Clarification of rule


#21

I wasn't on the server at that time but seeing how you act on the forum, it seems like you harrass people without even knowing it, and that whether by posting or by sending messages (true story) or even going on IRC to continue with them.

Everyone seems to be taking some time with you but they didn't understand your nature. You just need to be ignored and that's why I'll mute every post you turn to shit like this one, with dummy arguments creating endless discussions we forgot what were they about.

Muted


#22

JuliaBond is a bad person, racist, offensive, etc. He is the one harrasing people, me for example, calling me "dumb mexican, go to school, oh wait you can't you live in a 3rd world country". Bluefire is a nice guy which is totally opposite to this piece of goat shit named "juliabond". This ban to the wrong person is just dissapointing :confused: .


#23

Protip: This is not a ban appeal thread. Do not turn it into one. Information from the report thread has been removed from the OP, as I understand that such info isn't supposed to be privy to non-users.


The reason this thread is valid is because @Bluefire is seeking clarification on what he understands are vague rules. Specifically:

  • The nature of multi-clienting on GrangerPub (unspecified rule?)
  • The specifics of "harassment" (Rules 4 & 5)

@Bluefire I cannot answer to any details regarding multi-clienting. I highly recommend any high-level admin to weigh in ontop of what @dGr8LookinSparky has said.

However for harassment, I believe @bird (please correct me if I am wrong) was relying on Rules 4 and 5:

  • No persistently tormenting/pestering/persecuting nor targeting any individual(s)
  • If you are continually pestering someone, when they say "NO" (or stop, quit, etc.), you should STOP

Persistence and the pesteree's indication for someone to stop seems to be the key elements for action under Rule 4.

As for Rule 5:

No flame wars (not to be confused with civilized discussions of controversial topics, nor with friendly trash talk banter) between 2 or more players in any non-private chat. Take any fights to private messages. Don't feed trolls.

Action under this rule appears to be more open to interpretation, where banter between individuals that isn't civilized discussion or friendly trash talk can be considered flaming (ergo 'flame wars').

Urban dictionary provides the following definition of 'flaming':

An online argument that becomes nasty or derisive, where insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over the objective merits of one side or another

@Bluefire I have noticed that you did admit to insulting Juliabond. To what extent I do not know (persistence? flaming?) and discussion of such doesn't belong here, but an admin decided that it was enough to take action. Hopefully this is the "clarification of rules" that you seek.


Thread will be closed within 3 days of the last reply, seeing how both inquiries are answered. This should also be enough time for any additional responses.


#24

I admit, at the begining it was a bit of harassment (btw, I am sorry Lexluger about this)
BUT then I was talking with erza about how do insult affect us, and why should we care about it /why should we ignore it.
Can you guy, please, take the log of this game and put it here, in order to prof what I am saying.
And bird muted me because of the civilized discussions and he justified this as "spam"
But I didn't wrote more than 2 time the same message, and each sentence was explaing an idea.
So this is not a spam. So the mute's reason is invalid.

PS: I don't need obani's point of view about this.


#25

I am sorry Bluefire. :frowning: I don't have access to the server logs and even if I did, we're not supposed to dump it publicly. AFAIK once the appeal thread is locked, the matter is over.

Again, you created this thread to discuss about the specifics of the rules. That is why its still up. I commend your efforts for clarification and hope this thread serves to make changes to the existing rules.


#26

ok, so what do you think about this new rule: before muting/banning admin explain the reason, so the player can tell them they are wrong, (e.g. it's not a flamewars, it's civilized dicussion or I didn't base naded, we are moving the base and the outpost need bp etc....)


#27

inb4 derailment

My issue with that rule is that admins can't be expected to have in-depth debates with the people they perceive as rule violators during a match. I guess they can spectate about it, but then they'd be publicly debating details as they take up server slots for something that's better done elsewhere like on IRC or a forum. I doubt neither of them will agree anyways, so we must trust in the good faith of the admin to do the right thing.

Tremulous 1.4+ needs cross-server chat integration IMO


#28

I sent a PM to DevHC, in order to have the chat of this game.


#29

Despite whatever appearance you may perceive, make no mistake: DevHC is no longer an admin of GrangerPub1. I believe you are better off PM'ing @romdos directly if you are that inclined to pursue your case further.

Additionally, this is going to be my last post on this issue. Again, your thread is about the clarification of the rules.

1 FUCKING DICKBUTTS. I AM ETERNALLY CURSED TO WALK THIS EARTH AMONG PEOPLE WHO ARE A BLIGHT UPON REASON, LIKE SECULARISTS VOTING IN TURKEY.


#30

ok thx, I am going to ask romdos .


#31

I want to show the difference betwin a civilized discussion and a flamer wars, because, apparently, admin can't see it.


#32

Teh harasser got harassed, how ironic.


#33

1) The and not Teh.
2) It should not be funny, you should take action against him.


#34

Teh actionz will be taken, if we have a reason to do so.


#35

The*

Harassment on discord, and via PM. But I can't show you my PM, I guess it's against the rules.


#36

Feel free to show us teh harassment PMs, but make sure you send it as a private message.


#37

please, #the !
Ok I will do so


#38

which is fucking broken, because it removes everything (formatting (bold, superscript, etc), link targets, etc) but plaintext.

as much as the rule is bullshit, multi-clienting is still not forbidden even if the rule were accepted, and there's eg. ghosting being done. the substance of the rule-breaking is the ghosting, not the multi-clienting. ie., it's stupid to say that „abuse happened on 2 counts:

  1. ghosting; and
  2. using multiple clients to to perform (1.).”.

to play on both teams, in either a task switching or a „stereo” fashion, in a way that does not violate rules.

WRONG. first of all, „well” is subjective. second, i can easily build on both teams using 2 clients per team; or, i can participate in player-vs-player combat with one client on one team, while in between respawns, switch to another client to build on the other team. i can even enjoy only player-vs-player by switching between playing aliens and playing humans, always idling with the opposite-teamed client — yes, idling half of the time does not yield a player's full potential, but the GrangerHub servers don't have a „u must strive to achieve victory.” rule.

notice that all of this does not imply the actual use of information acquired by SNEAKY(TM)(R)(C) means.

for example, u're harassing me by being a dumb fuck, and u don't even know how to not be one.


#39

That is an example of begging the question. :wink:

My point is that based on observing the performance of multiple clients with the same ip on opposite teams, it doesn't take long to observe that those clients are used by the same player, form noticing that quality activity of the clients shift to one client at a time, and/or noticing the poor quality of those multiple clients being played simultanously. This is assuming that the multiclienting player is not botting with one or more of those clients, but botting in itself is a direct violation of the rules, and other signs (for botting) would be looked out for.

How well can you build on both teams simultaneously without shifting focus nor quality activity away from any client? How well can you participate in combat on both teams simultaneously also without shifting focus nor quality activity away from any client?

Feel free to 1 v 1 yourself on GrangerClub putting in continuous quality effort towards trying to win on both sides, and in such a way that most people would think that you are not multi-clienting. If you can do that, try taking it up a notch and 2 v 2 yourself :wink: . Be sure to post videos of those matches for us to see.

Just by being on both teams, you have access to the team chat of both teams (as well as the non-verbal observations from being a friendly on both teams, such as knowing where spawns and other buildables are, or if your team's om/rc is down, or when/where rushes are taking place), and thus automatically ghosting with yourself, even if you don't verbally communicate that info with the rest of your team.


#40

irrelevant; this is exactly avoiding my point.

however, for the sake of being even more off-topic, let's consider these desires too. the general answer is: this i can't do. a couple of specific comments:

this is not required for the purposes of reasonably practical building. in most cases, a player, while hiding deep in his/her base, can safely build and often repair, requiring only the dedication of recurring short intervals of attention.

sounds like a challenge.

again, this is irrelevant, because such information is not used in-game in what i described.