Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If and when this pact is proposed with a specific group that is infamous enough to be known for griefing behavior, then it might get a lot more support.
Heck, I'll say it: if the Goonswarm tries anything remotely like "burn Thornkeep", I'm going to make it a personal mission to keep them from having their "fun", by any legal means neccesary. I think enough people would support that cause to make it work, among them the customer support staff and Blarengr.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The very nature of these forums is discussion. By posting here, rather than sending private invitations to interested parties, you opened the door to debate - including debate with those who may not agree with your ideas; and, after all, the existence of such a treaty affects them as well. While I'm not going to debate the issue (it's up to my guild leaders to guide private discussion and form a public response), I find the healthy discussion - even from viewpoints I disagree with IC and/or OOC - a good thing, and certainly not a waste of time.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Individuals who have not already put their trust in larger organizations will neither take part in enforcing this agreement, nor have it enforced against them.@Andius: Individuals have neither voice nor vote.
I do not feel like a random person.
My larger organization is not formed because our guild leader is unconvinced it is more than vaporware at this point and busy in an active game elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So by derailing you mean debate or questioning, right?
I have received quite a few praises for bringing up the issues I have, and bringing clarity to my own position. You Sir, are in the minority.
But, you provide no points to you argument, on just how I derailed this thread.
As stated several times in this thread it is about who is interested in discussing and then drafting such a treaty. It was not meant for the actual discussion. It was meant to determine the participants of the discussion. Why the hell should Organisation C have a say in a treaty that is between Organisation A and Organisation B?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm simply not going to waste my time addressing the point of every random person who walks in here and offers an opinion.
I do not much care if there are those in this community who oppose such a measure. I expect this agreement will anger a great many people. Nobody likes it when someone ruin's their good time even if that good time is at the expense of others. This convention is not for them, and I will not waste my time debating whether we should make it or not.
This agreement WILL BE CREATED whether TEO is the only group to sign it or not. I am inviting other groups to take part in creating terms they can agree to. If that is not something that interests them then they need not attend.
If you are interested in the convention, prepare your proposals and choose your representatives. If you, you have no interest in such an agreement or debating the terms. Then I bid you good day.
Two points...
"Every Random Person"
I believe most of the people in this thread are Company Leaders or Officers of their respective companies.
Second point,
"If you are interested in the convention, prepare your proposals and choose your representatives. If you, you have no interest in such an agreement or debating the terms"
I have prepared my proposals and have expressed them here, several times.
Who represents The UnNamed Company, is likewise, very clear. But, I have conversed with my council and we all stand in agreement as to the content of my argument and the form.
Some of my best arguments can be found in the post you responded to. Particularly the Game Mechanic issues I raised.
This agreement WILL BE CREATED whether TEO is the only group to sign it or not.
Are you sure TEO is NG and not LG, just wondering?
And I don't mean that as a personal attack, it is a legitimate question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The very nature of these forums is discussion. By posting here, rather than sending private invitations to interested parties, you opened the door to debate - including debate with those who may not agree with your ideas; and, after all, the existence of such a treaty affects them as well. While I'm not going to debate the issue (it's up to my guild leaders to guide private discussion and form a public response), I find the healthy discussion - even from viewpoints I disagree with IC and/or OOC - a good thing, and certainly not a waste of time.
Papaver, you may have missed this while writing your own post. As for your own post, I read it a few times and finally pulled a bit of sense out of it... or at least your question:
Why the hell should Organisation C have a say in a treaty that is between Organisation A and Organisation B?
Because Organization C will be impacted by this oppressive regime.
Because Organization C is a part of the community of which Andius proposes he is looking to protect.
Because there may be suspicion on the part of some, that the largest company on the forums is making a not so veiled power grab.
Because this whole treaty is the result of fear of Goons.
There are many possible reasons, some rational and some not so, but in a debate they should all be addressed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Developing relationships and a social networks now, to improve coordination with future in-game problems seems like a good idea.
2. Trying to contractually define triggering anti-social behavior now, when such behavior will be contextual and varied (and we have very little mechanical information on the game) seems like a bad idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I am going to withdraw from this topic as I have already clearly stated all that I feel needs to be stated. TEO will be organizing it's points and proposals for the actual convetion, rather than debating them with those uninterested in the idea of this agreement. Any more specific questions can be sent to me in a PM.
I'm not storming off. I'm simply not going to waste my time addressing the point of every random person who walks in here and offers an opinion.
This is a real problem. Between "Ok I played EVE so everything I say is twue" to the above "Screw anyone who disgrees with me," you're demonstrating zero ability to listen. A willingness to listen to other perspectives, particularly dissent, is fundamental to leadership. I'm sure your goals are sincere, but you're doing it wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Elaborate what regime you mean?
The treaty itself is oppressive. The way it is being framed is oppressive. The proposed enforcement of it is oppressive.
No, you can not hide behind the "It has not been written yet, or it is not set in stone" arguments. Enough has been leaked through this thread to convince many, they will have no part in it.
Then there is this:
This agreement WILL BE CREATED whether TEO is the only group to sign it or not.
If TEO is the only one that signs it, then it was the final decision maker as to what went into it.
From post #1 to this post, the definitions of the terms have been controlled by one. The terms of debate have been controlled by one. Even the location of debate have been attempted to be controlled by one.
Then we have your own point:
Also why would the draft and discussion of a treaty between organisations be held in public? The treats is only binding to those who will sign it in the end so the public has nothing to do with it.
Yes, the one thing a good discussion needs is to be held behind closed doors and kept from sun light... until it is ready to be thrust upon the community.
I was amused to see that Anduis himself favorited that post, did you get an extra cookie?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Beware empowering Lawful Good overmuch, said I. The Lawful Good will be populated by the power hungry said I. And behold...
I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.
I have a feeling many of you may be singing a very different tune when you see how freely we are willing to give and render aid to the incoming players of this game seeking to build something meaningful in this community. In terms of finances, military aid, and general support.
One thing I can promise you is I will not slow aid to those groups and individuals, to give it to old organizations, who had the chance to prepare for the hardships of this game and failed to do so. They will be helped if we have the time and resources available to do so, and I will promise no more.
Now groups who stand beside us in trying to keep this community a place worth calling our own. Who make sure the weak of the community are protected even if it means sticking their own necks out. I will bend over backwards to give them the aid they need, should they need it.
With that in consideration. I ask you all what do you have to lose by sending representatives to this convention? Worst case scenario you cannot agree upon the terms, and do not sign the agreement. At least it will show me you are serious about dealing with griefing and keeping this community protected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beware empowering Lawful Good overmuch, said I. The Lawful Good will be populated by the power hungry said I. And behold...I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.
And there the face of tyranny has been revealed!
Damn, I'm a bandit, a mercenary, a spy... I'll steal your gold, your life (temporarily), or your information.... But I will leave you your freedom.
This treaty and TEO will steal all from you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.
Bingo. You're going to get us all back and make us sorry. Brilliant leadership move.
At least it's a kind of honesty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not threatening anything. This is like a father saying:
"It's your choice whether or not to use protection, but if you screw up and I'm hard on cash, I'm not bailing you out with your brother's college fund."
There is a threat coming, and it's not from me. I've offered a way to prepare for it. If you choose not to make use of that, don't expect me to bend over backwards to bail you out. I'll put the food on my own table. Then I'll help those who helped themselves, or who had no chance to prepare. If there is anything left after that then I'll worry about you.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the Goonswarm has caused this much strife without even making their presence known, we have no chance to oppose them.
On behalf of my organization I can say only that this action is premature. As a private individual I would like to help you develop your ideas against the future need for them, but you have made it clear that interested individuals are not welcome to the discussion nor to become parties to the treaty.
I know you have the noblest of intentions here; I ask that you consider the possibility that your zeal has exceeded what is needed at this time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.
Bingo. You're going to get us all back and make us sorry. Brilliant leadership move.
At least it's a kind of honesty.
It is not honesty, it is his "You Can't Handle the Truth" moment. It is the hidden agenda. It had been slowly leaking out through these last three pages, but now it is there in full bloom!
Sign or Suffer, this mysterious thing that only we will define. Be a part of our blob or it won't be good for you. Because only our blob can protect you from "their" blob.
"I will not deal with the Devil or an Angel, because they both wear the same face, make the same promises, and want the same control" ~ Bluddwolf
That will be my motto in my signature
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the Goonswarm has caused this much strife without even making their presence known, we have no chance to oppose them.
Darkfall and Mortal Online managed to have unwelcoming and self interested communities that let the griefers run over the top of new incoming players without Goonswarm ever being involved.
I watched a lot of good organizations crumble in those games because the veterans failed to act. It wasn't their problem. So what if Fallen Lords and Guttersnipes run off all the RPers, newb clans, and New Academy?
I of course had a lot more hope for this community. I still do. It's just apparent we may be doing all the work on our own. At least I know now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are very good reasons that Ryan didn't bother trying to define "griefing". I am extremely skeptical of coordinated player action to enforce player-defined anti-griefing laws. This is the ring of power, and you will be sorely tempted to wield it in ways that seem good to you, but are in fact the very evil you think you are opposing.
If the Goonswarm has caused this much strife without even making their presence known, we have no chance to oppose them.Darkfall and Mortal Online managed to have unwelcoming and self interested communities that let the griefers run over the top of new incoming players without Goonswarm ever being involved.
I watched a lot of good organizations crumble in those games because the veterans failed to act. It wasn't their problem. So what if Fallen Lords and Guttersnipes run off all the RPers, newb clans, and New Academy?
I of course had a lot more hope for this community. I still do. It's just apparent we may be doing all the work on our own. At least I know now.
I'll echo Decius here: in your zeal, you've conflated "inaction" with "not doing things Andius' way". No one in this thread is advocating inaction, nor are they advocating unrestrained griefing. They do, however, disagree on method - inevitable, given that we don't yet know much about game mechanics. At this point, healthy discussion - without paternalistic overtones - is probably impossible within this thread, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to hand it to Andius for coming and doing this in public. Takes guts, and whether you agree or not, he deserves props. We want folks with this zeal and passion for action in this community.
Side note: Personally, I think either something should be IC or OOC, as soon as you start mixing the two, issues usually follow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll echo Decius here: in your zeal, you've conflated "inaction" with "not doing things Andius' way". No one in this thread is advocating inaction, nor are they advocating unrestrained griefing. They do, however, disagree on method - inevitable, given that we don't yet know much about game mechanics. At this point, healthy discussion - without paternalistic overtones - is probably impossible within this thread, though.
I'm not telling everyone to do it my way. I'm telling them to send their delegates the the table so we can work on a solution together.
Instead of they have got hung up on debating how they don't like about the details OF A TREATY THAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN!!!
This is why this debate is closed to the public. Too many people wander in, read a fragment of what is said and then offer their opinions without understanding the full situation.
I want to take a group of people of a small size and debate the issue. Not have people on the forum skim the OP and then skip to the last page and start giving their opinions on points that they misunderstood or already were addressed.
Most people posting here simply do not understand the issue. It's not offering incredible power to any group or individual. It doesn't have poorly defined terms on what is and isn't griefing. It doesn't police the every action of every player of PFO.
It is an unwritten treaty stating groups will put aside minor differences and roleplay disputes to band against griefing if the need arises. We are supposed to decide AS A GROUP how to best do that.
Obviously few other's see the need to prepare ahead of time. If none will send delegates I will wait until after the pain has started to deal with the problem, as surely people will be more willing to listen then.
Ironically people are accusing me of trying to seize power when I am in fact trying to convince people to empower themselves rather than be the victims of circumstance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Overreaction to something is not about that something. It is about what that something represents."
- Kacan Moraphis, Chief Abbot, Monastery of the 36th Order
(although I know he heard that somewhere)
"The part of that man that I do not like is also a reflection of me."
- Noah ben Shea, from Jacob the Baker
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not offering incredible power to any group or individual.
It's giving an aura of authority and righteousness to the actions that you and others take in the name of combating "griefing". That is power.
I doubt that PFO will create an environment wherein it becomes necessary for the players to band against large-scale griefing. Ryan has made it quite clear he and the rest of the folks at Goblinworks will be taking on that responsibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To win one thousand battles in one thousand engagements is not the acne of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
How can we make players immune to griefing without destroying intended gameplay?
The first way is to make sure the community is clear on the fact that griefing will not be tollerated. I think this is something a treaty of this fashion would convey, even if it never has to be put into action.
The second is to not enforce the griefer's behavior as something that is witty or cute. To refrain from making statements that enforce in the griefer's heads that finding loopholes in the rules, or coming up with witty trash talk impressing people. We should not be lending legitimacy to their actions.
We should be making sure the first face of the community see a helping hand, and not a death message.
Finally we should recognize that all these efforts won't stop the problem, and that we need to be prepared to do something when they don't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It appears the treaty being discussed in this thread is an in-game construct to deal with a real world issue. GW has already stated that they will take active measures against those the treaty proposes to defend against. I suggest that awareness of a potential problem is an appropriate response at this time until the promised GW mechanics are in place. If those mechanics fail for whatever reason, be it inability to appropriately distinguish the behavior anticipated, or because of legal restrictions, then is the time to generate this thread's proposed in-game response to the issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.
...
Fear-based decisions seldom have positive results, and intimidation is not negotiation.
Your organization is clearly less NG than it is LN.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing.
...Fear-based decisions seldom have positive results, and intimidation is not negotiation.
Your organization is clearly less NG than it is LN.
Hey boys why don't you take it easy. Sure Andius could of used taking down a peg or two but let's not start calling alignment shifts and potential other blanket statements about his organization. Slippery slope. Stay on target.
I do love all the trolling in this thread masked as "discussion." Delicious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2. There is no greater "win" for groups like the Goons than to have people in a game YEARS from release, likely not even on their radar yet, arguing over how to keep them out of the game. It is ATTENTION they crave in all it's forms! All this conversation will do, is cause one of them to link to this thread and *poof* now it's on their radar as they laugh about the chaos they have caused in a game they don't even have a presence in yet.
That is 100% accurate.
Also thank you Horo.
@ Tirithael: Once Andius posted this thread on a public forum it became a public meeting. That's the purpose of the forum, after all: discussion. Had he truly wanted a private discussion, then the proper diplomatic path for that would be to send a PM to targeted guild leaders; those leaders could then have guided in-guild discussions and come to a closed-door meeting with part of the work already done.
It's worth noting that the major dissenting voice - Bluddwolf - is the voice of The UnNamed Company, so this wasn't some random person raising objections, but instead one guild's representative taking part in a discussion for guild representatives.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My organization, the Delvers, will gladly sign this treaty. While the Delvers wish to include members of all religions and alignments, it is in our best interest if the worshipers of Rovagug should be eliminated, or at least contained to a singular town where they could worship openly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that the major dissenting voice - Bluddwolf - is the voice of The UnNamed Company, so this wasn't some random person raising objections, but instead one guild's representative taking part in a discussion for guild representatives.
Oh that's soooooooo cute. You think he was JUST "discussing"! Hahahahaha.
EDITED: For for Truth!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I'll remember that when you ask us for our help in the future. As surely any group who fails to prepares for the harsh realities that come with an Open World PVP game will end up doing...
I speak only for myself, Andius. My guild intends to be of a different alignment(either LG or NG) than is natural to me (TN). I have no idea what the guild might think or how they may respond or even if they will respond, though I have notified them and recommended another of us to represent the guild.
My concerns have IMV rightly removed me from consideration as negotiator, though the guild has not had time to respond to my recommendation.
That does not mean I do not think, nor that my thoughts are without merit. If I disagree with you it might even be a good idea to figure out why because I guarantee I will not troll you.
I have serious concerns about some of your reactions, definitions, and about your apparently corporatist hubris.
Truth is not something decided by majority rule. Fact is not dependent on the size of a guild's or an alliance' organization structure. Reason is not subject to intimidation.
@ Horo: I'm pretty easy. My vehemence is oratorical.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's worth noting that the major dissenting voice - Bluddwolf - is the voice of The UnNamed Company, so this wasn't some random person raising objections, but instead one guild's representative taking part in a discussion for guild representatives.Oh that's soooooooo cute. You think he was "discussing"!
I have framed my arguments and am open to discussion on them.
1. Griefing needs to be defined
2. Alignment needs to be considered for role playing purposes.
3. Professions need to be exempt for the proper application of their profession.
4 Infinite Bounties must be included as part of the pact. If we agree to not grief ourselves, we must also agree not to issue infinite bounties. These in my view are as excessive as the griefing they are meant to discourage.
5. There should be no retaliation for not participating in this treaty. This includes the retaliation of omission or indifference, otherwise you lose the perception that the treaty is for the good of the whole community.
I will keep it at those five for now. Please feel free to explain how these are not raising legitimate topics for discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Horo: I'm pretty easy. My vehemence is oratorical.
...and sometimes erroneous. That's why I'm always here to help.
@Bluddwolf Oh sorry! /bonk
I missed all the "seriousness" in the rest of the tomfoolery. Acts like static you see. But hey I knew you could be clear when you wanted. Cheers!
Edited my original post thanks to your correction. That hour edit window is murder!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth noting that the major dissenting voice - Bluddwolf - is the voice of The UnNamed Company, so this wasn't some random person raising objections, but instead one guild's representative taking part in a discussion for guild representatives.Oh that's soooooooo cute. You think he was "discussing"!
Call it what you will. It doesnt change the fact that Bluddwolf has brought up legitimate concerns. I say as crowdforgers we help GW devlop anti-griefing measures. They said in their blog they were commited to doing so. I say we hold them to it, and help them develop what those "appropriate" measures are. And the mechanics of those measures could either straight up physically prevent griefing, or Flag individuals for GWs to review and interview about the griefing incident(s), and perma-ban if guilty (it needs to be obvious). And the same thing for gold farmers, gold buyers, hackers, exploiters, etc, etc.
My biggest issue is with how certain groups (people more interested in PvE or LG) might define greifing. The next big issue is that anti-greifing tactics that have been proposed by GW in the dev blog seem excessive and over the top. Anti-greifing measures are on thing, but anti-PvP will just break the game and ruin content generation that develops because of PvP Ganks.
And yes unforseen griefing methods or those not able to be detected by code or mechanic will happen. But if it really is griefing then it needs to be brought to GW attention so that a mechanic for dealing with it will be enabled, or in the case of isolated incedents the griefers can be perma-banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Greedalox it is certain that GW is definately not against PvP: They need it for the game to work at all.
What they don't want, as far as I understand it, are players who kill other players without an in-game context that contributes something positive to the player community's game.
So there are things you can be doing, such as banditry, warfare, duels of honor, and similar that add something constructive to the game and those are not considered 'griefing'.
But definitions of something are not rightly negative. Definitions are positive, detailing characteristics and properties that distinguis it from other things that might look like it.
In the case of 'griefing', if you describe it then all the griefer has to do is figure out a way to spoil the game for someone without doing what has been literally described. Then they can say 'but I did not do what you defined is griefing' and be technically correct, even though they really were griefing a different way.