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Christo on July 16, 2013, 08:25:52 pm
NA drama..

mmmm, tasty
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Rhaelys on July 16, 2013, 08:32:26 pm
Ganking clanmates who are in TeamSpeak with you is some of the most fun you can have in the game.

Oh hey there Saul, I'll just be on my- no, wait, stop; what are you doing? Oh g-BLAEAGJLKEJF
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Gmnotutoo on July 16, 2013, 09:29:57 pm
People like you should be banned for posting condescending straw-man sophistry. If you want to peacefully walk around the map and not fight then do it on another server - I am sorry if this inconveniences you but griefing the entire server by ignoring the official rules is not an acceptable alternative.

It doesn't matter if you try to manipulate what I said I know the server rules and what I do is perfectly within my rights as a player.

If you can find this mythological rule that every person must fight the nearest enemy at all times I'll be happy to abide by it. Until then I'll continue to role-play my Jedi Master who only fights in self-defense. Maybe if you too pretended to be a Jedi you'd lighten up and stop being a mad try-hard.

Here is the Jedi Code to get you started:

There is no emotion...
There is peace.
There is no ignorance...
There is knowledge.
There is no passion...
There is serenity.
There is no chaos...
There is harmony.
There is no death...
There is the force.

If you are unable or unwilling to embrace a lighter play style then feel free to find me on the battlefield and try to kill me. You probably wont succeed, but if you do I want you to know that I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Prpavi on July 16, 2013, 09:48:54 pm
I somehow can never connect to NA drama  :(

Is it because I don't know the players involved?
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Froto_the_Loc on July 16, 2013, 10:21:49 pm
Have headache, didn't read anything.

If you say anything negative in this thread, you are a whiner. Go play another game, or jerk off.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Lt_Anders on July 16, 2013, 10:59:07 pm
Just let us read the Admin forums already!
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: TheAppleSauceMan on July 17, 2013, 05:24:06 am
It doesn't matter if you try to manipulate what I said I know the server rules and what I do is perfectly within my rights as a player.

If you can find this mythological rule that every person must fight the nearest enemy at all times I'll be happy to abide by it. Until then I'll continue to role-play my Jedi Master who only fights in self-defense. Maybe if you too pretended to be a Jedi you'd lighten up and stop being a mad try-hard.

Here is the Jedi Code to get you started:

There is no emotion...
There is peace.
There is no ignorance...
There is knowledge.
There is no passion...
There is serenity.
There is no chaos...
There is harmony.
There is no death...
There is the force.

If you are unable or unwilling to embrace a lighter play style then feel free to find me on the battlefield and try to kill me. You probably wont succeed, but if you do I want you to know that I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Best post in thread so far.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: partyboy on July 17, 2013, 06:34:20 am
Are you expecting, like, professionalism from the "leaders" of this community?

hahahahhahahahahaahhaaaaaa
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: partyboy on July 17, 2013, 06:34:55 am
fuuucking adorable
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Miley on July 17, 2013, 09:35:10 pm
All I will say is there have been a lot of problems with admins not knowing the rules, acting wrongly upon the rules, etc. These admins (in my experience) include: Ganner, Muki, Kelugarn (FROYO) off the top of my head. I can elaborate on those 3 if needed.

GrannPappy hasn't done anything out of the ordinary that I have seen except tell someone to get off a mountain when he couldn't have enorced that because it was reachable by foot and could shoot down from with ranged.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Dooz on July 17, 2013, 10:42:33 pm
All the whistleblowing drama with supporters and detractors across the spectrum of a Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill Washington/Global political thriller. Imagine if you people put this much effort into anything that mattered. Maybe we'd be living in a world that wasn't created from Orwell's imagination. Or not. KILL NOOBS
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: dreadnok on July 17, 2013, 10:58:51 pm
I call granpappy a decrepid hulk hogan. He's not  bad guy. This dude don't get that majority of these players are friends, NA is such a small community. After more than 2 years I'm friends with majority of an players. I don't mind if people fuck with me. I don't see why you give such fucks about rules being enforced. Its nerf or nothing bra
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Adamar on July 18, 2013, 12:21:08 am
Well that is one opinion of what happened. Kolee and Khmer may have their own opinion.

I asked you specifically, "Were they forcing duels?". Your answer: "No." So Kelugarn's reponse of "forcing duels is against the rules" do not apply.

What happened? "They were walking past each other and did a little up block and went on by." So they weren't interfering with teammates attempting to kill that player, so again, "instances of bro-coding that negatively impact your team" also didn't apply.

The only thing you described was players choosing to bypass each other, and since as you personally described it, there were other players alive on both teams, the round was not being delayed.

The rules are enforced as written. In lovely Smoothrich's example, the rule that says you cannot switch characters as I did 2 years ago, which allows you to spawn again in a round did not exist. Now that it does exist, it has been adhered to and enforced as written.

In this case, choosing not to attack the closest enemy also is not against the rules with the above caveats (forcing duels, interfering with teammates via bro-coding, or delaying the round by refusing to engage as one of the last alive). Otherwise, by that interpretation, I would be forced to ban dozens of players every round, including every cavalry that races past each other to spawn rape wouldn't I?

I'm sorry you didn't get the result you felt you deserved. However, you provided no screenshots that could perhaps have filled in where your words have failed to describe a situation where rules were broken. I feel bad for you that you've allowed the loss of a round to consume you for such a long period of time. Shadowren's reminder to have fun and remember that it is a game meant to be played as such as very pertinent.

Not engaging the enemy when your teammates relly on your support, and then you move away and leave them for the slaughter is impacting your team negatively.

I say start enforcing the rules and brig this bro-coding(some people forget their teammates ARE their bro's at the time) to an abrupt end.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 18, 2013, 12:47:44 am
Edited OP with admin responses. NA1 admins please feel free to post here or PM me and I will add your answer to the OP.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Kelugarn on July 18, 2013, 01:48:54 am
Wrang I'd like to point out how the quote you chose to put next to my name is misleading. The part about bitching and moaning refers strictly to the manner in which people present their complaints and the lack of formality and respect found in most ban threads. As with most things being civil and sensible works in your favor far better than coming off as a flippant egocentric and that's what the line you chose refers to, not to my interpretations of the rules.

I'd also like to say that as I have spent more time viewing the community and playing the game as an admin my views have shifted and the ways in which I've dealt with punishments and offenses have shifted too . As an unpaid volunteer making calls on my own it's hard to set a precedent and stick with it early on, that's why my stance on things like bro-coding is changing.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 18, 2013, 02:30:33 am
Wrang I'd like to point out how the quote you chose to put next to my name is misleading. The part about bitching and moaning refers strictly to the manner in which people present their complaints and the lack of formality and respect found in most ban threads. As with most things being civil and sensible works in your favor far better than coming off as a flippant egocentric and that's what the line you chose refers to, not to my interpretations of the rules.

Thank you for responding. I will not remove the quote in the OP because there is overwhelming evidence which leads me to believe you do not take bro-coding seriously. You have not addressed, for example, the discrepancies in ban duration and failure to factor ban history in your Kolee/Khmer warning. Nevertheless I will add your protest to the OP in the spirit of fairness.

Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Jarold on July 18, 2013, 04:03:52 am
I don't understand why people don't kill their friends. It is much more fun to slay them on the battlefield then to just stand next to them!
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Kelugarn on July 18, 2013, 07:36:31 am
Thank you for responding. I will not remove the quote in the OP because there is overwhelming evidence which leads me to believe you do not take bro-coding seriously. You have not addressed, for example, the discrepancies in ban duration and failure to factor ban history in your Kolee/Khmer warning. Nevertheless I will add your protest to the OP in the spirit of fairness.

What I tried to convey in the last post is that my actions in the past do not necessarily reflect future actions I may take. It's impossible to say that there's evidence pointing to one verdict or another when I am dealing with bans on a case-by-case basis and therefore treat each situation as unique if possible. It is true that in the past I did not view bro-code offenses with the same gravity as things such as team killing, but with the change in the nature of bro-coding offenses (increasing severity) and my own changing opinions on the matter I am starting to shift my position.

Regarding the ban history of Kolee and Khmer, Kolee had no priors while Khmer only had two priors for teamwounding. Their lack of bans and/or bans for this type of offense was the reason I issued only a warning. Simply assuming that they were repeat offenders with plenty of priors would have only made any ban an unjust over-reaction. Needless to say that further instances of this behavior will not be tolerated, as stated in the original warning.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Molly on July 18, 2013, 07:49:01 am
Wait, this bullshit is still going on?

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Miley on July 18, 2013, 08:16:17 am
Wait, this bullshit is still going on?

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Canary on July 18, 2013, 09:27:16 am
Question 1: What measures are taken to ensure admins actually understand the rules?

Question 2: Why was no action taken against Ragnar_Ulfson who "didn't see what happened either" yet continued to post no less than nine separate times in my thread?

Question 3: if bro-coding your team to defeat is the same as teamwounding why isn't the punishment?

1. Currently, the only (NA) admins who have assuredly been directed to the rules are those who've been picked more recently, since our old head NA admin was replaced. Any future admins will be made to understand to follow not only the rules written on that post (http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/official-server-rules/), but also try to adhere to a set of less apparently precedents of rulings which, unfortunately, are not specified and listed there and include elaborations on major rules (those listed) and some which are not identified in the official rules post (such as the strategus server rules (http://forum.meleegaming.com/strategus-general-discussion/strategus-rules/)).

I am fairly certain, though, that all current NA admins have read the rules and understand most of the 'between-the-lines' aspects to them. There's always room for improvement, of course.

If an admin makes a contentious decision we have an entire forum board devoted to the NA admins for us to discuss such things as past decisions, rules clarifications, and players whose behavior we should be wary of. In part it's a sort of system of peer review. Consistent improper administrative action can be dealt with by removal of admin power. Such cases are rare.

2. There is a little link in the bottom right of every post you may click to report a post to the moderators. Without reporting a post, it's hard to expect mods to read every single post in every single thread just to determine which ones are in breach of the forum rules (http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/forum-rules/). Moderators will give out warnings (which increase 'warning level' and can lead to forum mutes) for things like improper use of the ban section. Regular admins can not give out forum warnings.

In Ulfson's case, he was there when it happened, which can be credible even in spite of not directly seeing the exact issue the ban request was made for, and had some relevant things to say about the nature of ban requests. Whether he's warned or not is not really your concern beyond the 'report' button, which I'm afraid you or anyone else neglected to use.

3. Almost none of the rules are as black and white as, surprisingly, most of the people posting in this thread seem to make them out as. Even intentional teamwounding isn't as easy to determine as you might think, because actually knowing a person's intent is not as easy as watching a teamhit take place.

Here's the rub: It's not as simple as "bro-coding is okay" versus "bro-coding is against the rules".

What is bro-coding? It is basically choosing not to fight your friends on the opposite team. Is that intrinsically against the rules? No. You are allowed to choose who and where you fight on a server, as long as you are fighting. If you decide not to fight a particular person, that does not automatically mean you did something that harms your team or something that is against the rules (also note that something "to harm your team" and something "against the rules" are not inexorably linked).

Can bro-coding be against the rules? Yes, in some cases. I'll use a scale of examples to show what I mean.


This is how I interpret the rules are they pertain to the concept of bro-coding. The way I handle issues is not the way every admin may handle them, but should another NA admin consult the rest of us on these kinds of issues this is what I would personally tell them. It's up to the admins at hand to make of a situation what they can see, and all necessary information is not always available. It can be difficult to determine fault even in the case of a true breach of the rules. There are also no definite rules on it, except in the case of the last two examples where other rules are involved.

We try to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent, but because so many of the concepts in the rules are open to interpretation and there are no guidelines for issuing punishments beyond our personal judgment, there tend to be intermittent discrepancies.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 18, 2013, 01:32:04 pm
If an admin makes a contentious decision we have an entire forum board devoted to the NA admins for us to discuss such things as past decisions, rules clarifications, and players whose behavior we should be wary of. In part it's a sort of system of peer review. Consistent improper administrative action can be dealt with by removal of admin power. Such cases are rare.

What is the purpose of this forum: http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-admin-feedback/

I had understood that forum to be the place for "peer review" of admins yet it now seems that despite not knowing whether a significant portion of admins have even read the rules you trust them to review each other's comprehension of those rules in secret?

  • Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)
  • Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think
  • Breach of rules: blocking your teammates from being able to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes griefing rule).
  • Breach of rules: attacking teammates for trying to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes intentional teamwounding rule).

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

We try to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent, but because so many of the concepts in the rules are open to interpretation and there are no guidelines for issuing punishments beyond our personal judgment, there tend to be intermittent discrepancies.

Except you do not know if the admin team tries to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent. You just said that you simply direct new admins to the rules and old admins may not have even read them.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community. Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: RandomDude on July 18, 2013, 01:51:47 pm
What is the purpose of this forum: http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-admin-feedback/

I had understood that forum to be the place for "peer review" of admins yet it now seems that despite not knowing whether a significant portion of admins have even read the rules you trust them to review each other's comprehension of those rules in secret?

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

Except you do not know if the admin team tries to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent. You just said that you simply direct new admins to the rules and old admins may not have even read them.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community. Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.

It's for feedback, not peer "review" from my understanding of what "review" means. Feedback as in people giving their opinion, no matter what it is.

As far as "comprehension of those rules in secret" it's already been said that the rules arent always clear as black and white and the people to discuss the best interpretation of the rules for any given situation is the same people who enforce them dont you think?

As also said before, "Common Sense" is the main rule for any given scenario and admins are trusted to use their own common sense at the time something happened or after reviewing evidence in the ban request section.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Molly on July 18, 2013, 02:07:28 pm
[...]
As also said before, "Common Sense" is the main rule for any given scenario[...]
This.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Lt_Anders on July 18, 2013, 03:10:30 pm
Canary, just make the admin forums visible! There :twisted:
Of course, lots of stuff said in those needs to be removed before the public sees it. Would be bad if admins were seen posting some bad stuff. :oops:
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Relit on July 18, 2013, 04:09:56 pm
Wrang, this is not worth it.

Cronyism is rife here and the admin feedback section has no direct impact on anything, its used by admins to direct anger to a specific section so it can be ignored/disregarded. You would accomplish more telling a brick wall to "fall over!" than trying to change anything related to the admins in this community.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: IG_Saint on July 18, 2013, 04:35:14 pm
Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin?

Probably not, because most admins don't consider it ban worthy. You're all up in arms about something that most admins just don't consider ban worthy and I really don't see the NA admins changing their minds just because of your little crusade for justice.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community. Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.

Being an admin is a service to the community, not a privilege. The minor benefits are far outweighted by the major inconviences.
Title: Re: Request for Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 18, 2013, 04:56:19 pm
I have nothing to do with, nor any knowledge of this situation, or how the NA admins operate in general. . .  You also seems to expect a lot of profesionalism from a bunch of unpaid admins in a mod.

Probably not, because most admins don't consider it ban worthy.

Yesterday you had no knowledge of how the NA admins operate. Today you know what most admins think. Did you take a straw poll in the secret admin enclave sometime in the last few hours?

Being an admin is a service to the community, not a privilege. The minor benefits are far outweighted by the major inconviences.

I'm sure the conspiracy theorists out there would love to hear more about these benefits.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: IG_Saint on July 18, 2013, 05:29:32 pm
Yeah, thanks to your handy quotes. I count 3 NA admins that say it's not against the rules and 2 that say it is. You also missed this part: "I really don't see the NA admins changing their minds just because of your little crusade for justice". The NA admins are old enough to make up their own minds as to what's ban worthy and what isn't, they don't need your, or my help.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Rumblood on July 18, 2013, 05:40:24 pm
Yesterday you had no knowledge of how the NA admins operate.

Neither does anyone posting in a manner you feel supports your side of things. But that's your modus operandi isn't it? Attack anyone who disagrees with you such as Ulfson did, going so far as to try to invoke a rule that didn't apply to shut him down, even though he had entirely relevant points? Now you are essentially telling IG_Saint to gtfo.

Canary took the time to respond to your questions and provide some insight into how the NA admins operate, and again, since the answer wasn't "You are so right Wrangham, bans issued", you go on the offensive against a post that was a straight up official response with the relevant information that you requested. While cloaked in respectful language, this is nothing more than a temper tantrum because a decision regarding an event did not go your way. Your response to Canary's post makes that more than evident and I think at this point you've gotten more than the attention such an attitude deserves.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Rhaelys on July 18, 2013, 06:19:02 pm
  • Borderline, probably doesn't warrant admin action: choosing not to chase a player on the opposite team who is moving to attack your teammates without being contested.
  • Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

For me, the yellow borderline situations are not admin-actionable, because they depend on too many factors. Maybe someone who chooses not to intercept (as in the first situation) or join in the dogfight (as in the second situation) is bro-coding. Or maybe they are just apprehensive about potentially getting in the way or being hindered by their own teammates and end up teamwounding or being teamwounded. In that instance, wouldn't their participation be even more detrimental to the success of their team?

  • Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think

Even this is context-specific, in particular time-sensitive. When is the supposed infraction occurring: at the beginning of the round, during the round, or near the end of the round? I have definitely "bro-coded" in this manner in the beginning of the round and even during the round, but never at the end of the round. *As a note I would only ever bro-code people I know I couldn't easily beat, because by bro-coding better players I ensure my survival and possibility of continuing to contribute to the success of my team during the rest of the round. But I guess you wouldn't be able to consider that bro-coding so much as strategic selection of combat.

Also I would never willingly engage Saul in a one-on-one unless I had to because I know that the results of that encounter are death or death. Of course this would never actually pan out to be an issue because:

Ganking clanmates who are in TeamSpeak with you is some of the most fun you can have in the game.

Oh hey there Saul, I'll just be on my- no, wait, stop; what are you doing? Oh g-BLAEAGJLKEJF
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Ninja_Khorin on July 18, 2013, 06:46:34 pm
Ooh! Since you're collecting! Here's my opinion:

(click to show/hide)

Honestly, though. I would never trust what anyone says regarding anything. Too often I've seen people demanding bans without a legit cause.

I don't always attack enemies either, even if that puts teammates in danger, if I have some other more fun plans to put in to action. Even if I was fighting the entire enemy team I'd consider it a personal failure if I lose the fight. I assume that my teammates feel the same. I don't rely on them, and I hope they don't rely on me too much. Of course I'm thankful for any assistance, and do offer it myself if it seems fun.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Turboflex on July 18, 2013, 07:02:27 pm
Even this is context-specific, in particular time-sensitive. When is the supposed infraction occurring: at the beginning of the round, during the round, or near the end of the round? I have definitely "bro-coded" in this manner in the beginning of the round and even during the round, but never at the end of the round. *As a note I would only ever bro-code people I know I couldn't easily beat, because by bro-coding better players I ensure my survival and possibility of continuing to contribute to the success of my team during the rest of the round. But I guess you wouldn't be able to consider that bro-coding so much as strategic selection of combat.

Also I would never willingly engage Saul in a one-on-one unless I had to because I know that the results of that encounter are death or death. Of course this would never actually pan out to be an issue because:

This is not the best way to achieve victory for your team and a very poor justification for "bro coding"... If you encounter someone THAT dangerous the best for your team is to tie them down by distracting them and drawing out a fight with them. You can use a defensive posture to prolong the 1 v 1  fight and extend your chances of survival until hopefully help arrives. This is much more productive than just letting them walk away to mow through teammates. I do this all the time against dangerous players like San or Saul.

I think we need to reinstate Smoothrich as an admin to clean up this rotten state of affairs. We need Dirty Harry back.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Rhaelys on July 18, 2013, 07:47:58 pm
This is not the best way to achieve victory for your team and a very poor justification for "bro coding"... If you encounter someone THAT dangerous the best for your team is to tie them down by distracting them and drawing out a fight with them. You can use a defensive posture to prolong the 1 v 1  fight and extend your chances of survival until hopefully help arrives. This is much more productive than just letting them walk away to mow through teammates. I do this all the time against dangerous players like San or Saul.

I think we need to reinstate Smoothrich as an admin to clean up this rotten state of affairs. We need Dirty Harry back.

Maybe if you're a shielder. But if you are a hero yourself, it makes more sense to engage in a "base trade" from a team success point of view. Perhaps you lose the "base trade." It's still better than ensuring that your team loses because you die to a person you know will beat you.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Canary on July 18, 2013, 09:56:32 pm
What is the purpose of this forum: http://forum.meleegaming.com/game-admin-feedback/

I had understood that forum to be the place for "peer review" of admins yet it now seems that despite not knowing whether a significant portion of admins have even read the rules you trust them to review each other's comprehension of those rules in secret?

The admin section is hidden to the public.

The admin feedback section, as it exists now, is a courtesy to the public as a place for them to bring up issues. It's largely misused (even by people who do have problems) and regarded as a joke, unfortunately.

Yes, for the most part I trust the general comprehension of the rules of the current, active admins. If I have any issues, I can bring it up with them directly.

Even you admit that the only examples of banworthy bro-coding necessarily involve breaking a second, clearer rule. Obviously attacking a teammate is against the rules whether or not that teammate is your friend. Have you ever banned a player for one of the "yellow" offenses? Has any admin? I check the ban request forum from time to time in between rounds and I have never seen an admin issue a ban for one of your listed offenses. As far as I can tell, the last time someone tried to get admins to take action against obvious bro-coding, that ban request was simply moved to general discussion.

I can think of one specific example where I've personally given out punishment to a player who was standing still behind while watching his teammate fight an enemy, and then stayed there after the teammate died only to let the enemy walk up behind another teammate. This was a case where the player in question had already been receiving warnings for other errant behavior earlier the same day, though.

The majority of the time, one would have to watch specific people for round upon round to determine what is actually going on in cases like this. It's a difficult thing to follow, and even more difficult when it's not against the rules as they're written.

Except you do not know if the admin team tries to keep in sync with one another and remain consistent. You just said that you simply direct new admins to the rules and old admins may not have even read them.

Again, private forum, which of course I have access to. The posts the other admins have made there tend to give us an insight into the way they handle things.

What I meant about the old admins (meaning all of us but Froyo/Kelugarn and Witchcraft/A_Hot_Elf_Princess) was that we weren't necessarily given any instructions when we were first given admin powers (which in most cases was over a year ago, in my case almost exactly two years ago). The way things are currently going, I feel confident that every active admin right now has read and understands the rules.

It seems the only way to lose admin powers is to consistently misapply rules. Obviously the safest route for admins is to not apply the rules at all. "I didn't see it" is far safer than "I classify this particular instance of bro-coding as ban-worthy." Not only do admins risk losing their power from a poor decision but they risk being ostracized by the community.

There is also the risk of making the community a worse place by enforcing a draconian interpretation of the rules without considering context, or even making up addendums to rules in order to issue punishments to players that haven't done anything wrong. A lighter touch may seem like it's just an excuse not to take action, but in many cases getting involved would mean acting without certainty, which would result in punishments given to players who do not deserve them. That's far worse than a few people getting away with a single case of misuse of the game that does not actually have a specific rule attached to it.

You lose the power by abusing the power. There hasn't yet been a case of an admin who simply refused to do anything even when he should have that I've seen. I don't know what else would qualify someone for losing the position, if they're doing their job.

Also, any decision made or not made is bound to garner flak by some portion of the community. All the current admins understand this by now. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Nobody likes to be punished and taken out of the game, even if their intent is to break the rules. People also don't tend to like seeing rules go broken without action taken against the offending parties, but there's only so much an admin can do. We're expected to act in every instance of a broken rule, but when we can't make a decision without guessing, taking action would be more irresponsible.

We're bound to take criticism either way, and at this point one must be able to handle it well to uphold this position. The unfortunate downside is that constructive criticism tends to get lumped in with more baseless accusations of abuse and general nay-saying.

Make all admins re-apply for the privilege every month. Rotate the head admin title through senior admins frequently. Remove inactive admins.

I don't quite see the point behind this, it seems entirely arbitrary. The only thing the head admin is in charge of beyond the typical in-game enforcement and ban request handling all admins do is adding new admins and removing ones who are misusing their power. We could use more new admins, of course, but the current ones are not making grave mistakes and causing problems. Changing who's in charge of adding admins "frequently" wouldn't necessarily mean the admins as a group understand the rules any better. I'm not quite sure what you mean by making admins re-apply, but I assume you mean in order to have someone (a rotating head admin) gauge their efficacy and understanding of the rules? Under the assumption that some of them wouldn't be accepted a second time? I don't see how that would accomplish anything beyond the way things are currently handled, except potentially cutting our count of admins down even more. Plus inactivity doesn't inherently make for a bad admin when they do come around, but I suppose there isn't a reason to have the power if you are not there to use it.

It just seems like you want us to swap out people in every position constantly, but lack of experience can be as dangerous as bad judgment. I don't think an entirely rotating team of people would do as good a service as a group who has understood how to enforce the rules in-game for a longer period of time. If anything it would make things far less consistent. Let the merits of each individual speak for themselves. If someone needs to be removed, so be it. I'll try and appoint new admins sooner.



A bit of clarity for the rules, perhaps with more examples like I posted before, could do the community a lot of good and cut down on apparent inconsistency. Maybe I'll work on that.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on July 18, 2013, 10:05:18 pm
Can you guys stfu and play already

Whole thread = tl;dr
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Vodner on July 18, 2013, 10:09:47 pm
I've been playing cRPG for quite a while now, and I can't say that I have ever personally encountered an admin that I felt was doing his job improperly.

Well, except for partyboy. I'm pretty certain he was made admin just as an entertaining way to troll the NA community.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Dooz on July 18, 2013, 10:09:57 pm
Can you guys stfu and play already

Whole thread = tl;dr

don't read go play
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Erzengel on July 18, 2013, 10:34:50 pm
Believe it or not but admins actually miss a lot of infringements, even if they are on the server at the same time. We can only see as much as any other player. The only extra tool we have is the "show names cheat" which... well just shows the names of all players above their heads... We only see teamhit reports if somebody gets reported for the third time for example. We don't have any superpowers that allow us to see everything on the battlefield. We also just want to play the game instead of spending several hours in the spectator mode. You always have to remember that all of us do this in their free time. None of us gets paid for it or has any other great advantages.

There are lots of cases in which you can't simply ban people ingame. You can only do that if you either saw what happened (very unlikely, especially on siege) or if there is some clear proof (several teamhit reports and so on). The only option you have in such a situation is a warning. You can still open a ban request if you are not happy with one of those decisions.

Most of the time it isn't as easy as it might seem for people who are not involved.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on July 18, 2013, 11:40:49 pm
Please blow it out your arse.

Thank you, have a nice day.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Wrangham on July 18, 2013, 11:57:25 pm
edit: Wrote reply to Canary then saw I have received a warning for "spam and flaming" without any context or explanation. Don't think I could have done a better job of convincing the few players who still care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/world/europe/russian-court-convicts-opposition-leader-aleksei-navalny.html?hp
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: HarryCrumb on July 19, 2013, 01:27:13 am
gf bitch
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: RandomDude on July 19, 2013, 02:47:06 pm
Wrangham reminds me of JuicyDeath (for the misquoting(out of context) part).

An admin has to make a decision one way or the other, usually based on sketchy evidence at best and the logs arent very helpful most of the time and believe me I spent a lot of time looking at them.

I can safely say that since the Dev Team started taking on admins, the mod became a lot better.

People wont always agree with your decision and it's likely that at some point an admin will make a bad call but there's a reason that most admins dont lose their powers and thats because they do a good job on the whole.

Some of these guys put a lot of effort into what they do, for free, and they dont abuse their powers for the most part so I dont think players need to get as wound up as they do sometimes.

Admins are just as likely to troll etc as other players but when it comes to doing their "job" they do it.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: karasu on July 19, 2013, 04:53:21 pm
Let's lighten up the mood, with some mad dancing skills.


visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Swaggart on July 19, 2013, 05:04:32 pm
Wow. I can't believe a whole tread was dedicated because someone lost a multi.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on July 19, 2013, 05:32:47 pm
You made your case, now just let it go man

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Sparvico on July 21, 2013, 01:01:37 pm
I love how the moment he brings up a really good point you fucks change the subject to asinine gifs. Good fucking fight cRPG community. Good fucking fight. 

Edit: The admins are doing a fine job, but you people need to take a good hard look in the mirror.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Swaggart on July 21, 2013, 05:27:28 pm
Actually, the only people that need to take a look in the mirror are those who take this game so seriously that they have taken out the fun aspect of it. They have turned it into a grind where the only satisfaction they receive is rolling on a multi, and that's just wrong.

Now, before everyone starts talking about you fun is not my fun or other shit like that, at the end of the day this thread was started because someone lost a multi. I don't know about you, but I have just as much fun playing at x1 as I do at x5 and if I happen to lose my multi, I just keep on playing. Hell, I try more at x1 so I can get a x5 in 3 rounds (gotta love dat valour).

If the point of this thread was to expose the fact that admins are inconsistent, I'm not sure anyone who has played the game for longer than a couple weeks that does not know this. Considering that I'm playing this for free, and the admins are volunteers who also want to play the game and not just police it, I'm fine with the inconsistency. Never been banned, never gotten anyone banned. Just play the game, forget about the multi, and your chance of developing an aneurysm will drop dramatically.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Dexxtaa on July 21, 2013, 05:54:23 pm
Actually, the only people that need to take a look in the mirror are those who take this game so seriously that they have taken out the fun aspect of it. They have turned it into a grind where the only satisfaction they receive is rolling on a multi, and that's just wrong.

Hey now..
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: HarryCrumb on July 21, 2013, 09:29:31 pm
Actually, the only people that need to take a look in the mirror are those who take this game so seriously that they have taken out the fun aspect of it. They have turned it into a grind where the only satisfaction they receive is rolling on a multi, and that's just wrong.

Now, before everyone starts talking about you fun is not my fun or other shit like that, at the end of the day this thread was started because someone lost a multi. I don't know about you, but I have just as much fun playing at x1 as I do at x5 and if I happen to lose my multi, I just keep on playing. Hell, I try more at x1 so I can get a x5 in 3 rounds (gotta love dat valour).

If the point of this thread was to expose the fact that admins are inconsistent, I'm not sure anyone who has played the game for longer than a couple weeks that does not know this. Considering that I'm playing this for free, and the admins are volunteers who also want to play the game and not just police it, I'm fine with the inconsistency. Never been banned, never gotten anyone banned. Just play the game, forget about the multi, and your chance of developing an aneurysm will drop dramatically.

You completely misunderstood what the OP is speaking of. Glad you could explain how much you love to play the game. I too enjoy playing the game much more than spectating the game. The OP is pointing out how the current amount of bro-coders on NA_1 recently has made the game you seem to love so much to be much less enjoyable sadly. I don't want people to get banned, I just want people to stop doing it. It isn't funny. It isn't cute. It is simply just wasting everyone on the servers time when people bro-code.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: WITCHCRAFT on July 21, 2013, 09:51:03 pm
Sometimes people will bro code me from the other team by blocking up or hopping around or whatever, instead of attacking. I just rush them down and plant some steel between their ribs.

War. is. WAR

Also the only time I am transparent is when I have cast sphere of invisibility or greater night veil. My unique dagger "Spine Slave" (+3, 5-7 poison damage on strike, 30% poison resist) has a 1% chance to cast shadow dance after a kill, but that rarely comes up and shadow dance is more of a teleport spell than an invis spell. So...
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Swaggart on July 21, 2013, 10:07:00 pm
You completely misunderstood what the OP is speaking of. Glad you could explain how much you love to play the game. I too enjoy playing the game much more than spectating the game. The OP is pointing out how the current amount of bro-coders on NA_1 recently has made the game you seem to love so much to be much less enjoyable sadly. I don't want people to get banned, I just want people to stop doing it. It isn't funny. It isn't cute. It is simply just wasting everyone on the servers time when people bro-code.

You sure that was the point? All he did was ask different admins questions and wrote down their responses.

Bro-coding happens maybe 5% of the time on the server, and quite frankly, when you have a mounted ranged the last person alive it delays the rounds so much more than bro-coding.

Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: HarryCrumb on July 21, 2013, 10:13:20 pm
You sure that was the point? All he did was ask different admins questions and wrote down their responses.

Bro-coding happens maybe 5% of the time on the server, and quite frankly, when you have a mounted ranged the last person alive it delays the rounds so much more than bro-coding.

Apparently you just didn't read the initial post then.

If you don't like people delaying games then you have to understand the frustration that Wrang is showing in his OP. He took things slightly further in regards to admin discrepancy but the situation that inspired his post was having to do with bro-coding.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Swaggart on July 21, 2013, 10:14:58 pm
Yes I know that was the reason behind the thread - he lost his multi.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: SirCymro_Crusader on July 21, 2013, 10:26:38 pm

War. is. WAR


visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Rumblood on July 21, 2013, 11:54:27 pm
Apparently you just didn't read the initial post then.

If you don't like people delaying games then you have to understand the frustration that Wrang is showing in his OP. He took things slightly further in regards to admin discrepancy but the situation that inspired his post was having to do with bro-coding.

This thread had nothing to do with delaying.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: HarryCrumb on July 22, 2013, 12:11:10 am
This thread had nothing to do with delaying.

So there isn't a correlation between people bro-coding and delaying?
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Rumblood on July 22, 2013, 02:08:44 am
So there isn't a correlation between people bro-coding and delaying?

There isn't a correlation between bro-coding, delaying, and this thread.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: Havoco on July 22, 2013, 02:48:33 am

Can bro-coding be against the rules? Yes, in some cases. I'll use a scale of examples to show what I mean.

  • Not against the rules: seeing an opponent you wouldn't like to fight on one end of the battlefield, moving to the opposite side.
  • Not against the rules: seeing a friend of yours in a row of enemies facing your row of teammates, choosing not to move over to attack him.
  • Not against the rules: running away from a specific opponent, as long as delaying rules do not apply.
  • Borderline, probably doesn't warrant admin action: choosing not to chase a player on the opposite team who is moving to attack your teammates without being contested.
  • Borderline again: choosing to stay out of a fight against someone on the enemy team, such as the last player alive, when he's fighting some of your teammates. (unless you're the last person alive on your team, and possibly if there's only one or two others on your team)
  • Light rule breach (merits warning at least): coming into contact with a friend on the opposite team, acknowledging but refusing to attack him to allow him access to fight your team unhindered. *this is the example as per the ban request, I think
  • Breach of rules: blocking your teammates from being able to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes griefing rule).
  • Breach of rules: attacking teammates for trying to attack a player on the opposite team (also includes intentional teamwounding rule).


Is something like this posted for all admins or players to see? JW, because it seems like the rules are pretty vague. It would be great to see more rules covered so thoroughly in this manner.
Title: Re: RE: Admin Transparency
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on July 22, 2013, 05:23:14 pm
I love how the moment he brings up a really good point you fucks change the subject to asinine gifs. Good fucking fight cRPG community. Good fucking fight. 

Edit: The admins are doing a fine job, but you people need to take a good hard look in the mirror.

To be fair I only read about 1/5th of this thread, and some of the other one/s he created.  He's collecting admin responses...he's taking it way too far.  I agreed with his initial point, that bro-coding at the end of the round happens too often, and nothing is done about it. 

But sometimes you just need to let it go man.