There ought to be a list!

[Monkeybits]

I've seen a few posts where we've discussed listing things that are acceptable and things that aren't I thought I'd do a general post, because I don't think this is something we should push for.

The advantage to lists is that they're clear. The disadvantage is that they're inflexible, and you have to update them.

If you have a list of unacceptable actions/activities, etc. people will find work arounds. It also relieves both players and admins of the responsibility of thinking for themselves. That's not what we're after--we want a mature, thinking group out to have a tremendous amount of fun.

When in doubt, an admin can get a group decision. For example, the other day a player came on server as "AntiChrist" something or other. Now, I'm solidly Christian and so was another eG. He asked me what I thought. My reply is that I don't impose my personal beliefs on other players. The name isn't foul or abusive, so it's fair game.

Besides, it gave me the chance to kill the AntiChrist.

No list required, just common sense and personal responsibility. When it comes to exploits and such, my question is, "Can it be countered?" If you can't get to a sentry easily with a spy, how about a soldier, sniper or demoman? On well, when you could build a sentry high above the final cap point, I did prior to joining eGO. Several teams quickly learned to take it out with soldiers and decoys, or simply used scouts to run outside its range. Updates have made it so you can't build there, but when you could, it wasn't really an exploit, because though team work was required, it could easily be countered. Sniping from spawn on Convoy? I don't much like it, but it can be countered with other snipers from the back of the convoy.

We don't need lists. Keeping the rules general allows us to be fast and flexible to minimize moderator impact on game play.

Also, I won't lie; I don't want to memorize lists or tape them up all around my desk when they're not at all necessary. You people rock. Have confidence in your judgment. We're all here to back you up.

 

[Lafinass]

Behavior, names, language, attitude- yes, those things do not need a list. Lists are open to exploitation and can lead to worse arguments than without.

However, what is and is not allowed gameplay wise, there does need to be a list. Because these things cannot be subjective to the judgment of individual admins.

I have had players ask me if it's ok to build X 'here' or rocket jump up 'there' and if another admin comes on an hour later and tells them to not do something I specifically said was OK, where does that leave us? It makes us look like we're incompetent and unorganized.

 

[OfficerFriendly]

Like I said last night always ask this question in regards to names, language attitude... Does it disrupt the server? You can make the argument that we do not allow religious names/views but if people immediatly jump on the name then yea take action. I am currently working on some guidelines but the list may be longer than we can all count.

 

[Monkeybits]

Lafin, I see your point on where to build. However, except for the one position you mentioned in the specific thread about it, if it's not in the nodraw area or under the map, it seems to be fair game. Naturally, that doesn't include malicious teleporter placement or blocking. I still think it's better to ask, "Is there a reasonable counter to this?" than, "Is it on a list?" That also seemed to be the consensus on the other thread.

My goal here is really to promote the idea of exercising personal responsibility and logical thought over a detailed set of rules.

Officer, I agree wholeheartedly. I've said exactly the same in another post. My big guidelines are, "Does it disrupt game play?" and "Does it flagrantly violate the general server rules?" Usually those two encompass one another well.

 

[Moose]

I think I agree with the common sense thing. Just today on 2fort a character with a name "May be a Crack Head" came on...now obviously not too many people might get in an uproar, but it's obviously not a name we want floating around on our servers. The admin asked him to change it because of the drug reference, and the guy was happy to oblige. No problems there. Political names should be knocked out, period, because too many things could possibly go wrong with that. Religious names, I think, might be an iffy area, unless it's obviously taking a stance one way or another. I'm not going to warn a guy named "Buddha", but if it was something explicit, then yeah.

 

[Monkeybits]

With religious names, I'd ask for a change if it were denigrating to any faith. That's not okay--but it's also covered. It's abusive, and so not tolerated.

By the way, when it comes to my "no lists" approach, I am absolutely aware the community may decide I'm not right about it--I'll happily go along with what is decided to be best with no complaints.

My thoughts may well originate from the worry that we'll end up with a long list of CC&Rs on our servers. I don't want to have to consult the 3 inch thick building code before throwing up a sentry.

It's an adaptation of a very old thought:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
--Benjamin Franklin

If you don't see the connection, don't worry--my brain moves in odd ways sometimes.

 

[The Big Herm]

Lists are only as good as its last patch... Once you make a list, it only gets longer. The you have to ask yourself as an admin, is your brain prepared to continually copy and paste and copy and paste as new patches are installed and new glitches are found? The name thing is common sense. If I came into the server with my name change to M******* F****** Id be banned. If My name was Barack Obama for President NOW! Id be asked to change it. We all have functioning brains, people! This subject is being beaten to death

 

[Moose]

I wouldn't say we're beating it to death. I think discussion on the topic is a good barometer as to the consensus within the clan.

 

[ln(e)]

Instead of a long inflexible list, then, how about a short broad one? Guidelines, if you will. There are good questions you can ask yourself when ruling on whether something is an exploit or not. Sentries for instance: can it be destroyed? Is it so effective a position that it goes against the spirit of the game (that is, does it result in me fortress 2 or team fortress 2)?

You're still left to your own judgment, but these things are common sense and should end in very specific, consistent rulings.

 

[Lafinass]

In full agreement with math-boy there.

The sentry on top of Gravel Pit B for example. Is it destroyable? Yes. Easily. Does it provide an unfair advantage, even a situational one? Not at all, it could arguably considered ineffective. So should it be allowed? Yes.

 

[Nini]

There was a lot of good ideas and opinions on my thread, about map exploit. I realize that a list isn't nesserary to fix the problem. If a sentry can be destroyed, its not consider map exploit. Like others have said in my thread, if it was a problem, valve would have fixed it. I'm determine to push this until something is being done.

Admins have responsibility to live up to, that's why they have power in the first place. I respect admins because they have earned it, not because they have power.