The Snitch Culture of crpg

[slimpyman]

i understand the OP.  to a point, he is right.  But ultimately, the admins must be people who play OFTEN and kind of get acclimated with everyone. being on their team, seeing others mannerisms, etc.  If the admins know generally who enriches the gameplay for others more then harms the gameplay, they can make best ban/unban decisions.

[Crazyi]

I love how you sit there and say kicking isn't a big deal, and when the admin fails to address my post and questions something I also dont feel is a big deal, I am the bad guy for being defensive. Just keep on wondering why less people are appreciating what you are doing.

[Rikthor]

Good god the angry sperging from Crazyi is ridonkulous

[Sergee]

I don't think id ever be gay enough to take pics and post em on the forums about people doing shit against server rules buncha whiny bitches stop crying and just play

[Canary]

I love how you sit there and say kicking isn't a big deal, and when the admin fails to address my post and questions something I also dont feel is a big deal, I am the bad guy for being defensive. Just keep on wondering why less people are appreciating what you are doing.

No, you are the bad guy for withholding information. There's a difference between that and "being defensive" as you keep putting it.

Where, precisely, am I saying kicking isn't a big deal? I keep saying it's hard to enforce. Stop telling lies.

[SuperNewb]

I don't think id ever be gay enough to take pics and post em on the forums about people doing shit against server rules buncha whiny bitches stop crying and just play

I never understood putting up ban threads. Did it once, won't ever do it again because I just lost a friend of mine
I tend to just look at what armor they have and go kill them if they are on the other team.

[BADPLAYERold]

I tend to just look at what armor they have and go kill them if they are on the other team.

real men do it when they are on the same team.

[Crazyi]

It's against the rules, it's against the rules, it's against the rules.

Just not in my case. I have to explain the entire situation before intentional TKing is an enforceable rule. Once again if smooth had said "Ok he is banned for intentional TKing, but I want the rest of the story and you may face a ban" that would be just fine. However he choses to ignore what my post is about and become concerned with kicking. If kicking was happening, would that of made the intentional TK invalid? No. "It's against the rules, it's against the rules, it's against the rules." That is why I said what does it matter? If you want a real response, write real paragraph and don't go line by line through the post.

So your friend was level 23, got shot twice by HXers, and then we were damaging him with our kicks? He had a shield too so he wasnt str stacking..... that is one tough level 23. Our kicks did so much it made him mad enough for his friend to TK us but not mad enough to push the M button? You are right he is being totally honest.

[Smoothrich]

you're right crazy its always against the rules EXCEPT IN YOUR CASE WHERE IT ISNT for no reason except because i am biased

crazyi just admit it:  you were plainly and obviously wrong and everyone can see that except you and some people who pretend to be on your side just to see you get riled up and embarrass yourself on the forums in an elaborate troll

[Canary]

Just not in my case. I have to explain the entire situation before intentional TKing is an enforceable rule. Once again if smooth had said "Ok he is banned for intentional TKing, but I want the rest of the story and you may face a ban" that would be just fine.

You mean like this?

Sigvard will be banned regardless, but your hesitation to actually explain what he was being a vigilante about is incriminating in its own right.  I am not being biased, just fair.  Ban time will be reduced or removed with the full story but kicking teammates to grief them is rule breaking much like tk'ing to stop it

I once again point out that your immediate refusal to cooperate and begrudging belligerence made it seem much less like a legitimate ban request.

If you want a real response, write real paragraph and don't go line by line through the post.

I'd rather respond to every statement directly without ambiguity so that you know what I'm talking about. If you don't want to take the time to make a real response, though, by all means cut yourself out of the argument.

So your friend was level 23, got shot twice by HXers, and then we were damaging him with our kicks? He had a shield too so he wasnt str stacking..... that is one tough level 23. Our kicks did so much it made him mad enough for his friend to TK us but not mad enough to push the M button? You are right he is being totally honest.

Sounds like you're making assumptions, which proves you're 100% biased.

[dynamike]

Precisely, no admin was present. Smoothrich started asking for more information and you were reluctant to give it out and became instantly belligerent because of a situation that happened when an admin was on to properly police. You blamed him for being biased because he had to ask for details about the situation instead of just banning the guy based on one piece of evidence. If you're not going to readily say what happened in details, you shouldn't have been so hard on him making presumptions.

Malicious or not, people don't generally like being kicked. If you do it intentionally, then you're going against the rules. The reason it slides so much is because of the infrequency of reports and the small impact it has on the game (in comparison to intentional teamwounding). It's a similar situation to teamkilling after a round ends, it's against the rules, but mostly only when someone complains about it. Obviously it's different if you're kicked off of a high place, however, and especially if you die from it.

There wasn't any doubt that you had kicked someone, and as if you recall, the guy you kicked spoke up in one of the additional threads you posted and wasn't pleased by what you'd done. Other people were around to elaborate on the situation as well.


So it seems like what you're suggesting then and now is that admins should punish people based on reports only, and without evidence the admins actually observe. This is exactly contradictory to what you're so mad at Smoothrich about. We can't just punish people based on one report and assume it's legitimate, and it's procedure to issue a warning, regardless. Like I said in my previous post, that's why I dislike the prevalence of ban requests: A lot of things that merit a warning receive bans as punishment because of the way the system works.

We start with a warning, such as what you quoted. This is the case in situations we don't witness ourselves but are merely reported to us.

Not at all, assuming the situations are also equal. Having more information makes a lot of difference.

He posited a theory about the situation which you denied. You didn't present any other information about what happened, so he was forced to make further assumptions. When asked for more information, you literally said "What does it matter" and refused to speak up about the circumstances, instead beginning your prolonged haranguing of Smoothrich's decision-making (which was hard for him to make with so little input!). I say it was you who began handling the situation completely wrong, and while two wrongs may not make a right, Smoothrich didn't have anything to go on because you refused to tell him more. I don't think it's reasonable to blame him for being snarky when you instantly started out by raising a stink over his judgment.

Don't say there's NO PROCESS just because you don't like the way the process works.

The reason why a lot of things seem disproportionate is that we can't witness every single action undertaken by every single player on a constant basis. There are times when there isn't a single admin online, let alone one to spectate each player on a server!

Despite what you think, we try to coordinate our actions and maintain consistency between punishments, but not every situation is equal, even when the same rule is being broken. This necessitates the admin at-hand using their discretion, even if there was a hard and fast set of punishments as a rule instead of just a guideline.

I'm glad that people like you aren't in charge of the means and amount of punishment people receive, as it seems you're for instantly banning a first-time small infraction for an entire week based only on hearsay and deny that someone would be upset by you repeatedly kicking them (since your intent wasn't "malicious" as you're keen to repeat).

You're more inconsistent than we are, from what I've seen.

We can't constantly spectate one player over the course of every hour you're online and playing. The best we can do is watch out for problems and trouble-makers and respond with warnings to reports of misdeeds without witnessing them, handing out punishment when we see these misdeeds, and go into spectator to watch for repeat behavior, or to answer ban requests (given sufficient information) and go over the server logs where necessary on the appropriate forum board.

They certainly don't need to rule on everyone if they don't see something happening. The moment we begin to enforce rules based only on reports is the moment a false reports gets an innocent player punished. You can hardly blame admins for taking your reports with a grain of salt, Crazyi, after you began a thread by harassing and hurling accusations at one of the admins who was trying to answer your request. And anyway, just because someone doesn't speak up doesn't mean they're not doing anything (though if someone's looking into things I suppose speaking up couldn't hurt either).


I do agree that we can improve on the consistency of punishment, but using your own example consequences, how different would that be from how things happen now? You got a short ban, Sigvard got a long ban.


I feel like the admin team is trying to do more and more, and the playerbase is appreciating it less and less.

Because this is a video game that people should be playing for enjoyment.

While indicative of teamkilling behavior, it wasn't necessarily condemning. I don't see how you can be so appalled by an admin actually trying to uncover more facts before issuing a punishment.

I did re-read that thread. The chat logs show intent, sure, but your screenshot was small and difficult to read, you can't assume Smoothrich can actually see that well, he's an old fogey, you're the one assuming information now!*

*this was a joke, sorry

He could have believed you up until you refused to present information and started your accusations. At first, all that could be seen was a screenshot of Sigvard teamwounding you twice (the second one killing you), Sigvard saying "quit kicking him you fuck" barely legible (which could have happened any time after you had the chat log open, since it isn't scrolled properly.), and you saying "Intentional TK." and nothing else in the thread.

He errs on the side of caution, says something as an example of what might have happened and you immediately took an incredulous stance to the way Smoothrich was handling the situation. His next statement was merely a question about the incident and you refuse to answer it while insisting it's the same as a previous experience you'd had where you were the one breaking the rules (which an admin was online to witness) on another server.

This is where Smoothrich returns your attitude to you, and you start to accuse him of being biased. You start (and continue without ceasing) to say he assumes information, but you've been the one withholding it the whole time. The hell do you expect?

The logs aren't updated constantly for the NA admins. We can't check them constantly since they might not be up to date. I'm fairly certain that approaching it from a neutral position isn't to assume guilt just because you're so adamant about it, it's to weight both sides of what might have happened and decide it based on evidence, some of which you intentionally refused to give out. You tried to brush off the question "Quit kicking who, exactly?" as if it wasn't pertinent information, when in fact it dealt directly with what had happened. He TKed you because you kicked some guy, that's proof that he was deserving of a ban, not because he had two teamwounds on you and an out of context statement shown together in one screenshot. Your persistent belligerence towards Smoothrich did not help your case.

It's against the rules, it's against the rules, it's against the rules. You're missing the point of what I said.  I was describing why it can go unchecked. If nobody's complaining about it, we can't always do anything about it. I'm not saying it's okay that it slides, just that when it happens it is hard to notice sometimes.

It does not display teamwounds in the logs unless they result in a kill or get reported. Reports do not always display to admins. I had to ask you for a name when you were kicked twice at spawn, and I issued a warning because I couldn't see the reports. I don't know anything about the instance where you got kicked off a bridge. I am also not responsible for the judgments of other admins, though I will defend them, in most cases. It's up to the discretion of an admin what the punishment will be for a particular person in a particular situation based on the severity of the circumstances and the people involved.
 
It isn't. Sigvard got banned, in case you forgot.

Right here:


I'm not saying that Sigvard's was a small infraction, but it was his first offense. You were subject to different rules when Smoothrich banned you before that because it was on a different server with different rules (and different people in charge of unbanning).

Just because you wouldn't be offended doesn't mean he wasn't. Just because he didn't report the teamwounds doesn't mean they didn't deal damage. Teamwounds don't show up in the logs unless reported or if they result in a kill. At this point it's your word versus his, and I think it's time we stop retreading this specific issue, since it's already been dealt with.

I'm surprised by how scathing your accusations can be, it's no wonder people don't take you as seriously as you'd like.

Once more: Teamwound reports don't always show up for admins. I don't know about the incident with the bridge, but the admins available seemed to have handled it (unless that person teamkilled again after being warned).



You don't always give us the evidence we need. You want us to ban people without actually looking into things, apparently, and I for one will not do that. You presume we can do far more than we actually can, and that we see much more than we actually see.

On top of which, we do sometimes like to play the game ourselves, so I apologize if some of your messages to I-chat go unheeded, but it can be hard to respond to every issue in a timely fashion without turning ourselves into leechers.

You mean like this?

I once again point out that your immediate refusal to cooperate and begrudging belligerence made it seem much less like a legitimate ban request.


I'd rather respond to every statement directly without ambiguity so that you know what I'm talking about. If you don't want to take the time to make a real response, though, by all means cut yourself out of the argument.

Sounds like you're making assumptions, which proves you're 100% biased.

YO CRAZYI - this guy ^ has a clan to lead, stop wasting his time with replying to your insignificant argumentation. Wake up and smell the roses - you have no point.

[CrazyCracka420]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Crazyi]

I once again point out that your immediate refusal to cooperate and begrudging belligerence made it seem much less like a legitimate ban request.

I like how you quote reply #7 in the thread and say my immediate refusal. If Smooth had started with the second paragraph in reply #7 as you have quoted, this would of been avoided. Yet he did not. Before this statement, he ignores what my post is about, says sigvard is cav and probably bump slashes me, threatens to ban me for 24 hours, and says I was kicking some one reloading a crossbow. hmmmmmm, Why was I so defensive? I figured it was common knowledge that when you attack some one that feels they were wronged, they get defensive. Apparently that is completely lost to you.

Sounds like you're making assumptions, which proves you're 100% biased.

Do you even know what bias means? It is making DECISIONS with prejudice. It has nothing to do with the statements you quoted. I will assume you ment to say liar. So in case your selective memory has forgot, I will quote your friend.
"You were doing damage, I was level 23 (At the time)" - Vaermi
"I was shot once or twice by (enemy) ranged " - Vaermi
"I left the encounter black bar." - Vaermi
"Wolfgang also tried kicking me even after you were dead" - Vaermi
So do those statements add up? Or are you going to use you bias and tell me they dont? Apparently only my kicks hurt him when I was a naked peasent. Yes, I was a naked peasent, that is why Sigvard chose to kill me. If you want proof of that it is in the chat logs of that day.
And yes, I do remember he had a shield on. I don't think it is an assumption to say it made him mad enough to ask his friend to tk me, because it happened. So it makes you mad enough to have his friend kill us, but not mad enough to push the m button and report us the proper way? Also re-reading his post he claims he was shot WHILE we were kicking him. We must of been kicking him for quite some time to have two crossbow bolts shot at him through the frame of a door up a staircase. Even wolf kicks him after he is hits black bar, and he still lives?

[ildist]

Do you even know what bias means? It is making DECISIONS with prejudice. It has nothing to do with the statements you quoted. I will assume you ment to say liar.

No.

[Inequity]

tears stalked goate for like two weeks to post a ban thread with vague screenshots he's the worst