What did Nick do to get banned from the game?

[Missy]

Let me lay this out for all of you.


First of all Phalynx, I've been playing this game for a long time. I don't disagree that Nick was a good player in the sense he had a lot of characters that could make things interesting and intense. You've already got this misconception about older players, but what you don't realize is that Nick was one of those older players too so you're not really making the case by saying what you are about older players. (I'd like to see just what the game would be like if we took out all of the older players actually. I think it would be quite interesting to see.) Older players however much you think they do, don't hold themselves above newer players. All anybody wants here is to have fun playing the game. That, Phalynx is why the PD exists. There are rules that the players must follow and the PD can not allow people to continually ruin the fun of the game for others.


So, here's an example of the things PD sees from people. I can not give you details on Nicks case and nor do I agree with your proposition that the cases ought to be made public. The reason why I don't? Because of what you just did; deleting your account when you don't even know truthfully what you're talking about. You've allowed yourself to believe what you read and if cases were public, a player could still make you believe that they'd never done anything wrong when they had. Probably ten times worse if we let cases public anyway. They do that now, but it would be worse if there were a hundred people playing detective here on the forum. The PD doesn't need the extra drama of fighting off paranoid players who think the PD is "out to get them personally."Add to that, it's not even policy to make it known a person has been banned. Nick chose to let people know he was banned. There's a person I know of that was banned that noone here knows was banned because for as far as I know he doesn't even visit the forum.



Person A and Reports on Person A

Instance 1

Person B was asked by Person A to help them drag a person off their boat over Yahoo! Instant Messanger. Person A denies this accusation and says person B assuemd that's what they meant. Chat log documented where person A clearly asked person B to help.

Log:

Person B says: What's up?
Person A says: Where have you been?! You need to check ****Charname****
Person A says: Hurry up! I need to get this idiot off the boat!
Person B says: lol I hate that guy. Hold on.
Person B says: I have to log in first.
etc etc etc of conversation. (While I'm not going to type it out here, we usually do document the log as much as we're given, highlighting the important part.)

Since person A denies this ever happening, we have to resort to looking IC for the truth. Hm, person A's char asked person B's char to drag IC. We can't really do anything here but give a warning that using ooc devices to gain an advantage IC is inappropriate.



2nd instance


Person C writes an e-mail to the Players Department saying that Persson A asked where person C's chars were. Person C told person A where their chars were including a specific character that was in a bind and needed help or was going to die. Person A told person C that they did not have any reason to go where person C's chars were. Person C provides documentation of a log where person A says these things. Person A later shows up with a crowbar busting out person C's char. Before person C realizes that this type of behaviour is wrong, they form yet another relationship IC with person A through OOC means. Including one where person A asks person C to have a char join person A's clan. Person A is quoted as saying "You know you should join my clan. You know you want to!" Person A could obviously deny these claims. We're not inside the players heads so we don't really know if a character truely has a reason to be somewhere or doesn't. We can look for evidences. So, we contact person A and we ask what reason person A's char has to know about person C's being locked up inside and fighting for his life. Person A says, "I needed to go and get limestone. When I got there there was a note on the ground that said "Help me, I'm locked inside!" So I started to break the lock." Well, what can the PD do here? Look inside the guys building and see how much limestone he has? Sure. We can do that. But how much is enough? We don't decide need for peoples characters so.......Person A gets by on this one too. But now he has two instances documented in a case.


Instance 3.


Person D contacts PD claiming that noone spoke when his character was dragged into a building. Person D is being bludgeoned as we speak. We contact person A to find out his char and the people who helped drag person D's char just have a secret code to know who they're going to drag and when they should do it. It involves person A's char pointing and laughing at peson D. We check events to discover person A did point and laugh at person D's char. Okay. We have to take their word for it even though we know of the previous two situations. But we also take note of the other players aboard this ship. We'll call them person -A and person +A. We contact person -A and person +A and they verify person A's story.


Instance 4

Person E contacts PD explaining "Is it wrong to help someone drag if they contact you over PM?" We reply, "Yes." and we also give an explanation as to why it's wrong.

Person E responds, "I'm really sorry but I didn't know that was the case. I helped _ _ _ do that hte other day. I'm sooooo sorry!" Turns out _ _ _ is person A after some investigation. Person A denies these accusations again.



Instance 5


Person G is chatting to a PD member over messanger. Person G says "There's a group of people who I know are cheating. Person A, -A and +A all have a bunch of characters together in one area, then another cluster in another area. I heard from so and so that A asked for -A's help. +A and A have been cheating since A joined the game. -A accidently mentioned that he played so and so and this is when I started putting the pieces together. I know -A already played blahblah and when he told ____ he played so and so, I didn't think so and so ought to be rallying to go and save blahblah and poopoo who is A's character on the famous pirate ship.

The PD does a long investigation in regards to these 3 A people to discover that there are three clusters of their chars rather than two and in each cluster, all three interact on a regular basis. We also discover that what G was talking about was a CRB and did in fact happen. We contact -A and he spills the beans. A denies that this is true again and he makes up some story about how -A is just mad because -A had a cheating group and A threatened to tell on him.



So my question to all of you, is, how long should the PD put up with this from person A? Are peoples characters dying because of it? If so, is it fair of us to allow it to continue even if we've never actually seen entire proofs?

Do note that we take into consideration what reason everyone involved with A would have for saying what they're saying. They aren't always innocent either and what they do is also taken note of in a case of their own.


You as players have a responsibility for your actions and your accounts. You are responsible for what you do and say outside of the game. Know that people can twist your words, abuse what you tell them, and also abuse your own chars IC'ly and possibly get away with it. The point here is that if you want to talk OOCly with little regard to the things you say OOC, then that's your own fault. The PD warns you in several ways that things can end badly if you do do that. If you don't want to take our advice we can't stop you as we don't have control over what goes on outside of the game. What we do have control over is how much we're going to let a person make the game unfun for others. While you may say that all of the above together doesn't constitute banning, trust me, that there was far more than just instances maybe almost like that above, concerning Nick's case. Also note that the actual investigating the PD did was far more extensive. And in the end, it wasn't even the PD who banned Nick. THe PD became half afraid to touch Nick's case because he liked to tell everone we had something personal against him. Enjoying the game and talking about it with your friends is one thing. Blatantly asking for people to help you and then trying to hide it is another. There's a difference between someone who is spoken to 1 time and a person who has been spoken to on several occassions. There's a difference between a person who has been spoken to 1 time about a particular thing and a person who has been spoken to twice about a particular thing. There is a difference between a person who when prompted by the PD starts saying "But you cheated before. You just don't like me," and a person who says, "I didn't cheat. I swear." There's a difference between a person who says "The rules don't say blah blah blah"(x6 when contacted,) and a person who says, "How can I make things better?" There's a difference between someone who clearly changes what they're doing wrong and a person who makes absolutely no attempt to do that.




I'd like to know how the PD can be out to get people, when we work with the players to get things straightened out? How about we start a 3 strike your out rule? Would that ease all of your minds? Because it would sure make the PD's lives a hell of a lot easier, let me tell ya.

[Solfius]

Nick aside, conspiracies about staff and abuses of power, fact or fantasy, arise because there is no transparency.

How can the players know staff powers aren't being abused? We take it on faith for the most part, but as Cantr grows this isn't enough.

I think logs and other records should be released to ensure transparency and allow players to know what the staff are up to. I believe that accountability and failsafes are needed.

This may also help Jim stick to the straight and narrow, because when you're involved in the game as well as helping run it, the temptation to intervene and cheat is very real. I know I've bent the rules in the past, and would be very cynical towards anyone who claims they've never pushed their luck a little.

Full details of PD cases need not be released, but summaries would probably suffice. That could include the player investigated, date the investigation was started and concluded, the staffers investigating, the person who referred it if applicable, the reason (without details of any exploits or IC details), and the action taken.

A record of database access and maybe actions on the database could also be released.

These are just starting points.

Also, why is this in non-cantr related? I think it brings up some important points about OOC Cantr and ought to be moved to Gen. Disc.

[Pie]

I for one like the three strikes your out thing. But if he is doing differen't things(I'm talking about if he's a n00b and he dosen't know the rules)Like the first offence was using an online translator, but he stopped after being warned, and the next offence was saying that he had some relative somewhere, and he stoped that, and then something els not related to any of the other two things, but he stops that.

With n00bs, it should be 5 chances, but only if they stop doing what you asked them to stop.

With a not n00b(LIke me...) Its three strikes, and you get a temporary ban. anything after that and your OUT!!

[Phalynx]

Ok let me post a scenario... the details are vague partly because my memory is poor, partly because I dont want to totally ruin the game for people
The Cast:
Character A (mine a boring worker, enterprising but prone to shooting off his mouth)
Character B1 (Deputy Sherrif, upstanding citizen)
Character B2 (knife wielding psychobitch, claims inconceivable tales of woe and shagging the Sheriff C)

B1 and B2 in the same place, played by the same player, lets call him/her player X.
I'm new to the game player X talks to me a lot about the motivation and interests of her X's characters on MSN messenger. I question X, I think two players in the same location isn't that CRB? Oh no, I am told the PD knows about it as long as they don't speak to each other its fine. X keeps the PD up to date all time and has friends there. Our conversations get quite involved to the extent that she is pumping me for OOC information from whispers and the like and, thinking its all fun its only a game, I tell her. Eventually I twig that B2 is very very bad for the town.. I know this for a long time before I say anything because I think it should be discovered in game. Charracter A gets in an argument with C, after threats and being attacked he runs off, eventually he develops a heart attack on the road - because his player me, is pretty pissed off that I have been stitched up by X, although I enjoyed playing out the RP of the situation... the whole town thinks A just went mad!

Well time passes and I notice X becomes a member of the PD, but X is still messenging me from time to time telling me of X's exploits... how B2 uses knowledge gained from B1 to persuade C to join B2 in a big crime and skip town.. How character B1 now gets promoted and is incharge of tracking down C and B2 but makes sure its not easy, and how when they are caught they don't get seriously punished etc. etc. etc.

So basically a PD member is bragging to me about her CRBs.

I know from other forum threads not to cross PD members. I use Gaim not MSN messenger so I can't keep logs and I know logs can be manipulated anyway. So I assume that basically all the older players do the same, something which is reinforced to me by my, perhaps 'paranoid' interpretation of things.

I persuade myself its just a game, maybe people are right to overcome the crippling skill sets and item rot by a little creative play. So I wonder how it is that people like Sho and Nick got banned... I think about them because I know them from the forum, both a bit irritating but both at times helpful and certainly no more irritating than West, Surly, RKlenseth etc. etc.

So know you know why I asked, why I find the 'lack of transparency' a joke and I why I don't want to play anymore. And this is not a flame war.. who is flaming who?

[Pie]

THAT PERSON SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!

And you need to tell someone who it was and if he/she continues it. NO MERCY SHALL CHEATERS GET!!!

[Phalynx]

THAT PERSON SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!

And what does that acheive! The impression I get is anyone playing this game for more than a year or so has cheated! Besided you want more players surely!

And by the way I don't consider inappropiate sexual role play or dropping 6 or 7 notes cheating.. inappropriate perhaps... annoying perhaps... but not even close to what I am talking about

[Pie]

This is Kinda like "Is it OK that I love this person who is mean when he is drunk(Wich is alot) but when he isn't hes really nice"

NO!!! DON'T LOVE HIM!!! KICK HIM OUT UNTILL HE OR SHE STOPS DRINKING!!!!

Sure, I cheated once, but that was a loooong time ago.

Everyone cheats sometimes. But it's those who cheat multipal times after being warned and they are cinical cheaters who cheat to KILL!!!

there IS a difference.

[Missy]

This is Kinda like "Is it OK that I love this person who is mean when he is drunk(Wich is alot) but when he isn't hes really nice"

NO!!! DON'T LOVE HIM!!! KICK HIM OUT UNTILL HE OR SHE STOPS DRINKING!!!!

Sure, I cheated once, but that was a loooong time ago.

Everyone cheats sometimes. But it's those who cheat multipal times after being warned and they are cinical cheaters who cheat to KILL!!!

there IS a difference.

This is exactly why I can't see cases ever being made public.

Sure, I cheated once, but that was a loooong time ago.

And since you did it a long time ago, you don't consider how long ago it was this person Phalynx is mentioning had cheated? Or if they stopped doing that?

[Bran-Muffin]

This game is nothing but cheating.

Every major government you know of was founded on cheating, some of it still works because of cheating some of it doesnt.


Simply put, anyone who has played the game for a year or more says they havnt cheated is a liar.

[Schme]

That's not true. I couldn't cheat if I wanted to.

Didn't you used to be staff, Bran-Muffin?

I don't have any connections. Other people do.

I can very honestly say I have never cheated. Broken the rules, sure, when I didn't know what was going on (I believe my first character mentioned MC Hammer.) but I never cheated. Speak for yourself, man.

I mean, I know you've known other people to cheat on occasion, but not me.

[Bran-Muffin]

Yes, I was on the Players Department.


I was kicked out because I argued with Oasis and AND I told someone something about a case that was being worked on. I basically did what Phlaynx wants the pd to do now, they dont like it when you do that.

And I still hold that anyone who has played for more then a year is a liar if they say they havnt cheated some how.

[Duckers]

WAAAA!?!?!?!? NO SUNNI!!! DON'T QUIT!!! DON'T!!!! I'll BE SO SAD IF YOU QUIT!!! CAUS YOUR THE ONLY ONE WHO LIKES ME IN THE CHAT!!!! JUST CREATE MORE CARACTERS!!! DON'T QUIT!!! AND DON'T BE AFRAID TO TRAVEL IF YOU'R IN A BAD PLACE WHEN YOUR CARACTERS SPAWN!!! THATS HOW MOST OF MY CARICTERS GOT TO THERE PLACE OF PERFECTION!!! PLEAS DON'T QUIT!!! PLEEEEAAAAS!!!

Well, if that wasn't a convincing argument, I don't know what is.

[SekoETC]

Does it make me a bad person if I want to believe in the goodness of people? I've never cheated, as far as I know, so your impression of every long term player having cheated is flawed. And I bet I'm not the only one. There are temptations and there are slips, especially when an unusual situation arises. (For example the road "ghosts", they're not a natural phenomenon so you might forget to think through your characters and say that it would be fun to hit them with several of your characters. I said that once and I was very ashamed when pointed out that would be a CRB.)

True cheaters are a very small group. A cheater is one who breaks the rules intentionally, does not feel guilty about it and would or will repeat his/her actions.

That your person X says the PD knows of her having two characters in the same location and approving it does not equal PD being aware of every action those characters do. I agree that it's wrong, and takes the fun out of the game. Plus she's not the only one doing that. Unfortunately there seem to be several people who have no bloody idea of drawing the limit between themselves and their characters, and that makes me very angry. For some reason a few of these people have been in the PD as well, so that gives it a bad reputation. I have no personal evidence, only hearsay, so I won't start mentioning any names. And like Missy said, what if the person has changed their ways? Shouldn't we forgive them then?

But there's a difference between newbie cheating out of ignorance, and an oldbie player cheating because they know how. For this the rules should be harder on the oldbie players, not easier. No matter how important your characters are, if you do it on purpose then you deserve a good slap on the fingers. Currently it's only happening in biased whispers, people spreading their poison about others that have wronged them, and you don't know who to trust anymore.

I think if you can't trust others then you must be having something on your own consciousness as well.

[Sho]

So I wonder how it is that people like Sho and Nick got banned... I think about them because I know them from the forum, both a bit irritating but both at times helpful and certainly no more irritating than West, Surly, RKlenseth etc. etc.

I can't speak for Nick. But there was nothing fishy about my banning.

[Peanut]

And I think Nick has put this chapter behind a while back. So why can't we?

This discussion will only make people feel angry.