Forums » Suggestions
Greenwall, the post I was referring to is:
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/29752#356510
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/29752#356534
You are correct in that I stated it was for player relief, but you are conveniently ignoring the fact that you have consistently opposed any vote mute changes and been beaten by superior arguments and developer interpretation on all of them.
To imply that I am wrong in my interpretation of vote mute purpose would require that we ignore every single case where you were wrong, which is all of the cases.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/29752#356510
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/29752#356534
You are correct in that I stated it was for player relief, but you are conveniently ignoring the fact that you have consistently opposed any vote mute changes and been beaten by superior arguments and developer interpretation on all of them.
To imply that I am wrong in my interpretation of vote mute purpose would require that we ignore every single case where you were wrong, which is all of the cases.
+1 to OP.
-6 to Greenwall for his posts in this thread.
-6 to Greenwall for his posts in this thread.
/me sends to Greenwall his love and a Molotov cocktail too.
@Savet
I'm in no way ignoring that I've been against vote mute changes in the past, or misconstruing the facts to indicate otherwise. Your insistence on saying Incarnate agrees with your interpretation despite his not actually saying so just shows that you are conveniently ignoring reality.
I didn't imply you were completely wrong, rather that you were only half right. Your intepretation is excluding the obvious and inseparable aspect of punishment. A /vote mute is a punishment meant to affect change in the targets behavior in order to give relief to the rest of the VO community.
I'm not sure what cases you are pointing in which I was "wrong". In that thread above Incarnate was just annoyed that I was complaining about an update that he no doubt worked hard on, but I thought was a poor use of his time since there was no evidence for it's implementation other than a bunch of forum whiners.
I would also point out that Kierky did not deny my accusations that this is all conjured up by his annoyance at having his IRC bot muted. Nor did he deny being part of an effort to unfairly /vote mute kbireta. These things can't be ignored. Kierky can't use RP as excuse for organizing a /vote mute effort on kbireta on one hand and then act like he was unfairly abused (in a manner that extended beyond RP) when someone did it to him.
Just as it was with change from 24 hours to 2 hours, there is no evidence that altering /vote mute is badly needed. If the devs found that muting people for 2 hours was sufficient, fine, they have more experience and knowledge about that than us. However that's not evidence that the change was needed. There's also no evidence for the need in this case. As it stands all this appears to be about is Kierky being butthurt about getting stung when he stuck his hand in the bee's nest... and others agreeing that the stingers on the bees should be removed.
I'm in no way ignoring that I've been against vote mute changes in the past, or misconstruing the facts to indicate otherwise. Your insistence on saying Incarnate agrees with your interpretation despite his not actually saying so just shows that you are conveniently ignoring reality.
I didn't imply you were completely wrong, rather that you were only half right. Your intepretation is excluding the obvious and inseparable aspect of punishment. A /vote mute is a punishment meant to affect change in the targets behavior in order to give relief to the rest of the VO community.
I'm not sure what cases you are pointing in which I was "wrong". In that thread above Incarnate was just annoyed that I was complaining about an update that he no doubt worked hard on, but I thought was a poor use of his time since there was no evidence for it's implementation other than a bunch of forum whiners.
I would also point out that Kierky did not deny my accusations that this is all conjured up by his annoyance at having his IRC bot muted. Nor did he deny being part of an effort to unfairly /vote mute kbireta. These things can't be ignored. Kierky can't use RP as excuse for organizing a /vote mute effort on kbireta on one hand and then act like he was unfairly abused (in a manner that extended beyond RP) when someone did it to him.
Just as it was with change from 24 hours to 2 hours, there is no evidence that altering /vote mute is badly needed. If the devs found that muting people for 2 hours was sufficient, fine, they have more experience and knowledge about that than us. However that's not evidence that the change was needed. There's also no evidence for the need in this case. As it stands all this appears to be about is Kierky being butthurt about getting stung when he stuck his hand in the bee's nest... and others agreeing that the stingers on the bees should be removed.
+1
to Kierky's suggestion.
to Kierky's suggestion.
Greenwall, you're acting as though muting guild chat is some critical function of the penalty, but the overwhelming majority of the people I've voted to mute were not in a guild, and were dumb enough that I doubt they'd gain any real utility from access to group chat. So the punishment doesn't really lose any teeth by not applying to those channels. Meanwhile, all the people I've seen claiming to have been abused are in guilds, so having it not apply to those channels would be helpful in those rare cases of abuse -- and the change would also lessen the attractiveness of abusing it in the first place, further increasing the rarity of abuse.
So from my point of view, the positive of the OP might be small, but the negative is completely negligible. That makes it net positive. The only real downside is whatever the development time would be -- which we have no way of knowing, but I'd assume is probably not terribly much.
So from my point of view, the positive of the OP might be small, but the negative is completely negligible. That makes it net positive. The only real downside is whatever the development time would be -- which we have no way of knowing, but I'd assume is probably not terribly much.
+1
@rin
"all the people I've seen claiming to have been abused are in guilds"
Who, other than kb and kierky? I'd like to know. Nobody else seems to want to pony up that magical and elusive information, yet you are all still fine with using it as "evidence".
Yes, muting guild chat is a critical function of the penalty since it allows continued communication. I recall plenty of times various griefers who were in various guilds (usually pirate-like guilds) were /vote muted for good reason. If they are still allowed to talk in guild, they are less likely to feel as bad about getting muted, and thus less likely to change their behavior. Pretty simple.
"all the people I've seen claiming to have been abused are in guilds"
Who, other than kb and kierky? I'd like to know. Nobody else seems to want to pony up that magical and elusive information, yet you are all still fine with using it as "evidence".
Yes, muting guild chat is a critical function of the penalty since it allows continued communication. I recall plenty of times various griefers who were in various guilds (usually pirate-like guilds) were /vote muted for good reason. If they are still allowed to talk in guild, they are less likely to feel as bad about getting muted, and thus less likely to change their behavior. Pretty simple.
Again, the purpose of vote mute is for player relief. Vote mute is not your stick of punitive mob justice. It is intended to keep garbage off public channels without needing to tie up dev resources.
As Rin correctly points out, this change further reduces the waste of dev resources by removing an incentive for abuse. Unless the change is "not insignificant" this is a good change.
As Rin correctly points out, this change further reduces the waste of dev resources by removing an incentive for abuse. Unless the change is "not insignificant" this is a good change.
I'll take Wally's side here. This does seem like more self-serving BS for an "unsupported" plugin system.
-1
-1
Greenwall the straw man fallacy thread is NOT this one.
Your arguments are completely pissweak.
If someone is muted and they annoy their guild, the commander can eject them and nobody has to stay in a group with them if they don't want to. It's not relevant to bring up plugins we don't care about plugins the change makes sense it its own right.
Your arguments are completely pissweak.
If someone is muted and they annoy their guild, the commander can eject them and nobody has to stay in a group with them if they don't want to. It's not relevant to bring up plugins we don't care about plugins the change makes sense it its own right.
Again, the purpose of vote mute is for player relief.
Again, that is not the entire purpose.
Again, that is not the entire purpose.
History agrees with me.
Agreeing with a statement you made in the past is not the same as history agreeing with you.
I'm pointing out history's implementation of my interpretation. You know that, but you feel the need to argue against this for some reason that defies all logic and common sense.
/me shrugs
I feel the need to argue because it's a nice distraction. But distilling it to "You're wrong, I'm right." is a bit too boring, especially considering I'm right.
I feel the need to argue because it's a nice distraction. But distilling it to "You're wrong, I'm right." is a bit too boring, especially considering I'm right.
History disagrees.
I'm going to save us a lot of time Greenwall.
for i in `seq 1 1000`
do
printf "Savet: "%s\n" "${goodArgument[${i}]}"
sleep 10
printf "Greenwall: "%s\n" "${badArgument[${i}]}"
sleep 10
done
printf "Incarnate: "%s\n" "$implementedSuggestion"
for i in `seq 1 1000`
do
printf "Savet: "%s\n" "${goodArgument[${i}]}"
sleep 10
printf "Greenwall: "%s\n" "${badArgument[${i}]}"
sleep 10
done
printf "Incarnate: "%s\n" "$implementedSuggestion"
You are almost as bad as Bojan, lol.
+1 to the OP.
The purpose of /vote mute is player relief. I fail to see any other legitimate purpose. Those against the suggestion in the OP are those that have other-than-player-relief purposes in mind. They seek to disrupt guild activity through nefarious means where they find themselves incapable through means of skill or strategy.
The purpose of /vote mute is player relief. I fail to see any other legitimate purpose. Those against the suggestion in the OP are those that have other-than-player-relief purposes in mind. They seek to disrupt guild activity through nefarious means where they find themselves incapable through means of skill or strategy.