Spring RTS Engine

Ok, here we go, big drama post coming up.

I'll start by posting this chatlog between myself and Quantum: http://pastebin.com/f523be03

Summary:

I reported Wombat for combombing me in the first minute or so of an FFA game. He was obviously well aware he was ending the game for himself to make sure the game was ruined for me. The replay of that can be found here: http://replays.adune.nl/?1345

I reported it to Quantum, who gave me the usual story about how combombing is ok and is "Generally accepted". He said nobody has ever been banned for combombing and how it's a tactic, and how it would be removed from BA if it was against the rules.

So, to test this, I decided I would combomb as many players as possible to see if I would get banned or not. I told Quantum I was going to do this and so he said he would ban me before I could do any of that. There are obviously a lot of disagreements about this issue.

Full length rant:

Wombat is a troll, and a game ruiner. This is known by most players who have played with him. He doesn't do it all the time, but every now and then, he'll deliberately ruin the game for someone. There is plenty of proof of this.

As mentioned in the summary, he combombed me and intentionally ruined the game for me. 99% of Spring players would agree with me on this. However, because there is no "rule" about these kind of things, generally speaking, he's in the right. Apparently he's done nothing wrong and won't get banned for it.

So, as an annoyed player would, I reported him only to get a load of stuff back about how it's ok and he won't be banned. So, if combombing is fine in every aspect, why am I getting told I'd be banned if I did it? I even agree that I was about to ruin as many games as I could to prove a point. However, because I told Quantum that, I would apparently get banned for it.

I'll cut to the chase a little bit here. If combombing is ok, and is "generally accepted", it's obviously not seen as game ruining. It's fine, it's a tactic, it's used for a player to benefit. Wombat killed himself in the process, thus ending the game for him completely. He ruined the game for me, yet because he did not say "I'm ruining the game for him" he was ok.

Forgetting this story for a moment, I'd like to rant about the moderation system.

In Spring, Moderators are not appointed by how they behave, or what skills they have. No, to be a moderator in Spring, you simply have to join the [LCC] clan.

Secondly, in Spring, there are no rules. You can do whatever you want but if a moderator finds this unacceptable they will deal with you how they wish. It's their choice. They can talk between themselves and decide whether someone should be dealt with or not, but ultimately, they just do what they feel at the time.
The fact there are no rules means no player knows what is right and wrong.

There are obviously morals and instinct, and the players use these gifts to tell whether a player is misbehaving or not. However, moderators aren't allowed to use these and have to trust solely upon evidence and proof. (Neddie once said replays can be faked so they won't be taken as proof when dealing with someone).

Anyways, because there are no rules, means there is no line in the sand to separate offenders from non-offenders. Not only that, but you will get different responses on issues, depending on whom you report it too. I reported it to Quantum, and in return, I got threated with a ban. However, if I had gone to Neddie for example, he would have probably given me his life story and warned the guy.

The majority of the moderators don't even play the game. They either used to play it, and cba anymore or are part of the dev team but don't actually play the game. Devs shouldn't be moderators because they could have terrible judging ability or might be a troll and game ruiner themselves.

Digging yet deeper into the sand, there are no set decisions in Spring. There is no official team to say, "Yes that's going in next release" or "Nope, we can't use that". It's just thread after thread after thread of pointless debate.

People argue with each others points even if they agree, they just argue for the sake of arguing. There are hundreds of topics on things like "Should we stop smurfing?" and "Is combombing allowed?"
Yet, nobody seems to come to a final decision on these things. Even if 99% of the community agreed on an issue, it only takes one Admin to say "No". Even if they do agree with the 99%!

If this is to be a community project, we need to settle issues based on the majority vote. Also, we need a proper staff team, some properly appointed moderators and some set rules to distinguish between right and wrong.

It's not about this issue with Wombat, personally, I'm alright with him to continue playing and I have nothing against him because he doesn't know whether he'll get banned or not.

I could rant for ages on these sorts of things but clearly, it's pointless as no final decision will ever be made unless somebody does something about it. Some of you will argue with me just for the sake of it. Some of you mods will reading this and agreeing but will decide to go with their fellow chums decisions anyway. I'm not a troll, I don't ruin games, I support this community and can't get enough of it.

It seems the only way to get anything done here, is to do it yourself. Unfortunately, all the people that would do something about these things are either lazy, or don't have to power too.

Looking forward to seeing your "pointless" responses, the Neddie lock, and finally seeing this thread roll to the back of the forums, never to be seen again. That is if it's not deleted by Quantum or any of his loving chums.

I have to agree with Jaz here. And I also agree that developers have no business being lobby moderators (the exceptions being Tobi << Generally very level headed and Lurker << One of the great thinkers of our time ;p).

Forboding Angel wrote:I have to agree with Jaz here. And I also agree that developers have no business being lobby moderators (the exceptions being Tobi << Generally very level headed and Lurker << One of the great thinkers of our time ;p).

I was going to say this also. Tobi, Aus, Lurker, and Neddie (When he's not using long words) have the right personality and "power of the people" factor that makes them likable. They're also calm, and deal with situations by looking at both sides of the argument instead of just automatically disagreeing with someone. BrainDamage was a great mod too, you can tell by the fact he resigned as a lobby moderator instead of being a power whore :)

It isn't the job of moderators to solve broken game designs ...

Also there is no reason to flame always like this ...

jK wrote:It isn't the job of moderators to solve broken game designs

Precisely. And vice versa, it isn't the job of the devs to moderate unless they are fit for the job. It seems like you are arguing with me here but it's just backing up the fact that people should only be allowed access for the stuff they're suited for.

If there was some proper rules with specific punishments for each one then everyone would know what is right and what is wrong and it wouldn't just be the moderators decision which is better because alot of the time I disagree with moderator's decisions. If we had rules then moderators like peet couldn't ban people simply because he doesn't like them.

lol another sheep smurf?

This place is in no way a democracy and I highly doubt that'll ever change....I really cba to go into full rant mode about how things are run because you will completely ignore it I'm sure. Oh, and as always, a big baaaaw thread in general discussion will get you nowhere.


edit: I am going to double-emphasize this because nobody seems to clue in to this when they wish to gripe about the state of things:

a big baaaaw thread in general discussion will get you nowhere.

Peet wrote:This place is in no way a democracy

!vote 2

Peet wrote:you will completely ignore it I'm sure.

I don't ignore, I look at in from the other persons point of view and try to see the pros and cons of situations.

Peet wrote:Oh, and as always, a big baaaaw thread in general discussion will get you nowhere.

In all honesty, if I imprinted my post on the moon in shiny letters, it wouldn't get me anywhere. Tell me, where should I go if I want to get somewhere?

The community is run primarily by these people and not the general forum mob, so these people are the ones you should contact. That is all you can really do.

Don't have time now to read all of it; but with regards to combombing enemies I agree with quantum and jK. It is the game developers decision to have this dynamic, it is the game developers decision to also have an option to turn this off (comm ends, start with decoy comms, disable air transport, for example), or to remove it altogether, and if the option is present it is the host's decision whether to enable combombing dynamic or disable it.

So if you think this should not be allowed, you should try to convince the maintainer / developer of the game you play to remove this, or to include new dynamics that makes combombing less attractive. (make comm explosion smaller, give comm way more buildpower, give it upgrades, give it bigger resource income, etc.)

When it is about combombing allies or napping (read: picking up without permission from the respective player) allied comms to combomb [anyone], I'd consider it intentional game ruining, which may be punished.

Of course it isn't as black and white as this; when combombing enemies for the sole purpose of ruining the game, as opposed to winning as fast as possible or forcing a breakthrough, or taking out the opponent team's best player, or whatever, it may well cross the boundary and become punishable too. It's very hard, frustrating, boring, and time consuming to deal with this though, so it would be preferable to look for a solution with the host of the game or the game developer.

I'll try to read the rest when I'm back from holidays.

You were Wombat's opponent and he comm bombed you? The comm is a legitimate weapon in the game. Including his explosive radius.

The real issue here, is that spring sucks. What we have is a situation where 2 players don't like eachother, I doubt either of them really knows what started it, one obviously has some social issues anyways, but independantly hasn't done anything worth complete and total removal from the community, as he quite likely has friends and stuff he plays with quite constructively.

We've been dealing with this problem in the lobby since I first started moderating there. We DESPERATELY need the infastructure in place for game hosts to ban trouble players in the context of that game on a permanent basis, and we need the ability for a player to mark other players and be fully capable of avoiding playing with those players. We've been waiting nearly as long for it to actually materialize as well.

I'll agree, wombat deserves a warning to not harass Jacash and maby a short term ban make him aware we're watching him. But at the end of the day, he'll change lobby names and more or less disappear off moderator radar as the system for tracking users and controlling the going's on on the lobby is so terribly poor.

I haven't logged onto the lobby in 4 months. Technically speaking it's Aegis's responsibility, but he really should be more focused on the technical side than the stupid drama side anyways. If a lobby moderator who's still active on the lobby would like to issue some sort of moderation it'd be much obliged. I'm gonna go back to the drawing board and try and figure out if there's anything I can do to help fix the overall situation...

Just to add some baaaaw: regret pulls the same shit in FFA games. He does nothing but commbomb the player most likely to win the game. Is there anything I can do about it? No. Its well inside the accepted rules. Should it be punished? It would set an awful precedent.

Swift:
The lobby mods are way out of touch. They hardly play BA. Just count how many lobby mods there are that play BA. (0, when BA easily gives 75% of all games)
The issue is that griefing and ruining usually happens on autohosts where admin access is very limited, i.e the admins of said autohosts are online very rarely, thus eliminating the possibility of repercussion. Griefers know which autohosts are under maintained, and exploit it accordingly. Its very rare to see such questionable behavior happen on, for example, eXe autohosts, which are well managed, but more often on RZR or OVERDOSE, who refuse to let external people help with keeping order.

I play BA, just not under my main name, but I do get and resolve issues related to BA autohosts pretty much every day.

Let me think about it and wait for more input, then I will deal with the situation in a little while. Is that alright?

Beherith wrote:Swift:
The lobby mods are way out of touch. They hardly play BA. Just count how many lobby mods there are that play BA. (0, when BA easily gives 75% of all games)

Lion is mod and plays BA

I'm not really bothered about my issue and whether Wombat gets punished or not, that's not the annoying thing. It's just the general disorganization, and disagreements between the staff which is annoying.

A lot of people here would happily maintain Spring, keep it updated, fix a load of stuff and sort issues out. The problem is, they can't because they don't have the authorization. There are a bunch of people who have proved themselves responsible for moderating and such tasks.

As for Sheep's situation, I believe he's banned banned 6 times or so. A lot of these were for combombing, yet we're told it's not an offense? It's pretty obvious to see the disagreements and problems here so I won't go pointing all that out.

A big problem here is that if the moderators would like to ban someone and they feel very strongly that they should be banned, but they don't have evidence they can't do it. It was obvious that in that FFA game I posted, Wombat was ruining the game for me. Most people would agree, however, because he didn't say "I'm ruining the game for you", he doesn't get a ban. This is what needs to be changed.

This is what I feel should be done about it:

A lot of devs/staff have the power to fix these issues and organize themselves, but are either lazy too or just don't care. What needs to happen here, is to promote people who would fix these issues and that do care.

I feel a good idea would be for anybody with suggestions for appointing new moderators and removing moderators should be put forward to the Admins. If the Admins aren't busy, they can check this persons posts and past behavior to see if they would suit the job.
What's needed is a complete rework of the staff. This is an open source project, devs can still dev etc etc.

People need to take action instead of thinking someone else will do it. There are loads of suitable people to take action if a staff member is too lazy to do it.

I thought it was made clear that Wombat wasn't banned because using your commander as an offensive weapon isn't considered griefing. Your insistence that it is because of some kind of laziness or indifference on the moderation staff's behalf only shows that you either refuse to understand what has been told to you or you are incapable.

You also seem not understand the distinction between bombing your allies (something that only serves to ruin the game) and using your commander as an offensive weapon (something against some people's personal code of conduct).

My personal policy: I won't get involved with ingame disputes (even obvious game ruining) unless it involves kick/ban dodging. For example, if you are upset that wombat com bombs you (or any other reason at all) and you ban him from your game or from an autohost (by vote or autohost admin) and he comes back on a smurf, then I will intervene.

det wrote:I thought it was made clear that Wombat wasn't banned because using your commander as an offensive weapon isn't considered griefing. Your insistence that it is because of some kind of laziness or indifference on the moderation staff's behalf only shows that you either refuse to understand what has been told to you or you are incapable.

Did you actually watch the replay? That goes for Tobi too. It's obvious to any of you watching he is intentionally ruining the game for me, and as I said, you're just arguing for the sake of it. If you thought it was a tactical move, then you either refuse to understand what you are watching or are incapable.

I understand some of you don't want to interfere with ingame issues, in which case, we need to split the mod team up further into lobby moderation, forum moderation and game moderation.


These "people's personal code of conduct" that you talk about it what is wrong here. What's needed is "People's public code of conduct".

Jesus Christ, you guys are useless.

Combombing is a valid tactic, irregardless of when, where and how it is deployed. If you do a 10 run combomb spree, you shouldn't get banned because its your choice to burn your commander however you like.

Harrassment, as in continually combombing the same player, following them around just to fuck them off, isn't.

Games don't need moderation, they have that in the form of voting and gameserver admins. More admins in a game means more likely areas of contention, meaning more bitchfests as annoying tactics are banned for or not banned for.

The idea that someone with power should come in and make you feel all cuddly and safe is pathetic, if you can't deal with combombing, host your own game, if you can't deal with shitty tactic #2497, host your own game, if you're getting continually harassed day after day, find a moderator with some balls and present the evidence.

Infact, why the fuck should anyone care about commbombing unless someone is being a bitch and just harassing the shit out of someone with it? Anyone?

[TS]Lollocide wrote:Jesus Christ, you guys are useless.

Combombing is a valid tactic, irregardless of when, where and how it is deployed. If you do a 10 run combomb spree, you shouldn't get banned because its your choice to burn your commander however you like.

Harrassment, as in continually combombing the same player, following them around just to fuck them off, isn't.

Games don't need moderation, they have that in the form of voting and gameserver admins. More admins in a game means more likely areas of contention, meaning more bitchfests as annoying tactics are banned for or not banned for.

The idea that someone with power should come in and make you feel all cuddly and safe is pathetic, if you can't deal with combombing, host your own game, if you can't deal with shitty tactic #2497, host your own game, if you're getting continually harassed day after day, find a moderator with some balls and present the evidence.

Infact, why the fuck should anyone care about commbombing unless someone is being a bitch and just harassing the shit out of someone with it? Anyone?

Sure, I'm happy with that, but the fact that I can get banned for it from one mod and ignored for it from another is ridiculous. If there's a decision made by 100% of the community, then it needs to be written and stated as a rule.

I'm not whining about being combombed, I'm whining about reporting someone and having the tables turned on me. Lets just forget combombing for a minute and focus on general issues...

Appointing "game" moderators is missing my point. It's not that I am too lazy to get involved in in-game disputes. It's that my personal belief is for people to moderate their own games how they see fit. There are clear cut cases of game ruining, but most if it is in a gray area. It's only when people dodge bans that I feel moderation needs to get involved. I am probably in the minority with this opinion. Other moderators will get involved for intentional game ruining.

I would like you to bring up a case of someone being banned for offensive com bombing with their own com. You keep citing unequal enforcement, but I sincerely doubt anyone has been banned for com bombing that wasn't vs allies or done using a stolen ally commander.

If you have problems with the way certain people play, then I recommend hosting your own games or playing on an autohost with an active admin list who shares your views.