|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7937
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:GM Zerat wrote:There is currently a blanket ban on can baiting in rookie systems, I just wanted to bring that up as many players make this mistake. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_SystemsWarning: Can Flipping in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing. So if you are thinking about can baiting only older players in those systems, please do not. Can flipping and can baiting are two very different things. Your page should say what you actually mean (according to the the posts by GM Homonoia) that can baiting is not allowed, but can flipping of non-rookies is ok. Specifically, the page should say, "Can Baiting in Rookie Systems is considered Griefing." EDIT: If needed, I will be more than happy to write an independent article on can baiting. Yes, this is a ridiculous problem.
The rules being intentionally fuzzy and not clearly presented is one thing; the rules being actually incorrectly written is something completely different GÇö it's very bad. To go with the reckless driving example from before, what we have here is a rule that says that reckless driving is illegal and then gives GÇ£driving down the road at legal speedGÇ¥ as an example of reckless driving.
The rule as presented in that wiki page is almost entirely incorrect and does not correspond with what the GMs are now telling us: can flipping is not considered griefing in the rookie systems. You need to fix that page to say what the rules actually are.
On a more meta level, you (the GMs) can't really be surprised that the players are asking you to define the rules a bit more clearly when it becomes obvious that the rules are so fuzzy that the official description of them are false and do not reflect the rules as you apply them. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7941
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:None of this would be an issue if people weren't pathetic enough to go shoot at rookies in the first place. GǪexcept that you have to be able to do so, otherwise it would create such a ridiculously huge and abusable loophole to hide stuff behind. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7942
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Please explain, in detail, how you believe this is the case. If it is made absolutely and in every way illegal to attack rookies, then anyone with any kinds of brains will keep creating rookies for any form of risky hauling, travel, and/or spying.
Even if (in fact, especially if) there are non-public GM-discretion rules that someone who's using his umpty-eleventh recycled alt to do this will not be considered a rookie and is free to attack, there is no way for the rest of us to determine this and figure out that, yes, we can indeed attack this apparent rookie without censure, because he is in fact not a rookie at all. Even tying it to the account age and providing a public GÇ£newbieGÇ¥ flag on characters on that account will not stop this GÇö people will use trials and buddy accounts to create the same protection against their characters. The outside capriciousness of the GMs' decisions makes it suicidal to try to stop even a blatantly obvious non-rookie because there is no way of knowing whether they will think it's as obvious as you do (and the obviousness might turn out to be wrong).
Suddenly, we have an entire class of characters that can do immense damage to people around them, but which cannot be retaliated against or interdicted. This would be far more damaging to the game than the occasional innocent rookie getting blown up.
Ban Bindy wrote:If a few older player's alts get protected under these new rules, what's the harm? CCP can probably tell when it's a true new account versus a newbie created on an older players account. Might lead to new rules on exploits. That's fine. Protecting rookie players is important enough that it has to happen even if it allows some older players to abuse the rookie protection. The harm is that we can't make the distinction, so the GMs would never have the opportunity to make it GÇö no-one will be stupid enough to attack such a character because you never know (and that's also why the moronic GÇ£try it GÇö if you get banned it was wrongGÇ¥ argument presented earlier is so insanely and laughably stupid). It creates a layer of protection that these older players should never have, and it does so because it is impossible to distinguish them from actual rookies by those who really need to be able to make that distinction GÇö the players. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:I'm still not understanding any kind of issue with the simple rule of don't mess with rookies?
You scan down a potential gank victim in high sec, check him out and he is a under a month old. Move on!
You find a procurer mining in high sec belt while your out ganking miners, check him. Under a month? Move on! You find a Badger I carrying 25 billion in technetium coming out of gate cloak on a the EC-P8R gate in Torrinos, check him. Under a month. Move onGǪ? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7944
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia, could you please explain to me when a rookie would be hauling 25 Billion of anything Hmm. Don't you think that would make him kinda not a rookie???? That's just it: we don't know. We are not allowed to know. An actual rookie can most certainly be carrying 25 billion worth of anything, so why shouldn't I be able to interdict that and roll around in the cash just because he's new?
Dakeen Kurvora wrote:Unfortunately you seemed to have missed the part about using your brain. Obviously that is no rookie sir. Says you. How do I know that? What happens when it turns out that, indeed, he was a rookie GÇö first account ever and enlisted as a hauler by people who wanted to move the stuff under protection of the GÇ£don't shoot rookiesGÇ¥ law, and now the GMs (who didn't agree with you because they could check it out and see that he was a legitimate rookie) nuked my account.
This is why I'm saying what I'm saying: we must be able to shoot rookies, because my obvious is not your obvious is not the GMs obvious, and testing by shooting and seeing if it results in a ban is not a workable solution. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7946
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
Aethlyn wrote:Come on, people, just apply common sense. Do you really have to rely on trying to grief (or gank or whatever) players in those few 1.0 systems that are designated as newbie starting areas? And again: that is not the problem. The problem is that the rules for those systems are seeping out into completely different ones, potentially opening up huge and easily exploitable holes in the entire industry-PvP sector.
Quote:Also, why should someone carry PLEX around a newbie system? Wait till he leaves it, shoot him down. Again, the problem is that as the rules are going to apply outside the system, I won't be allowed to.
Quote:Just think back of your first few days in Eve. Where did you hang out, what did you do? Jita. Laughing at the scams. Dodging the ganks and smartbombs.
Mrr Woodcock wrote:OK Just a simple question. Who in here thinks a 2 week old player hauling 25 Billion isk worth of anything in a T1 industrial would be a rookie? Could I see hands please. GǪmissing the point that he very well could be, and that there is no way of knowing before the GMs take you by the ear. In fact, just the fact that he's doing it in a T1 indy rather seems to suggest that he is indeed a rookie, because that's a classic rookie mistake. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7948
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? Go back to the way everyone (including some of you guys, going by old petition quotes) thought it worked:
In the starter and carreer agent systems, all forms of aggression games and unprovoked attacks are prohibited. Outside of the starter systems, anything goes. That is the policy. It means the distinction between rookie and vet becomes completely irrelevant, and it removes the ability to use rookie-like characters to hide behind the fear of the banhammer while still giving the rookies a safe zone to play in.
The game-design part is to punch the NPE team in the soul until they give rookie accounts a big stonking GÇ£Here There Be DragonsGÇ¥ popup the first time they try to activate the gate out of those systems and until they create a mission where the theft mechanics are explained. If certain forms of rookie-griefing are rampant (e.g. the SOE arc), then tell the PvE group to adjust those missions to no longer feature the kinds of content that might trick the rookies GÇö e.g. no required lootable items. This is not a policy GÇö it's more along the lines of entertainment (for you, not being on the receiving end of said soul-punching).
The solution isn't arbitrary, opaque, unobtainable, and potentially harsh rules with a gillion different (equally arbitrary, opaque and unknowable) edge cases referring to (occasionally incorrectly named) specific tactics (that the newbies won't know about or understand, and which the griefers will modify to work in a different way). The solution is a education GÇö for everyone GÇö about an easily available and categorically true rule set. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Just leave the rookies alone, just seems so hard for some to bare. Define GÇ£rookieGÇ¥. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Well, it's not someone hauling around 25 Billion isk in assets. Why not? What about him precludes him from being a rookie?
Quote:Not trying to be rude here, but your either stupid, or playing stupid. No, I'm explaining to you why your categorical statement is useless: because it either offers zero protection or it protects the wrong people by creating massive exploits that are far bigger a problem than the ganking of newbies could ever be.
You're trying to forbid something without defining what is forbidden. That's a horrible and untenable solution that only creates more problems.
And no, discretion isn't really needed. You can easily create a rule that offers the required protection while still being crystal clear and without creating all those exploits and loop holes. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7959
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Further more if you can't actually make the distinction in what makes a new player carrying 25B isk in assets, not a rookie then your whole prospective, and position comes to me as highly in question. You didn't answer the question: what is it that precludes the guy carrying the 25bn cargo from being a rookie?
Why do you feel that it's ok for me to blow him up and make him sour on the game and quit before his third week is up, when you think it's hideously wicked and evil to blow someone else with the same amount of game knowledge up and make him sour on the game and quit before his third week. What separates one from the other? Why is it ok, by you, to grief some rookies and not others?
Look, it's very simple. It took me maybe 30 seconds to figure out how the goons will massively exploit your rule to provide safety for all their assets and get you banned in the process. In the same time that it took me to figure it out, the goons, who are much better at being goons than I am, will not just have figured it out, but also written an extensive wiki on it, created the scam website, set up the blind accounts, and laughed themselves into a coma from how easy that one was to twist into something completely unwholesome. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7963
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Right. Well doesn't it seem pretty obvious that a genuine rook wouldn't gave 25B Isk worth of anything. Why is that? What about him precludes him from being a rookie?
Quote:Man I honestly don't think you get this, really. GǪand I honestly think that you can't answer the question and are stalling. This rather highlights the entire problem with your rule: it arbitrarily and for no apparent reason lets me gank some rookies but not others, even though both are equally new, with equal (lack of) knowledge about the game, and with the same result of the gank (them being fed up and quitting before their third week).
Haulie Berry wrote:It's not at all outside the realm of possibility. Somewhat improbable, but a new player could very well luck their way into a poorly managed corporation with a substantial amount of assets. 25B could be attained as easily as someone failing to lockdown a high value blueprint or two. For that one, you could arguably say that he has managed to get himself into a corp and is now fair game since he'll be a valid target of wardecs anyway.
I'm thinking more along the lines ofGǪ
GÇ£Oh hai newbie. I'm from GoonWaffe GÇö maybe you've heard of us? Want to join? It's not hard GÇö you just have to haul this package from A to B as a kind of test that you're past the tutorials, and if you make it, you're in! Go to goon-newbie-scamhaulers.com and check out where to go and whom to talk to.GÇ¥
Genuine newbie; know so little about the game that he doesn't even spot the obvious scam; attacking him is a horrible offence because he's still just barely able to use jump gates. So either people don't and the goons get free/safe hauls, or the guy ganking him is tossed out of the game. Win-win.
GǪalternatively, the GMs have to not apply the GÇ£don't kill newbiesGÇ¥ rule in this case and have to allow people to kill them. But only someGǪ because not all genuine rookies are to be treated as genuine rookies. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7963
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I unlike you have no problem figuring this one out. No. Unlike me, you have no imagination when it comes to the huge room for exploitation your useless and undefined rule opens up.
You're also having problems seeing that a far better solution can be had by simply not even trying to make any of these distinctions, but rather let the same GÇö ridiculously clear GÇö rules apply to everyone equally. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Naa, you r just good at speewing words all over the place to mask you personnel short comings. Why would I need to mask that? SLOPS is a corp of four, and we rather enjoy those shortcomings in personnel. Not hat they're particularly large GÇö it's a fairly well-rounded group.
Quote:But I feel pretty confident in my ability in identifying who's actually new, and who is pretending. How would you identify the fact that the poor goon-scammed newbie I envision isn't pretending? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:You've got to be kidding me. People still trying to figure out what is or is not a rookie? No. We're using it as an illustration why any rule that relies on that kind of inherently unclear determination is destined to cause nothing but grief and increased GM workload.
Quote:The Gm has given you his answer, repeatedly. Now deal with it like a grown up. The GMs also asked for better policy suggestions. Deal with it.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Tippia your just of a mind set that your simply, (Under the guise of caring) trying to lean this to your specific agenda. Oh really? What agenda is that, exactly? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
Orly Rly wrote:Pretty pathetic that a simple question that quickly get's answered can devolve into a 14 page saga of technicalities and smarm. It's not particularly pathetic, or even the slightest bit strange, when the answers are inconsistent with the published rules and when they cause as many problems as they solve. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:40:00 -
[17] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Others just want to be left alone so they dont have to keep reading law after law that outlaws walking backwards, down a sidewalk, with an icecream cone in their back pocket. GǪwhich is exactly what the current ruleset forces you to do, but just to make your job even harder, it does it without telling you about the ice-cream cone.
That's why it would be far better to have a rule that doesn't need those kinds of details, differentiations and discriminations.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7964
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:The merest hint of a tightening of the rules and all you pathetic worms descend into a panic of what-ifs and why-this and how ever will we know what a rookie looks like!! GǪso, in other words, you haven't really read the thread and understood what the issue is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:18:00 -
[19] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need to be told and others do not? Why can't you answer the question?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:25:00 -
[20] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Why do you need the question answered for you? Because the current rule doesn't allow for the distinction between rookies and non-rookies. Because as far as anyone has been able to explain, the current rule lets me gank rookies and prohibits me from ganking non-rookies (which is odd since the intention is rather the opposite).
Quote:Why are you unable to figure it out for yourselves? Because the rule doesn't allow me to, which goes against the point of having the rule to begin with.
Quote:Why do you need a rule ( law ) to define what is the right thing and what is wrong thing to do. So you think we should just remove the rule and allow the wholesale slaughter of rookies?
Why can't you answer the question?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7965
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:44:00 -
[21] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I never said or implied for the slaughter of rookies. Yes you did. You implied that we don't need a rule to separate right from wrong. The absence of such a rule will have one consequence: the wholesale slaughter of rookies.
Quote:My personal definition of rookie:
1- 2 month old player or younger in hi-sec. So you would say that the previously envisioned guy in Torrinos with 25bn worth of tech would be an illegal target. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:13:00 -
[22] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I did that on purpose to point out exactly the route this is leading. It is never specific enough is it. Of course not. So what's the good of having a rule that doesn't provide any kind of enforceable limitations and no guidelines for when it's actually applicable?
By the way, you didn't comment on that rookie example: would you consider it illegal to blow up a rookie with 25bn ISK worth of tech in his carg hold?
Quote:I will ask again. Why do people need such specific rules to control their behavior. Because otherwise, it will be exploited and fail to serve its purpose. Because otherwise, it will limit legitimate gameplay. Because otherwise, it becomes almost completely useless.
We're straying into nirvana fallacy territory here, but that's just it: why construct a rule that is begging for that fallacy (and the opaque and/or unenforceable nature of any attempt to avoid the fallacy) when you could simply construct a rule that doesn't use those kinds of fuzzy and subjective definitions and still achieved the same goal?
And as Ruby keeps pointing out: it's not the behaviour that needs to be controlled GÇö it's the context of that behaviour, without which any control, specific or otherwise, becomes meaningless. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I hope they leave it as is. So you want them to discriminate against rookies based on reasons we are not privy to and let us kill some rookies but not others, and you want them to include vets under the rookie protection umbrella because the rules are so opaque as to force people not to attack those vets.
Yeah, that seems reasonable compared to a rule that doesn't require anyone on either side of the fence to have to worry about what is and what isn't a rookieGǪ
Whether you mean that or not, it's the situation the rules create, and if you do want to leave it as it is then fine GÇö just realise what it is you want to leave as it is. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7966
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 02:44:00 -
[24] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:I too want a rule saying I cant go 250kph, at night, on the berm, while riding a motorcycle, with a donkey on the back. Otherwise I just wont know that I shoudlnt do that. GǪso you still have absolutely no clue what the problem is then.
Yes, you probably should give up at this point if it's that difficult for you.
By the way, the rule you're asking for exists; it is not in any way relevant to the topic at hand, even as a simile.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:20:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:You can't define it. GǪand that's why it's a horribly basis for this kind of rule.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:That's a great idea. I know.
Quote:Why don't you tell the IRS to stop taxing us because they never defined "income". Looks like they defined it quite well. Beyond that, get a better country, because around here, it's pretty thoroughly defined. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7968
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
Jack Parr wrote:It's still funny watching you squirm trying to define something that can't be defined. GǪexcept, of course, that we are not the ones trying to define anything. We are asking you to define the category of people that needs to be defined in order for the standing rule to work as intended.
Since the consensus is that this cannot be done, we are simply saying that that the rule is inherently flawed both as a control mechanism and as a tool for adjudication.
Your saying that it can't be defined reinforces our point. So thank you for your support. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7977
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:09:00 -
[28] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:InternetSpaceship wrote:Just look at goonswarm. Our day old rookies are tackling supercapitals 30 minutes after joining. LMFAO, really? You seriously suggesting these guys are rookies? Honestly? So we're tabck to that question: what precludes them from being rookies?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7977
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:42:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ooh, I missed that one!Mrr Woodcock wrote:Now just so there isn't any confusion, I'm actually going to define Rookie for you. You've been wanting for it all day, we've been implying what it is all day. I told my self I wasn't going to give you the satisfaction, but here it is.
Rookie:
-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áAn inexperienced person; a novice.
Ok, now please go on, and tell us all why that isn't good enough. Because it doesn't change the fundamental problem of defining who does and who doesn't belong to the group GÇö it just replaces the word with a synonym without adding any specificity (which is what we're after). GÇ£Don't mess with inexperienced personsGÇ¥ and GÇ£don't mess with novicesGÇ¥ are just as unhelpful as GÇ£don't mess with rookiesGÇ¥ (ok, it's not entirely unhelpful GÇö that GÇÿpersonsGÇÖ bit means we can conclude that your parakeet isn't a rookie).
What is a novice? What counts as inexperienced?
It doesn't tell us whether or not we can shoot that rookie with the 25bn tech loadGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:18:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:No need to search false crappy excuses to use/abuse the lack of distinct rules to support a very false argument. We know. That's why we're arguing for the removal of the those grey areas, which would eliminate all the crappy excuses. For some reason, people seem rather adamant that this is bad GÇö presumably because they enjoy the amount to which they abuse the system, and because would hate to see those abuses removed.
That's why you're seeing all those false and crappy excuses such as GÇ£everyone knowsGÇ¥ and GÇ£you're just a gankerGÇ¥: they have no argument (not even a very false one), and have to go for the red herrings and ad hominems instead. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I actually like it like that, I have my reasons. I think many others agree. Presumably, you want the rules to be vague so you can exploit them for protection you do not deserve.
The rest of us just wants the rules to protect rookies. Why do you feel the need to hide behind them?
Haulie Berry wrote:Why do people keep saying things like this? The GM in this thread has explicitly said that, while they would prefer you would not mess with rookies in general, it is NOT against the rules in systems that are not "rookie" systems. Because they've said in other places, that it might not be ok GÇö the the rookie system rule might apply outside of rookie systems. This creates maximum ambiguity for maximum confusion and maximum unenforceability: you are not allowed to attack a group of people (that can't be defined) in some set of systems (that can't be defined), except occasionally you might be (according to rules of judgement that can't be defined).
What he's describing is the logical conclusion of the GÇ£don't mess with rookiesGÇ¥ rule. Yes, reasonably, he should have no problems with that incident, but as this thread has shown GÇ£reasonablyGÇ¥ isn't a universal constantGǪ So the whole idea of building a rule around that measure of GÇ£reasonableGÇ¥ is flawed to the core, and yet it's what people are arguing in favour of. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7993
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:24:00 -
[32] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Holy Mother of Tim Burton, are you people still trying to define a rookie using stupidly extreme scenario's? No. We're still trying to make people who say that it can't be defined understand that this means the rule is pretty useless, what with the main subject of it being undefined and allGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7994
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:34:00 -
[33] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:So you still trying to define what a rookie is using stupidly extreme scenario's to break something further that the GM lady asked us to help fix. No. We're trying to fix the stupid scenario that arises from the rule the GMs are thinking about applying, and we're showing that the stupid scenario is a direct result of the inability to define what a rookie is.
We're doing exactly what the GMs asked us for. We are also not trying to define what a rookie is GÇö we're asking those who prefer the rule that requires a definition of rookie to do that. They can't. That means the rule is no good.
Simple enough, or do you want to keep wilfully misunderstanding what GÇ£noGÇ¥ means? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:58:00 -
[34] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:The bit I highlighted seems to be the important part............ No. You missed the really important part: GM Homonoia wrote:Alright, instead of arguing this any further. Here one for you guys. I am sure that most of you understand our goals, now assuming you had ZERO development time, how would YOU word a policy that achieves these goals? As part of this, we're pointing out that the whole idea of having a rule that depends on something that cannot and will not be defined will inherently be much worse in a number of ways than a rule that doesn't require those kinds of distinctions.
Gillia Winddancer wrote:Arguing about rule details of this level is beyond stupid when basic common sense should be dictating. Common sense is the rarest commodity in the universe. Common-sense-based rules have a frightening tendency to fall apart when faced with senseless activities.
In this case, the common-sense approach stumbles by turning a rule that is supposed to protect rookies into a rule that doesn't fully protect rookies, but unduly protects vetsGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:I'd exercise a little discretion when using the word stupid, and GM in the same sentence. Just a friendly piece of advise. Not needed unless the GMs can't follow a simple sentence and trace the referent of the stupidity in question.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7997
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:13:00 -
[36] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:Look at the bit I highlighted, now look back at your own comment, now back to the bit I highlighted, now back to your comment. Do you see what I did there? Yes. You ignored the GM quote.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
7999
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:29:00 -
[37] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Exactly what I said No. What you said is that we're trying to defined what a rookie is. We're not.
Quote:We were told to use common sense for several of the stupidly extreme scenario's but common sense is in short supply these days as it is painfully evident in these pages. GǪwhich, along with the inability to define rookies, is why it's not a sound basis for this kind of rule set. It is also completely unnecessary for reaching the same goal.
Cutter Isaacson wrote:I think you and a few others need to take a break from posting, its affecting your ability to read. Nah. It's affecting the ability to notice your switch away from the GÇ£GM says so, obey!GÇ¥-stance you've previously tended towards. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:pfft whatever. Several of us have already worked out some excellent parameters that exclude the stupidly extreme hauling scenario as a rookie. GǪand others have worked out excellent parameters that includes him. Which of the two will the GMs use?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:The common sense one of course, sheesh. Which one is that?
Quote:Like I said, you guys are still trying to break the definition of a rookie using the stupidly extreme scenario. How can we break something that doesn't exist? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Hey Tippia.
What is your personal definition of rookie? Can you apply that definition fairly and equally to all situations? I would say that it can't be defined other than by exposing data that shouldn't be exposed to other users (and even then, it's highly questionable), so it's a bad idea to create a rule that relies on such a definition.
Instead, you create a blanket rule that protects an unquestionably objective and clear subsection of space and its inhabitants GÇö regardless of status GÇö and then improve the education of all parties about the existence and extent of this protection. This make the definition and its applicability irrelevant.
THE L0CK wrote:Mine of course. So what makes your common-sense definition better than the other common-sense definitions, and how can you be so sure they'll use yours? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:27:00 -
[41] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Because it wasn't just my version of it Argumentum ad populum. No, that does not make your definition better than the other one.
Quote:I'm positive that my idea won't be used. GǪthen it's a pretty awful rule to use to determine who can and who can't be attacked, wouldn't you say? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:And who's making rules here? You are. You have to, because the GMs will not fully provide them for you. This means you always risk running by a different rule set than the GMs are (in fact, that's the entire intent of them not providing the rules in full).
Quote:Not my fault you excluded yourself from the conversation. I didn't. I just questioned its conclusions.
Olleybear wrote:So, if I understand correctly, this would be the creation of a No-PvP zone is that protects all players when they are in it. Which is not unlike being docked in station. GǪwhich is pretty much what we have had since time immemorial. The difference would be roughly zero.
Quote:It would create much more than just safety though Such as? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8001
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:51:00 -
[43] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Right, you cherry picked your argument and we continued on without you. No, my argument has been very clear from the get-go GÇö very little cherry-picking there (well, aside from you picking up a few words and creating a massive straw-man out of them).
Quote:And I'm not making any rules GǪexcept that, again, you have to, because no-one else will provide them to you with the current rule set. You are the one who had to determine GÇö without guidance GÇö what a rookie is, thus contributing the missing piece of the puzzle. In fact, the rest of that sentence show how you are making up the rules as you go, thereby contradicting what you just said:
Quote:I'm just using common sense while I feel my way through the gray. GǪwhich isn't a useful foundation for a rule since common sense isn't common in any sense of the word. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8002
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:01:00 -
[44] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Create a place where people, when war decced, can run when things get tough and still fly their shiny ships. GǪand do nothing, since there's nothing for them to do there that they can't do by just staying where they were and not undocking.
Quote:A place where people can mine, belt rat, run missions, in 100% safety. No. We're talking about the starter systems here. Aside from possibly some veldspar (which can be removed and the rookies can get their mining on in special mining tutorial missions which, afair, are illegal to scan down), there is none of what you just listed. So yes, you missed that little detail.
Again: turn the rule back to what everyone (including some GMs, I might add) thought it was before. Very simple, very clear, very void of any kind of vagueness stemming from undefinable distinctions between equally undefinable classes of players, and void of any impact on the universe as a whole. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8002
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:So we have a system(s) that dont have anything to do except for rookie missions and we can limit that to letting them do the tutorials once, twice or even three to four times to encourage them to leave those systems as there will be nothing else for them to do. Afaik, the missions are already limited to once, and then you're sent (or advised to go) to the career agent systems, which are covered by the same rule.
Quote:Is there value in having preset systems where a person can run to when things get tough? Or is it more like being docked and playing station games, which I can see the two being similar from a game mechanic point of view. For those running from a tough time, it will be no different than being docked up. If anything it will be worse since the GÇ£undock rampGÇ¥ will be the far end of the outgoing gate from the system, where you pop up 15km away from safety, compared to 0m away when undocking from most stations.
It might be siiiightly easier to stave off boredom compared to just staying docked, since you can always go out and fly a few circles around the station instead of (or in addition to) spinning your ship.
THE L0CK wrote: I've noticed how you have purposefully stuck to the one scenario and avoided questions pertaining to other aspects of the situation as a whole Such asGǪ? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8003
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:32:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ban Bindy wrote:This is a remarkable example of one person deciding to be right no matter what. Tippia could argue with a stump about bark. If you can't define what a rookie is in your own mind, leave anything that looks like a rookie alone. No, this is me explaining a very simple problem over and over again to people who cannot read.
The issue is not whether or not (or how) I defined what a rookie is. The issue is that thus definition is subjective, non-universal, arbitrary, and without any commonality. It is therefore highly unsuitable as both guidance and a control mechanism GÇö the two purposes a proper rule should be able to serve.
Quote:Some people won't be satisfied with any rule, that's clear from the fact that this debate just goes on and on being driven by one player. GǪexcept of course, that what I'm arguing for a very simple rule that would satisfy everyone except griefers. I don't what what that says about the people who so adamantly are against such a ruleGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8004
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:20:00 -
[47] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:Jeez, another one. No, he's been here pretty much all along.
Quote:Considering how many times we've had to repeat myself I'll just say to read any 5 pages in order as this thread is simply a broken record at this point. So in other words, you're going to accuse him as well of doing something he's not doing?
Quote:Other than that I can't help those who won't help themselves. That's the entire problem: you can't help yourself with the solution you've picked. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8004
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:When did I start accusing? Pretty much from the get-go. You accused me of wanting to define rookies, when what I wanted to do was not define rookies, because it couldn't be doneGǪ
Quote:I find it easier to just have people go back over the material rather than write yet another 3 pages discussing what we have already discussed for the past 18. The thing is, you never actually answered the question, even when I asked it: how do you break a definition that doesn't exist? You also never explained how to enforce such a non-existing definition.
Quote:But I did help myself and I've been trying to tell you that for several pages now. GǪexcept that the solution you picked are, by your own admission, not actually useful.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8005
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:54:00 -
[49] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:For now, outside of Rookie systems (I avoid those for obvious reasons), I will kill/scam anyone I want/can who is more than 30 days old, and if they show a basic understanding of aggro mechanics, I'll kill them even if they are a week old. GǪand that seems entirely reasonable. It doesn't solve the problem though: the rule of thumb you apply might not be the one someone else applies, and theirs might be just as reasonable. This makes the whole thing arbitrary as hell and a poor basis for control and adjudication. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:20:00 -
[50] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:To say a blind man is blind is an accusation now? Did I want to or attempt to define rookies in that quote? No. So yes, saying a seeing man is blind is something of an accusation.
Quote:I did answer the question but it wasn't the answer you wanted so you ask again. GǪbecause you didn't actually answer the question: how can you break a definition that doesn't exist? How can you enforce such a non-existing definition?
Quote:I can retype the answer Please do.
Kara Books wrote:I to strongly believe we are nowhere closer to defining anything more then what we had before this topic even started. Nor will we ever get any closer, simply because we can't. That is the entire problem. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:42:00 -
[51] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:I can do this all day. Do what? Show quotes where I'm not trying to define rookies? Yes, you've done well with that so far.
Quote:I already told you, the stupidly extreme scenario is not the one that I was discussing. YeeeeeesGǪ? And that answers the questions of how to break a definition that doesn't exist and of how to enforce a non-existing definition, how exactly?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8006
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:21:00 -
[52] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:I'm not answering a question about a invisible definition that is broken. Why not?
You're the one claiming that we're trying to break the definition of GÇÿrookieGÇÖ. Setting aside for a minute that we're not, the question remains: seeing as how the only common answer is that GÇÿrookieGÇÖ can't be defined (the GMs certainly refuse to do it), how can such a definition be broken GÇö it doesn't exist? So how can you claim that we're trying to break this definition when all we know for certain is that it isn't defined?
Quote:We do however have an existing definition and the GM has asked us to help her define as to make it slightly better but stupidly. Actually, no we don't GÇö that's the entire problem. We have no definition and the GMs are not willing to provide one, so we have to make one up using GÇ£common senseGÇ¥ to slot into the rule the GMs have providedGǪ except that this provides no guidance for how they will interpret the rule and how we can and should act in accordance with it. They are also not asking us to define anything, but rather to provide a policy that protects rookies. This can be done without having to define rookies as a group, as we have shown, thus eliminating that entire problem.
Quote:Full circle once again. GǪbecause you can't answer simple questions and keep tossing out red herrings (and just general falsehoods) left right and centre. So we keep dragging you, kicking and screaming, back onto the topic at hand. If you don't want to discuss the topic, just stay away GÇö your fallacies are quite useless.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8007
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:50:00 -
[53] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Thus the definition of "rookie" falls to factors outside the qualities that you can perceive in-game, and thus the actual definition of rookie is meaningless to anyone who is not a GM. Attempting to find a definition that suits you as a player while still being useful to rookies and GMs is an exercise in futility: you are chasing an impossible dream.
So settle for the concrete fact that you are at risk of getting banned if you bait players in starter systems. Move your PvP elsewhere. If you must "PvP" in starter systems, be prepared to accept the possibility that the person who bought that hulk mining character has no idea about the rules of the game and has only been playing for a few hours. GǪand that's pretty much what we're saying: the protection of rookies is actually better served by a rule that doesn't mention rookies at all and that doesn't try to make any kind of distinction like that.
The problem comes when they are now leaning towards applying the same rule outside of the starter systems. That means the concrete part of the rule is gone and all we're left with is the intentionally vague bit GÇö now the entire rule becomes meaningless to anyone who isn't a GM. There is no concrete fact left to settle for.
Moreover, this intentionally vague part is a later development: for a while, it was completely crystal clear since they had answered in petitions that all kinds of GÇ£messing withGÇ¥ was out of line in the rookie systems. It's that move from a crystal clear set of people in a crystal clear context from an intentionally vague set of people in any context that is troubling. Going back to the crystal clear version would be far better.
THE L0CK wrote:I already discussed the topic. I just made a comment today about the fact that I was surprised that a certain scenario was still being tossed around after so many pages GǪwhich isn't the topic. The topic is how to create a rule that protect rookies, and the scenarios you're referring to are illustrations of how easily any rule based on undefinable terms will stray into subjective interpretations and thus becomes useless for control and adjudication purposes.
Quote:I never intended to actually post in this thread after that but you kept responding so I decided to go with it and have fun playing last post. I tried to drop a hint with the like a mule reference but that blew right by you twice. That's because I'm actually discussing the topic, unlike you, who are just playing posting games.
Quote:BTW you still never answered the question I asked Because you never specified which one when I asked. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8010
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:05:00 -
[54] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:I told you, it's back around page 12 or 13. So what was the question? You never specified one when I asked.
Barbelo Valentinian wrote:But if it's "common sense", why do you need a rule? Do you lack common sense? Because common sense is not common in either sense of the word, as the conflicting versions of common-sense interpretations in this thread show. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8011
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:So I ask, why does a person have to scan down a rookies mission, fly into it, steal from his can, and pop him? He doesn't.
Quote:And we're back to the common sense discussion. GǪsince that's what lies at the centre of the undefined-rookies rule.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8011
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 00:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:But I wasn't asking about those I was asking about the above. GǪyou mean the scenario that you never really referred to since it wasn't part of the discussion at the time, and which was also thoroughly irrelevant to the statement you were asking about.
So what's your point? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8015
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 11:06:00 -
[57] - Quote
THE L0CK wrote:It was part of my discussion with others while you continued on about the hauler thing, remember how I said we moved on? So you went off-topic, you mean. Well, too bad. I stayed on topic and you didn't want to discuss it. Everything you mentioned was related to things in other threads, not this one. In this one, we're discussing a clarification of the rookie systems rule (see OP, see thread title, see GM responses) and the problems with their current policy.
Quote:Circling around yet again GǪbecause you never answered the questions. Well, technically, that's not circling back GÇö it's you stalling.
Mara Rinn wrote:Here are a few ideas on what classifies as a rookie, using information we can determine by just looking at the character and the ship that they fly, without having to know account details or play history. Define a rookie as any character you encounter who satisfies 3 of the following conditions: The problem with that list is that it's easily gameable to provide protection to non-rookies.
Mrr Woodcock wrote:Ruby, You want to corral the new players in a specific area,
This implies to me that the second they get bored and venture out of that system there fair game so to speak. I just disagree with that basically, probably not completely though. GǪexcept, of course, that all of that is already the case, and the problem is that as they try to expand that rule, the rule becomes so vague as to be utterly useless both as a control mechanism and as an enforcement tool. Of the two options: newbies get slightly worse protection outside of the starter systems, and everyone has to work around a rule that no-one has any clue how it works and which opens up huge exploits, the former is far better for everyone involved (yes, even the rookies, since they now have a clear rule to learn and know where their protection ends so they can act accordingly). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 13:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
Mrr Woodcock wrote:The GM's Request. How would we word a policy to define goals? Nothing about defining what a rookie is, no request for it, as a matter of fact the way I read the GM's post they all ready have a pretty good Idea. No, they didn't ask for a definition of rookie GÇö we're asking them because their current policy doesn't include such a definition by design, and that makes it a rather poor policy. What they are asking us for is a rookie protection policy, and without any kind of definition of rookie to go by the best way to go about the creation of such a policy is to make one that doesn't need to define rookies.
Quote:They have there defination in house. Sounds like this one is a done deal! That's the entire problem. They have one in-house, and it depends on variables that are not available to outsiders. This makes it a rather useless and near-impossible policy to follow for those outsiders. This once again points to a policy that works without defining rookies as being a better option.
Any kind of ambiguity, opaqueness, or lack of clarity in the definition of the group being protected will inevitably mean that people genuinely belonging to that group will get shafted, and people who don't belong to the group will get unduly protected. Some of the examples brought up in this thread illustrates this quite clearly. If the group is such that it cannot be clearly defined, then the back-door to solve the problem is to (unambiguously, transparently, and clearly) define a proxy group which will unavoidably contain all those you want to protect. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8021
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:10:00 -
[59] - Quote
Cutter Isaacson wrote:To your first point regarding rookie missions, I honestly see no reason for an older player to go back to do them, and thus no reason to not ban them from those systems. Well, aside from the reasons RubyPorto already mentioned (doing other factions' rookie missions, skipping them at first and then relenting and going back for them, rookie systems being school systems and thus a local source of skill books etc), there's also the other side of the fence: there's no actual harm in letting those older players in there. The protection they could get from this one dead-end system (which most of them are, iirc) is no different than what they'd get if they just stayed docked. Once you've run the tutorial missions in there, the system itself has nothing left to offer, so all there is in it is the one school station and that's it.
You could conceivably mine a little, but the belts in there are rather tiny and only contain veldspar, and/or could just be outright removed if that's a problem (it wouldn't make any difference to the rookies if the belts are there or whether they get sucked dry 15 minutes after downtime by Hulks who want 15 minutes of protected mining). Sure, you could park your hideously expensive officer-fit pirate BS in there but to what end? You can't do anything with it without taking it out of the protected system where it would get ganked. For those players, the systems just become huge-ass stations with particularly nasty docking games (in a regular station, you can just redock when you pop out and notice the gank squad outsideGǪ popping outside a system means arriving 15km from the gate and having to make your way back).
You can't hide from the game inside a rookie system as an older player, because the game is no longer there for you. So extending the security of the system to non-rookies has pretty much zero effect. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8119
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:48:00 -
[60] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:one problem with that is one of the starter tutorial agents sends you out of system (basicly teaching you how to navigate from a-b in eve) That sounds like an excellent opportunity to teach them about the rules of the game, including things like not carrying everything they own in one shipGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8119
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:13:00 -
[61] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:think back to your first time playing eve being a day or 2 old and the things you used to do back then that now you look back on and go "wtf was i thinking?" generaly newbies have NO clue on a lot of things including how agression etc works, concord intervention etc. basicly complete newbies are just that, newbies with no idea. too harsh from the get go and newbies aren't going to stick round and learn this game and long term lack of new subscribers WILL hurt eve as a whole. GǪand that's why they need to be taught, not be tricked into playing a game that doesn't work the way the game actually works. It's also the reason why the rules need to be clear: because otherwise they'll be impossible for the newbies to understand (even more so than for the older players).
That is something drastically different from making such wide and imprecise policies that they actually reduce the protection of newbies and increase the protection of older players, who'll know enough to abuse the hell out of those wide margins.
Does EVE's NPE leave something to be desired? Yes. That is not reason to have the GMs operate on fundamentally flawed and counter-productive policies that break more than they solve; it's a reason to fix the NPE.
Quote:PS if you REALLY want to gank newbies that badly GǪwhy are people going on about with idiocy? Is reading really that hard?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
|
|