Forums » General
I'm glad I have a lively conversation going and I apreciate all the feedback.
A published standard for guides could very well promise to resolve most if not all of our current issues, while allowing the greatest degree flexability and adaptability.
Although there has been some objections about a publicly published standard for guides, I will proceed with the notion that the objections have been heard, noted, considered, and, at least for the moment, outvoted.
It is my hope that such a guide will actually increase the freedom of both the players and the guides, as each will be able to go about there activities with an increased security that their actions are well within the realm of expectation and acceptabilty.
On a side note, such activity as creating a "standard for guides", warrents the complementary action of creating a "standard for players". Although I would prefer to leave that issue to another thread, it may be difficult to refine this standard without refering to the other.
I will attempt to start this out.
Warrents of guide mediated player disipline:
How, when, why a guide should involve themselves in player disipline. Lets just start out with something simple and say that "the guides need to keep the game enjoyable for the greatest number of players, preferably, with minimal intervention".
Methods of guide mediated player disipline:
I prepose "incremental assertivness" (vs. other methods such as "preportional response", etc..)
1. verbal warning
2. isolation for extended conversation (empty sector, etc..)
3. etc.. (I actually don't know what the guide's abilities are.)
etc...
etc...
other issues to be covered:
protocal for guides assuming player limitations for purpose of PVP.
protocal for guides restricting PVP for guide purposes.
protocal for guides exercising guide abilities for purposes of non-disiplinary activities (i.e. guide generated entertainment).
If we want to have our guides as guides and have them as players too, then we need to be able to switch roles. How are we going to do this?
While I consider my negitive experience as minor in itself, it demonstrated severial issues. One of these was that I was left wondering who I could attack without ending up "instant scrapmetal". This is contrary to the premise of the game, and only one of severial issues I would like to see resolved.
I'm sure that I have not covered all issues, but lets all try to maintain an objective of increasing the versitility of the guide, while maintaining consistant player expectations.
A published standard for guides could very well promise to resolve most if not all of our current issues, while allowing the greatest degree flexability and adaptability.
Although there has been some objections about a publicly published standard for guides, I will proceed with the notion that the objections have been heard, noted, considered, and, at least for the moment, outvoted.
It is my hope that such a guide will actually increase the freedom of both the players and the guides, as each will be able to go about there activities with an increased security that their actions are well within the realm of expectation and acceptabilty.
On a side note, such activity as creating a "standard for guides", warrents the complementary action of creating a "standard for players". Although I would prefer to leave that issue to another thread, it may be difficult to refine this standard without refering to the other.
I will attempt to start this out.
Warrents of guide mediated player disipline:
How, when, why a guide should involve themselves in player disipline. Lets just start out with something simple and say that "the guides need to keep the game enjoyable for the greatest number of players, preferably, with minimal intervention".
Methods of guide mediated player disipline:
I prepose "incremental assertivness" (vs. other methods such as "preportional response", etc..)
1. verbal warning
2. isolation for extended conversation (empty sector, etc..)
3. etc.. (I actually don't know what the guide's abilities are.)
etc...
etc...
other issues to be covered:
protocal for guides assuming player limitations for purpose of PVP.
protocal for guides restricting PVP for guide purposes.
protocal for guides exercising guide abilities for purposes of non-disiplinary activities (i.e. guide generated entertainment).
If we want to have our guides as guides and have them as players too, then we need to be able to switch roles. How are we going to do this?
While I consider my negitive experience as minor in itself, it demonstrated severial issues. One of these was that I was left wondering who I could attack without ending up "instant scrapmetal". This is contrary to the premise of the game, and only one of severial issues I would like to see resolved.
I'm sure that I have not covered all issues, but lets all try to maintain an objective of increasing the versitility of the guide, while maintaining consistant player expectations.
i think trying to put in hard lines for the guides to folow whould be a very bad idea, and making it viewable by the standerd player base even worse.
the guides are picked for guidehood for a reson, they know what they are doing and the cases of a bad call are very few you can't expect a perfect score.
i havent even heard of any bad guide calls till this thread (well the last one) let alone been though one and i've been playing for a long time.
and as for any minor descrepances guides are still human and the job has to have some perks, i meen whould you want to be sorting problam after problam day after day for long? give them a bit of a brake.
the guides are picked for guidehood for a reson, they know what they are doing and the cases of a bad call are very few you can't expect a perfect score.
i havent even heard of any bad guide calls till this thread (well the last one) let alone been though one and i've been playing for a long time.
and as for any minor descrepances guides are still human and the job has to have some perks, i meen whould you want to be sorting problam after problam day after day for long? give them a bit of a brake.
To weigh in for a second here, I think the published list of guide rules won't be terribly effective, and would like to put forth why the current (broad) level of guide discretion is likely our best solution to a multi-faceted issue.
Firstly, the use of guides in dicipline seems to be the primary point of contention. Use of guide powers to "help" n00bs or other players (i.e. RPing power use) is a whole different arena (though general points are the same in all of them), I think. The problem that has been identified by many of the posts in this thread is one of guides having too little accountability and too much discretion. Concerns over a guide having a bad day and then taking it out on a player without fear of correction for their abuse was identified as a concern; unnecessarily difficult complaining to the devs was cited as an insufficient remedy for such guide power abuse.
It seems unlikely that this is much of a concern, first off. As Dr. Lecter, my behavior tends to push the boundaries of what constitutes agressive yet still acceptable; my language is less likely to toe the line, but it has likewise done so. In all cases, I have received PMs from a guide explaining what they didn't like, why they could correct me, how to correct myself, and the consequences for not doing so. I have yet to have anything more than a PM happen to me... still working on getting devwarped into Orne Guardian hell :) The one time I did take issue with a threatened use of guide powers (to protect a player initatiated RPing event), I was able to discuss it with the guide and reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Had I been "guided" in a way that I disagreed with, I don't think emailing John would have been too onerous a solution to my problem. Due process doesn't necessarily mean you get something resolved as soon as you take issue with it.
My personal experience aside, and assuming that guide abuse is going to happen, I'd like to suggest that "rules" can't help more than they hurt. Rules are bright lines, hard edged things that are easy to administer and nearly impossible to create (at least, good rules are hard to create). To demand a set of lines that players can see, ignoring the "toe the line encouragement" problem for a second, is bound to be impossible: it's just too hard to cover everything with a negative rule (i.e. Player does X, rule says may not do X, guide intervenes). Just as now, there will be quibbling over whether X is really covered by the rule anyway: the guides will still be using their discretion in adminstering rules. But if the lines are supposed to be bright, players have a greater incentive to claim their behavior is somehow not covered.
The current standard places trust in the guides, rather than the players, and probably wisely so. The above post that mentioned a published standard seems a nice suggestion in form, but would change little. Standards are, by definition, broad and leave the burdens on those who enforce them rather than those who make them. Given the alternative of increased player complaints over how their behavior didn't break the rule, rather than the guide simply holding the behavior detrimental to the game and doing something about it, the possibilty of malicious or discriminatory enforcement seems preferable.
There may be, however, a real place for a set of negative rights for players: things that a guide may NEVER do. I haven't given it much thought, simply because it's likely to be a damn short list. Use of guide powers for protection of a player run RP event seems a likely candidate, as would any interference with unfriendly player behavior that is still in keeping with the current system of universe rules (you can attack anyone not your nation anywhere; they can run or fight back; faction loss is a penalty, not a bar to your killing someone; the SF will react to station killing, but isn't an instant death penalty for the same). Those sorts of things seem best enforced by extra-legal sanctions, the ones that occur from your fellow players, rather than from on high. But I'll leave the list making to those who actually think about this topic.
Just my thoughts on why our current broad standard of "no behavior that is abusive or detrimental to the game" is probably better than a set of hard rules for what guides may and may not do.
Firstly, the use of guides in dicipline seems to be the primary point of contention. Use of guide powers to "help" n00bs or other players (i.e. RPing power use) is a whole different arena (though general points are the same in all of them), I think. The problem that has been identified by many of the posts in this thread is one of guides having too little accountability and too much discretion. Concerns over a guide having a bad day and then taking it out on a player without fear of correction for their abuse was identified as a concern; unnecessarily difficult complaining to the devs was cited as an insufficient remedy for such guide power abuse.
It seems unlikely that this is much of a concern, first off. As Dr. Lecter, my behavior tends to push the boundaries of what constitutes agressive yet still acceptable; my language is less likely to toe the line, but it has likewise done so. In all cases, I have received PMs from a guide explaining what they didn't like, why they could correct me, how to correct myself, and the consequences for not doing so. I have yet to have anything more than a PM happen to me... still working on getting devwarped into Orne Guardian hell :) The one time I did take issue with a threatened use of guide powers (to protect a player initatiated RPing event), I was able to discuss it with the guide and reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion. Had I been "guided" in a way that I disagreed with, I don't think emailing John would have been too onerous a solution to my problem. Due process doesn't necessarily mean you get something resolved as soon as you take issue with it.
My personal experience aside, and assuming that guide abuse is going to happen, I'd like to suggest that "rules" can't help more than they hurt. Rules are bright lines, hard edged things that are easy to administer and nearly impossible to create (at least, good rules are hard to create). To demand a set of lines that players can see, ignoring the "toe the line encouragement" problem for a second, is bound to be impossible: it's just too hard to cover everything with a negative rule (i.e. Player does X, rule says may not do X, guide intervenes). Just as now, there will be quibbling over whether X is really covered by the rule anyway: the guides will still be using their discretion in adminstering rules. But if the lines are supposed to be bright, players have a greater incentive to claim their behavior is somehow not covered.
The current standard places trust in the guides, rather than the players, and probably wisely so. The above post that mentioned a published standard seems a nice suggestion in form, but would change little. Standards are, by definition, broad and leave the burdens on those who enforce them rather than those who make them. Given the alternative of increased player complaints over how their behavior didn't break the rule, rather than the guide simply holding the behavior detrimental to the game and doing something about it, the possibilty of malicious or discriminatory enforcement seems preferable.
There may be, however, a real place for a set of negative rights for players: things that a guide may NEVER do. I haven't given it much thought, simply because it's likely to be a damn short list. Use of guide powers for protection of a player run RP event seems a likely candidate, as would any interference with unfriendly player behavior that is still in keeping with the current system of universe rules (you can attack anyone not your nation anywhere; they can run or fight back; faction loss is a penalty, not a bar to your killing someone; the SF will react to station killing, but isn't an instant death penalty for the same). Those sorts of things seem best enforced by extra-legal sanctions, the ones that occur from your fellow players, rather than from on high. But I'll leave the list making to those who actually think about this topic.
Just my thoughts on why our current broad standard of "no behavior that is abusive or detrimental to the game" is probably better than a set of hard rules for what guides may and may not do.
I use this job description when talking to new players and I wrote the follow for my guild so new members understand how I play the game.
Hi.
My Name is Obsidian.
I work for Vendetta as a Guide.
My job is:
a) Make sure new players have a good experience with Vendetta. So I spend a lot of time on the help channels. I do not get mentor points. I am a teacher and will teach all because a guide must try to help all.
b) Watch for violations of the EULA such as offensive behavior (i.e. flames, racial slurs, etc), bug exploits, and to enforce general Guild Software rules as described in the EULA and in the intro to the forum.
c) Report bugs to the Devs. I have a list of emergency phone numbers so I can call them if a server is down or NPC traders suddenly go on strike.
d) Make suggestions for content that would help the game play and users, especially the newer players. I am one of many guides in Vendetta and my focus is on newer players. For example, I helped write the new mining tutorial (so you either are now impressed or disappointed) because I saw how many players needed help understanding how to mine.
e) Support the devs as much as I can. There are players out there who know me personally and know that I have a strong attachment to the game and I am doing everything I can to ensure it will succeed.
f) Run Live GM events for your enjoyment. Including spawning bots for combat simulations, the Mining Expeditions and Cap Ship runs
g) I will NOT: devwarp you at random, give you opermoney (I trade and mine for my own credits and you should too), give XP for doing nothing, operkill someone for you, or raise your faction for doing nothing.
And oh, I was a member of TGFT before I became endowed with guide powers. So just say I'm like Peter Parker and got bitten by a radioactive hive bot.
Now as a Guide I do get some tools to help me do my job better. I can teleport myself if needed to other sectors and I can mute players or kick them off the server. I can also award experience for participation in GM events. Every action I do using a guide function is recorded so don't even think about asking me to bend the rules for you cuz I WON'T.
Hi.
My Name is Obsidian.
I work for Vendetta as a Guide.
My job is:
a) Make sure new players have a good experience with Vendetta. So I spend a lot of time on the help channels. I do not get mentor points. I am a teacher and will teach all because a guide must try to help all.
b) Watch for violations of the EULA such as offensive behavior (i.e. flames, racial slurs, etc), bug exploits, and to enforce general Guild Software rules as described in the EULA and in the intro to the forum.
c) Report bugs to the Devs. I have a list of emergency phone numbers so I can call them if a server is down or NPC traders suddenly go on strike.
d) Make suggestions for content that would help the game play and users, especially the newer players. I am one of many guides in Vendetta and my focus is on newer players. For example, I helped write the new mining tutorial (so you either are now impressed or disappointed) because I saw how many players needed help understanding how to mine.
e) Support the devs as much as I can. There are players out there who know me personally and know that I have a strong attachment to the game and I am doing everything I can to ensure it will succeed.
f) Run Live GM events for your enjoyment. Including spawning bots for combat simulations, the Mining Expeditions and Cap Ship runs
g) I will NOT: devwarp you at random, give you opermoney (I trade and mine for my own credits and you should too), give XP for doing nothing, operkill someone for you, or raise your faction for doing nothing.
And oh, I was a member of TGFT before I became endowed with guide powers. So just say I'm like Peter Parker and got bitten by a radioactive hive bot.
Now as a Guide I do get some tools to help me do my job better. I can teleport myself if needed to other sectors and I can mute players or kick them off the server. I can also award experience for participation in GM events. Every action I do using a guide function is recorded so don't even think about asking me to bend the rules for you cuz I WON'T.
Preface: Poster is new to VO but has dealt with issues like this in other arenas.
Identifiable guides: a Guide guild seems plausible, and it should be glaringly obvious (i.e. [GUIDE] or [GM]) so that us rookies can tell who's got admin rights and responsibilities. The functionality's built into the game. Otherwise, it should be a highlighted color in chat and targeting and anywhere else that I might have a chance to interact with this person. Not sure how feasible that is to implement, though.
Guide powers on regular characters: Obviously no clue how the code is written, but anybody with UNIX/Linux experience ought to understand this: can you implement a "su" or a "sudo" instead of having the guides "run as root"? If you could "switch to guide mode", do your administrative thing, and then switch back, you could be online playing and still be able to react quickly as a Guide. Maybe give each guide-specific function a "Are you sure you want to be a Guide right now?" confirmation. Talking out my backside here, but ideas are what you were fishing for, right? :) (This, incidentally, worked great for running a BBS - anybody remember what those were?)
Rules/Guidelines: This is a good idea. Write them vaguely if you must, but write them. What's common sense to a seasoned vet is brand new to a guy like me, and the more I can read about, the less likely I am to annoy somebody. If I know that PKing a 0/.../0 will result in my bannination, then I'll make a point not to do it, and then when somebody DOES do it, you can beat them with the I Told You Not To Stick before you start banninating the peasants.
Feedback: Yes please. This sort of thing prevents confusion from players AND admin abuse. Just display across the middle of the screen (impossible to miss) a simple [You have been warped here by a guide (RelayeR) for the following reason: ----] and have the guide specify the reason when he does the warping. (Think IRC kick/bans here) Or skip the reason and let them hash it out in private. Just let me know what happened to me and who I should be talking to about why it happened.
Identifiable guides: a Guide guild seems plausible, and it should be glaringly obvious (i.e. [GUIDE] or [GM]) so that us rookies can tell who's got admin rights and responsibilities. The functionality's built into the game. Otherwise, it should be a highlighted color in chat and targeting and anywhere else that I might have a chance to interact with this person. Not sure how feasible that is to implement, though.
Guide powers on regular characters: Obviously no clue how the code is written, but anybody with UNIX/Linux experience ought to understand this: can you implement a "su" or a "sudo" instead of having the guides "run as root"? If you could "switch to guide mode", do your administrative thing, and then switch back, you could be online playing and still be able to react quickly as a Guide. Maybe give each guide-specific function a "Are you sure you want to be a Guide right now?" confirmation. Talking out my backside here, but ideas are what you were fishing for, right? :) (This, incidentally, worked great for running a BBS - anybody remember what those were?)
Rules/Guidelines: This is a good idea. Write them vaguely if you must, but write them. What's common sense to a seasoned vet is brand new to a guy like me, and the more I can read about, the less likely I am to annoy somebody. If I know that PKing a 0/.../0 will result in my bannination, then I'll make a point not to do it, and then when somebody DOES do it, you can beat them with the I Told You Not To Stick before you start banninating the peasants.
Feedback: Yes please. This sort of thing prevents confusion from players AND admin abuse. Just display across the middle of the screen (impossible to miss) a simple [You have been warped here by a guide (RelayeR) for the following reason: ----] and have the guide specify the reason when he does the warping. (Think IRC kick/bans here) Or skip the reason and let them hash it out in private. Just let me know what happened to me and who I should be talking to about why it happened.
With all due respect to Lecter, leave it to a lawyer to spend half a page saying something best said in 2 sentences:
Guides are chosen for their roles due to their their above-average common sense, creativity and experience, not their ability to blindly follow hard and fast rules with "zero tolerance" and predetermined penalties.
and...
Don't be a complete jag, or a guide may focus their common sense, creativity and experience in your direction, which may end up being uncomfortable for you.
****************
I still like my Orne Guardian "Penalty Box" idea. That's five for high-sticking!
Guides are chosen for their roles due to their their above-average common sense, creativity and experience, not their ability to blindly follow hard and fast rules with "zero tolerance" and predetermined penalties.
and...
Don't be a complete jag, or a guide may focus their common sense, creativity and experience in your direction, which may end up being uncomfortable for you.
****************
I still like my Orne Guardian "Penalty Box" idea. That's five for high-sticking!
"Guides are chosen for their roles due to their their above-average common sense, creativity and experience."
I agree with LeberMac. If ability to blindly follow hard and fast rules with "zero tolerance" and predetermined penalties was what was really needed then Andy and Ray could just code in AI guides.
So, come on Devs! You've been slacking, Why have a human do something an AI could try to duplicate?
I agree with LeberMac. If ability to blindly follow hard and fast rules with "zero tolerance" and predetermined penalties was what was really needed then Andy and Ray could just code in AI guides.
So, come on Devs! You've been slacking, Why have a human do something an AI could try to duplicate?
All this is very interesting. It does seem to me that guides have very little, if any accountability to the PLAYERS for their actions, be they good/bad/whatever. There are many ways to solve the problem, most of which I havent got the slighest idea what they are, but I think that there is a minimum that is needed:
A sticky thread or some other place of prominence where all the guide powers are listed. Obsidian has mentioned some powers, and I dont know if these are all the powers that are given to guides, or if there are others. This is needed for a few reasons, of which the most important (to me atleast) is to gasp and wonder at the almighty powers of the guides. There are other reasons too, such as not being as surprised if something happens that you were not expecting (I for one did not know that I could be kicked off the server by a guide.) It might be helpful to have a basic set of rules, but in my opinion, it is not needed as the ammount of time to make a good set of rules, and punishments if rules are broken, and how to check for rule breakings, and... so.
to recap: make a sticky thread with all the guide powers listed in it.
A sticky thread or some other place of prominence where all the guide powers are listed. Obsidian has mentioned some powers, and I dont know if these are all the powers that are given to guides, or if there are others. This is needed for a few reasons, of which the most important (to me atleast) is to gasp and wonder at the almighty powers of the guides. There are other reasons too, such as not being as surprised if something happens that you were not expecting (I for one did not know that I could be kicked off the server by a guide.) It might be helpful to have a basic set of rules, but in my opinion, it is not needed as the ammount of time to make a good set of rules, and punishments if rules are broken, and how to check for rule breakings, and... so.
to recap: make a sticky thread with all the guide powers listed in it.
I hate to pick on RelayeR, but he is available to pick on... so... if i attack RelayeR in b8, what should i expect to happen?
when is it ok to attack a guide?
when is it not ok?
why was it not ok for a newbie itani to attack a serco in b8?
It nice that all the players have all these opinions and are ready to stand up and defend the guides. but it doesn't answer any of those questions. if the guides want to be guides then they might not need to figure all this stuff out. but if they want to be players, then the should think about what is in thier own best playing interest, because if i see relayer in combat, how would he like me to react to him? as a guide? as a player? as a non entity? how is this going to effect his gameplay? if the guides want to feel satisfied with pvp, they should figure this stuff out for thier own sake. i'm tired of hearing from the players. it's time for the guides to stand up and make some decisions about how they want to be treated, and what they are going to do to encourage that treatment. you don't want to pvp, ctc, or pirate, no problem. otherwise...
when is it ok to attack a guide?
when is it not ok?
why was it not ok for a newbie itani to attack a serco in b8?
It nice that all the players have all these opinions and are ready to stand up and defend the guides. but it doesn't answer any of those questions. if the guides want to be guides then they might not need to figure all this stuff out. but if they want to be players, then the should think about what is in thier own best playing interest, because if i see relayer in combat, how would he like me to react to him? as a guide? as a player? as a non entity? how is this going to effect his gameplay? if the guides want to feel satisfied with pvp, they should figure this stuff out for thier own sake. i'm tired of hearing from the players. it's time for the guides to stand up and make some decisions about how they want to be treated, and what they are going to do to encourage that treatment. you don't want to pvp, ctc, or pirate, no problem. otherwise...
First things first. This is a GAME. We are all here to have fun. I remember being blown out of the sky by Yoda when I had an unarmed moth mining for ore. While this is not really fun for me, Yoda probly had a good time. The various aspects of this game make it easy for someone to become annoyed by the actions of another player. If you can't handle that, go play a single person game.
That being said, remember that because a guide may be busy, it might be easy for them to have a handy bind to simply wisk another player away from them so they are not interupted while carrying out their business. The potential for abuse is always present. Be it guide jedi-like powers, or the ability of regular players to blow away another player "because you can." I accept the later as course of the game. While it can be annoying, it is still a part of the GAME. The Devs and the guides have stated that any supposed abuse will be looked into. That is good enough for most players. Personaly, if I were "punished" for something, I would take it apon myself to find out why and what I may or may not have done. Then corrective action can be taken, either by my self or by the Devs as needed.
Like some people have already stated, everyone has bad days. Lodge your compliant and take it in stride. Then get back to shooting noobs, running cargo, harrassing the hive,or what ever makes you enjoy your short time in the VO universe.
Side note: Posting even vauge rule of conduct for the guides will not only be difficult, but is unwarrented. The vaugeness of the current system give them some mistique and the latitude to carry out their responsabilties as guides. The Devs trust them. I guess I can too.
My 2 cu.
That being said, remember that because a guide may be busy, it might be easy for them to have a handy bind to simply wisk another player away from them so they are not interupted while carrying out their business. The potential for abuse is always present. Be it guide jedi-like powers, or the ability of regular players to blow away another player "because you can." I accept the later as course of the game. While it can be annoying, it is still a part of the GAME. The Devs and the guides have stated that any supposed abuse will be looked into. That is good enough for most players. Personaly, if I were "punished" for something, I would take it apon myself to find out why and what I may or may not have done. Then corrective action can be taken, either by my self or by the Devs as needed.
Like some people have already stated, everyone has bad days. Lodge your compliant and take it in stride. Then get back to shooting noobs, running cargo, harrassing the hive,or what ever makes you enjoy your short time in the VO universe.
Side note: Posting even vauge rule of conduct for the guides will not only be difficult, but is unwarrented. The vaugeness of the current system give them some mistique and the latitude to carry out their responsabilties as guides. The Devs trust them. I guess I can too.
My 2 cu.
um... pardon... if i might inquire Fireice? are you a guide?
I am not, are you?
edited: If you are asking about my comment on corrective action by myslef, I mearly ment I could modify my behavior if needed. In essence, taking responsability for my actions.
edited: If you are asking about my comment on corrective action by myslef, I mearly ment I could modify my behavior if needed. In essence, taking responsability for my actions.
Remember folks: the name of the game is Vendetta. If somebody shoots you, shoot 'em back. Hunt 'em down. However, there is no need to be rude or vulgar.
I guess what I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is the idea that a player in the game has declared that the guides, who get their mandate from the developers, must publish a set of behavior guidelines and then starts to write them. It seems like every couple of weeks someone around here has their ox gored and decides that the game should be rewritten to suit them. If I think a guide has treated me unfairly, I'll chat with him/her. If that doesn't resolve it, I'll take it up with Guild. If I'm not satisfied, I'll take my business elsewhere. But I won't start ordering everyone around and demand that the game be changed to suit me.
The guides have a tough job and they do it damn well. Let's cut them some slack and play the game.
The guides have a tough job and they do it damn well. Let's cut them some slack and play the game.
The guides do need a more codified set of guidelines, whether available to the general public or not.
Back In Ye Olde Days there was only Whistler (Sherpa, Forum Mod, et al) and he talked to me fairly often and asked what to do in particular circumstances. This worked for the Vendetta Test scale game. A lot of that period was figuring out *how* to be a guide, which Whistler pretty much created on his own, with occasional input from me.
Regarding "guide oversight", we do keep an extensive log of all "guide-level" actions, and we can go back through the game logs and see every little thing that occurred, was said, etc. In the event of anyone actually complaining to me, I've done that. The guides know everything is logged, and they're a solid, honest bunch anyway (or they wouldn't be guides).
When we rescaled the number of guides to accomodate more players, I did not write up a set of guidelines for them, or even give them much of a structure or mandate (beyond "go help! ok, gotta run back to launching-the-game now"). They're all experienced players, many of whom date from the early days of the Test, and all of whom were generally accustomed to how and when Whistler would enforce things in the game, and I knew they would generally continue on with that lead. I knew they would eventually need more direction, but whether due to other things being on my plate, or lack of priority, or lack of organization or whatever.. I still haven't given them that ;).
From this thread and other recent threads (discussing the perception of guide "abuse" and the like) it appears that I need to make this happen asap. In regards to ctishman's suggestion that people offer their own ideas on guide behaviour, I'm open to this as well. Suggestions are always welcome in our game, as you all know, and that includes how the game is "run", so to speak.
For the record, it IS the fundamental mandate of guides to be an "aid" to the player. The very naming of them as "guides" instead of "moderators" or some such implies their intended purpose. They are intended to.. guide. Help. They all understand this. Generally, this is what they do. In the occasional case where anyone gets out of line to the point where it may seriously offend others in the game, or generally impinge on everyone else's enjoyment of the game in an out-of-game-context manner (ie, chat spamming or some such) they step in and reassert things as quietly and pleasantly as possible.
In regards to another point, I will just be writing up a set of "guidelines" and not a specific hard and fast ruleset. We have a lot of good people being guides in our game, and I back them up as far as the decisions they make. Generally, I'm going to try to give them more direction about what they're there to do, and how to go about it, and leave the rest up to them. If any of them have additional questions, they know how to reach me or can post on our administration forum. I will be posting the guidelines there, so I guess they won't be "public" (but I don't really care if it's public or not, so if people would like to see, I'll post them here as well).
Lastly, there are some general improvements in the guide system that need to be made, both from a user-level standpoint and a guide-level standpoint. Users should be able to "request" the attention of guides, in particular situations. I do intend, in the long-run, to make administration more "intervention-request" driven, rather than active/oversight driven. I also intend to place a greater emphasis on direct user intervention (using the "/vote mute" command for instance). But, for the moment, we mostly have guides, and the rest of it will be a process.
So, in closing, thanks for the heads up everyone. I am aware of the issue. If anyone has suggestions, they're welcome to continue posting them.
Back In Ye Olde Days there was only Whistler (Sherpa, Forum Mod, et al) and he talked to me fairly often and asked what to do in particular circumstances. This worked for the Vendetta Test scale game. A lot of that period was figuring out *how* to be a guide, which Whistler pretty much created on his own, with occasional input from me.
Regarding "guide oversight", we do keep an extensive log of all "guide-level" actions, and we can go back through the game logs and see every little thing that occurred, was said, etc. In the event of anyone actually complaining to me, I've done that. The guides know everything is logged, and they're a solid, honest bunch anyway (or they wouldn't be guides).
When we rescaled the number of guides to accomodate more players, I did not write up a set of guidelines for them, or even give them much of a structure or mandate (beyond "go help! ok, gotta run back to launching-the-game now"). They're all experienced players, many of whom date from the early days of the Test, and all of whom were generally accustomed to how and when Whistler would enforce things in the game, and I knew they would generally continue on with that lead. I knew they would eventually need more direction, but whether due to other things being on my plate, or lack of priority, or lack of organization or whatever.. I still haven't given them that ;).
From this thread and other recent threads (discussing the perception of guide "abuse" and the like) it appears that I need to make this happen asap. In regards to ctishman's suggestion that people offer their own ideas on guide behaviour, I'm open to this as well. Suggestions are always welcome in our game, as you all know, and that includes how the game is "run", so to speak.
For the record, it IS the fundamental mandate of guides to be an "aid" to the player. The very naming of them as "guides" instead of "moderators" or some such implies their intended purpose. They are intended to.. guide. Help. They all understand this. Generally, this is what they do. In the occasional case where anyone gets out of line to the point where it may seriously offend others in the game, or generally impinge on everyone else's enjoyment of the game in an out-of-game-context manner (ie, chat spamming or some such) they step in and reassert things as quietly and pleasantly as possible.
In regards to another point, I will just be writing up a set of "guidelines" and not a specific hard and fast ruleset. We have a lot of good people being guides in our game, and I back them up as far as the decisions they make. Generally, I'm going to try to give them more direction about what they're there to do, and how to go about it, and leave the rest up to them. If any of them have additional questions, they know how to reach me or can post on our administration forum. I will be posting the guidelines there, so I guess they won't be "public" (but I don't really care if it's public or not, so if people would like to see, I'll post them here as well).
Lastly, there are some general improvements in the guide system that need to be made, both from a user-level standpoint and a guide-level standpoint. Users should be able to "request" the attention of guides, in particular situations. I do intend, in the long-run, to make administration more "intervention-request" driven, rather than active/oversight driven. I also intend to place a greater emphasis on direct user intervention (using the "/vote mute" command for instance). But, for the moment, we mostly have guides, and the rest of it will be a process.
So, in closing, thanks for the heads up everyone. I am aware of the issue. If anyone has suggestions, they're welcome to continue posting them.
[I wrote this while Incarnate was posting, so perhaps it's redundant now.]
Let me first say that each of the guides was chosen after observing them over quite some time. They were chosen for their even tempers, eagerness to help others, positive attitude, and knowledge of the game. These are people who, when they're in a bad mood, know not to log on. The devs and I made lists, compared them, and discussed any differences. We did not invite anyone we didn't agree on, I'm pleased to report.
I have the utmost faith in the temperament of these guides. Mistakes are possible, of course, but I have seen no evidence of maliciousness. The only credible situation I am aware of where a guide appeared to lash out at a player turned out to be a misunderstanding on the player's part regarding a role-playing event.
These are responsible people who act accordingly. Yes, there is potential for abuse, but we have chosen people who are able to withstand the temptation that others might not. There's also a system in place to monitor the guides (myself included) just in case.
I have been a guide here for over 2 years and have weathered all sorts of bizarre accusations of maliciousness and dire predictions of malevolent behavior - none of it true. Some of the accusations were based on disagreements about a rule, or a misunderstanding of an unusual event that looked like "the hand of god" but was actually a bug or coincidence, and sometimes people just act out their urges to rail against perceived authority.
So, to answer a few questions:
>when is it OK to attack a guide? when is it not OK?
When we are not actively helping a player. As most people know, I hang around in Sedina and am good for a nice, normal battle unless I'm occupied. If I'm occupied I usually sit in a station, go to an empty sector, drift away from traffic, or simply allow myself to die so I can take care of business in a station. I do *not* appreciate being attacked if I'm obviously helping player with a problem and need to be in their same sector. I'll warn off an attacker and even laugh off a death. Once I've made it clear that I 'm working, I expect the courtesy of being left to do my job. Depending on the situation, I may teleport a repeat attacker, or I might send myself and the other player elsewhere if we don't need to be in that sector.
>why was it not OK for a newbie itani to attack a Serco in B-8?
While I'm not aware of the specifics of this (nor do I want to debate them here), I have teleported certain determined "newbs" from Sedina because they were deliberately interfering with activities there in hopes of baiting players to kill them and take an experience point penalty. I know for certain that some of these pilots were not new by any means. Certainly that is how the game works at the moment, but I have intervened when it's gotten really out of hand and spoiled things for everyone else. I've also removed actual newbies that got in over their heads in Sedina and were grateful to be sent home ("Mr. Wizaaaaaaard!").
Let me first say that each of the guides was chosen after observing them over quite some time. They were chosen for their even tempers, eagerness to help others, positive attitude, and knowledge of the game. These are people who, when they're in a bad mood, know not to log on. The devs and I made lists, compared them, and discussed any differences. We did not invite anyone we didn't agree on, I'm pleased to report.
I have the utmost faith in the temperament of these guides. Mistakes are possible, of course, but I have seen no evidence of maliciousness. The only credible situation I am aware of where a guide appeared to lash out at a player turned out to be a misunderstanding on the player's part regarding a role-playing event.
These are responsible people who act accordingly. Yes, there is potential for abuse, but we have chosen people who are able to withstand the temptation that others might not. There's also a system in place to monitor the guides (myself included) just in case.
I have been a guide here for over 2 years and have weathered all sorts of bizarre accusations of maliciousness and dire predictions of malevolent behavior - none of it true. Some of the accusations were based on disagreements about a rule, or a misunderstanding of an unusual event that looked like "the hand of god" but was actually a bug or coincidence, and sometimes people just act out their urges to rail against perceived authority.
So, to answer a few questions:
>when is it OK to attack a guide? when is it not OK?
When we are not actively helping a player. As most people know, I hang around in Sedina and am good for a nice, normal battle unless I'm occupied. If I'm occupied I usually sit in a station, go to an empty sector, drift away from traffic, or simply allow myself to die so I can take care of business in a station. I do *not* appreciate being attacked if I'm obviously helping player with a problem and need to be in their same sector. I'll warn off an attacker and even laugh off a death. Once I've made it clear that I 'm working, I expect the courtesy of being left to do my job. Depending on the situation, I may teleport a repeat attacker, or I might send myself and the other player elsewhere if we don't need to be in that sector.
>why was it not OK for a newbie itani to attack a Serco in B-8?
While I'm not aware of the specifics of this (nor do I want to debate them here), I have teleported certain determined "newbs" from Sedina because they were deliberately interfering with activities there in hopes of baiting players to kill them and take an experience point penalty. I know for certain that some of these pilots were not new by any means. Certainly that is how the game works at the moment, but I have intervened when it's gotten really out of hand and spoiled things for everyone else. I've also removed actual newbies that got in over their heads in Sedina and were grateful to be sent home ("Mr. Wizaaaaaaard!").
> >when is it OK to attack a guide? when is it not OK?
> When we are not actively helping a player.
Sometimes that can be difficult to tell. So, I'd suggest a command ("/guiding", maybe) that guides can use to show that they are doing something in their capacity as a guide, and so should not be treated as a regular player. Another possibility would be for guides to have "guide" and "player" alts, and would only engage in guide activities in their "guide" alt, and for regular playing would use a "player" alt. But, that has the drawback of requiring the guide to switch back & forth.
> When we are not actively helping a player.
Sometimes that can be difficult to tell. So, I'd suggest a command ("/guiding", maybe) that guides can use to show that they are doing something in their capacity as a guide, and so should not be treated as a regular player. Another possibility would be for guides to have "guide" and "player" alts, and would only engage in guide activities in their "guide" alt, and for regular playing would use a "player" alt. But, that has the drawback of requiring the guide to switch back & forth.
No, no this is easy.
When a guide is "guiding" another player, his radar signature (and targeting box) shows up as a different color. Hm... We already have green for friendly and red for hostile, white for groups, yellow and blue for missiles and rockets... How about violet or orange or hot pink?
This would be "settable" by guides only.
When a guide is "guiding" another player, his radar signature (and targeting box) shows up as a different color. Hm... We already have green for friendly and red for hostile, white for groups, yellow and blue for missiles and rockets... How about violet or orange or hot pink?
This would be "settable" by guides only.
I for one never had a problem with a guide using there power for "evil". But I agree that Guides and Players should have some general rules of conduct. How can you punish someone for an action that they didn't know was wrong? I know guides PM people with warnings but if everyone knew what actions would get them in trouble the majority of pilots would avoid them. And I think the guide rules should end with:
"Guides may use their discretion for anything not expressly covered in the rules"
Its kind of like the saying, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it”. Its not a fair way to hand out justice in my opinion.
I'm going to start a separate thread later today to discuss player rules. I agree with an earlier poster who said that you really can't define guide powers without defining player rules too.
(And like CP said my only problem with guides is that I'm not one :)
JB
"Guides may use their discretion for anything not expressly covered in the rules"
Its kind of like the saying, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it”. Its not a fair way to hand out justice in my opinion.
I'm going to start a separate thread later today to discuss player rules. I agree with an earlier poster who said that you really can't define guide powers without defining player rules too.
(And like CP said my only problem with guides is that I'm not one :)
JB
While I appreciate that higher authority has taken note of this issue, and is even considering possible options of remedy, this was certainly not my intention. Almost all of the things I would like to see the developers change about the guides, translate to additional guide abilities, rather than any limitations.
I trust that the guides are honest, well intentioned, and helpful. (and human)
The fact of the matter is, the foremost issue is not the reality of the situation, so much as the perception of the situation. The brunt of the responsibly for the perception of the guides, is always going to lay in the hands of the guides themselves. And this perception of the guides will not only influence how players treat and react to the guides, but will also be a major factor in how players feel about the game as a whole.
Because the more points I try to make, the less each point will be heard, I will try to get across just one point. ---Any authority, that wishes to be identified as an authority, and designs to exert that authority, should identify themselves in such manner, that cannot be reproduced by a non authority.--- Many players will come from well populated online games, where players will say and do anything to gain any advantage. A well traveled online player learns to ignore all claims of power and authority, until such power and authority is proven to be beyond the ability of a normal player. This is an even more subtle problem with newer players, who have not yet determined what the full capabilities of a normal player are. It is ok for guides to appear and behave as normal players, while they may be treated as normal players. However, if at any time a guide wish to exert guide status, they should identify themselves as a guide, by such means that no non guide player can reproduce.
I hope this single point will resolve a majority of misunderstandings.
I trust that the guides are honest, well intentioned, and helpful. (and human)
The fact of the matter is, the foremost issue is not the reality of the situation, so much as the perception of the situation. The brunt of the responsibly for the perception of the guides, is always going to lay in the hands of the guides themselves. And this perception of the guides will not only influence how players treat and react to the guides, but will also be a major factor in how players feel about the game as a whole.
Because the more points I try to make, the less each point will be heard, I will try to get across just one point. ---Any authority, that wishes to be identified as an authority, and designs to exert that authority, should identify themselves in such manner, that cannot be reproduced by a non authority.--- Many players will come from well populated online games, where players will say and do anything to gain any advantage. A well traveled online player learns to ignore all claims of power and authority, until such power and authority is proven to be beyond the ability of a normal player. This is an even more subtle problem with newer players, who have not yet determined what the full capabilities of a normal player are. It is ok for guides to appear and behave as normal players, while they may be treated as normal players. However, if at any time a guide wish to exert guide status, they should identify themselves as a guide, by such means that no non guide player can reproduce.
I hope this single point will resolve a majority of misunderstandings.