View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
07-22-2010, 02:28 PM
Originally Posted by
First, I want to address
we don't allow people to post the names of individuals who may, or may not have engaged in activities like this. It's for the "May not have" reasons.
Let's just say that I have an in-game argument over something with Mumrah. If I get really upset, and can't bring him around to my way of thinking, and I'm particularly vengeful, I could post saying that Mumrah has done something truly horrible to me! That will teach him! Right?
But Mumrah hasn't done anything horrible to me in all actuality, we just had a disagreement over people storing too many Tribbles in the bank. Mumrah suffers a hit to his reputation. I suffer a hit to my reputation, and in the end, no one really wins. It's the kind of drama that tears apart fleets and larger communities every day.
How do we verify those claims to protect people like Mumrah from people like me? Is the OCR guy supposed to spend all his time investigating these issues instead of reading the forums and passing along your valuable feedback? Maybe we should have a GM handle that instead of doing tickets to get you all the support you need as soon as possible? Or we could just say no bad mouthing other players on the forums. This kind of action could easily fall under flaming and trolling, Harassing other Members, or even defamatory material, all of which is against the forum guidelines already in place.
We all know fleet leaders talk to one another. People who take these actions will become known in the community without having there name plastered all over the forums. It's not needed.
Further, we have given you, as Fleet Leaders, the tools you need to be able to protect your banks from individuals who engage in this kind of activity. We gave you those for a reason. We want you to use them!
I find this policy is a bit odd. As it applies both in game and on the forums. It makes sense only if cryptic takes action in such cases otherwise the guidelines protect people oh commit such acts.
Give you a hypothetical. Say someone works their way up in a fleet then after getting a high enough rank being an upstanding member ect ect. They decide to rob the bank and kick all the members they have access rights to kick. This combined shows an intent to harm other players activity's. Say now that the same person then creates a Mock fleet with a nearly identical name to the one they just attacked in such a way. (Again hypothetical here)
The cryptic policy in such a case is to take no action when clearly the player in question is out to cause harm. And the ability of the players to respond in anyway is highly restricted due to policy's like this. Players can not issue warnings to the public ect even though cryptic has logs to backup these actions.
Say that person continues to harass the fleet they attacked in this manner. Again cryptic policy currently allows this and restricts the fleet in question from taking action to protect themselves.
I understand the logic in policy's to protect innocent players from unwarranted attacks. But I would argue this only works if cryptic draws some sort of line on behavior in the sand and says that's enough you have clearly shown your only intention is to cause trouble for other players. Otherwise you just end up encouraging such behavior protecting it and punishing those who are already the victim of such people by preventing them from having any options.
Just my opinion and suggestion policy needs to be a bit more flexible than it currently seems to be.