Is CR pointless?

[Rmak]

I don't really understand the spawn mechanic yet so could it be a lot of lessor cases are simply due to the danger of spawning a lot of characters on an island. I mean I had six spawn on one island , five on another. Those five were all on one side of the island and until three moved it was hard as other character I was with kept taking me to the same towns I needed to avoid. It's not until your older you can get your own vehicle or ship so someone decides to go somewhere else and your asleep and then are forced to sleep.

Ive seen some obvious ooc abuse early in game and a lessor one recently. Hard to prove I guess as the information would have been in the players head.

[Rmak]

There needs to be a CR and it needs to be policed, I just don't think only advising people of someone interpretation of it before their account is locked or character deleted is the right way to go about it, given the current age of the game. Guilty until proven innocent mentality just causes more trouble than its worth, as does simply deleting threads staff don't agree with (I guess I'll wait for an apology by PM) - it just creates a certain culture that does help anyone.

I agree wholeheartedly with Rmak here. I also believe that there are inherent flaws in the way that the CR is interpreted. Players are accused of cheating simply for having "too many eyes and ears" in a single area. I'm not even talking about the same town, I mean the same island. Characters don't even have to use OOC information anymore in order to be accused of using OOC information. When did "innocent until proven guilty" go out the window?

I can't find anything on the wiki about "eyes and ears", maybe someone from PD can shed some light on what this rule is ?

[Money]

In some sense the CR is as useful now as was prohibition in the States.

This line really struck a cord with me. Prohibition didn't work because many people drank alcohol and true universal enforcement wasn't possible, instead those who didn't have the right connections or who were in the wrong place when the cops were out and about were caught. The CR has an issue because it is pretty fuzzy, some seem to have a much better understanding of it then others and enforcement of it can be spotty. Just as prohibition eventually gave way to regulation perhaps the CR should be relaxed. We all now OOC discussion of IG events and information occurs, why not bring it out into the open instead of brushing it under the rug?

[MattWithoos]

...

There is a big difference between prohibition and the CR.

Prohibition removed a human right to choose what they consume.

The CR stops cheaters.



The implication of comparing the two is that you feel you're entitled to break the CR (or drink Alcohol) so why bother enforcing it?... which is just insane.

[Alutka]

The implication of comparing the two is that you feel you're entitled to break the CR (or drink Alcohol) so why bother enforcing it?... which is just insane.

Wow, that is so totally pulled out of your ass. No one was implying that. I definitely wasn't.

[MonkeyPants4736]

The CR does not exist to catch cheaters, or to create fairness, or to comfort our feelings, or anything else that is for us.

The CR was created to protect The Simulation/Game.

When the CR is followed, fairness happens automatically.

The CR does not automatically mean ANYTHING about where your characters can be nor what they can do. Any such stipulations come only from various interpretations of the CR and choice to implement and enforce those additional stipulations. None of those are the actual Capitol Rule.

[MattWithoos]

Well, that's your interpretation of the CR. I'd argue it was created to stop cheaters. Actually I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise. Yes, it also exists to protect the simulation. And it also exists to create fairness.

[Rmak]

That's the problem with interpretations isn't it, different people think different things.

[SekoETC]

I think Money's point was that it shouldn't be a rule breach to discuss events with your friends, only if you let that information affect what you do in game. So if you find out a pirate crew is approaching your town, you shouldn't "suddenly" remember to lock the harbor or pick up 12 kilos of healing food. You should just go on as you were, no matter how hard it is.

[MattWithoos]

Edit: this post is in reply to Rmak: Well, you're not wrong, but it's not exactly easy to create a standard set of rules with a standard set of punishments. Even judges follow loose guidelines... They know the minimum and maximum penalty, the unique details of the case, and precedents. In this age of technology, if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right? We don't because we can't.

[Rmak]

Edit: this post is in reply to Rmak: Well, you're not wrong, but it's not exactly easy to create a standard set of rules with a standard set of punishments. Even judges follow loose guidelines... They know the minimum and maximum penalty, the unique details of the case, and precedents. In this age of technology, if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right? We don't because we can't.

I'm not after punishments , just the rules expanded . An ex pd staff member suggested sample punishments , nothing specific but at least people know some of the actually happen. Comparing this game to actual legal system is a simplistic comparison - legal systems do not have loose guidelines, but case law and are supported by statutes detailing specific areas. I've yet to see loose guidelines in any case I have been involved in.

[Alutka]

They know the minimum and maximum penalty, the unique details of the case, and precedents. In this age of technology, if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right? We don't because we can't.

Oh uhmm... I wouldn't agree with that. For example during elections in Poland we are still using paper and then there are people who need to count votes. It would be way easier if it was done on computers and counted automatically. Following your logic I should say 'If it were possible to replace paper with computers then we would, right?'. Oh wait...

And yes, as you've noticed the usual aproach is to have a range of punishment which is known to people. I agree with you that this should be implemented in Cantr as well.

[SekoETC]

It would make things much easier if people were allowed to discuss actual cases instead of just beating around the bush. Even without names, it would help if you could say "once somebody did this and they got banned over it, so don't do that".

[Rmak]

That would probably open up pd to a lot of scrutiny that they don't like.

[Chroma Key]

They know the minimum and maximum penalty, the unique details of the case, and precedents. In this age of technology, if it were possible to replace them with logic robots then we would, right? We don't because we can't.

Oh uhmm... I wouldn't agree with that. For example during elections in Poland we are still using paper and then there are people who need to count votes. It would be way easier if it was done on computers and counted automatically. Following your logic I should say 'If it were possible to replace paper with computers then we would, right?'. Oh wait...

And yes, as you've noticed the usual aproach is to have a range of punishment which is known to people. I agree with you that this should be implemented in Cantr as well.

This is comparing apples and pears. You're talking about a process which does not need any input of logic or discretion or anything other than counting the votes. Yes, no, and void. That's very black and white, whereas we are talking about situations where each of them turns on their own facts. So no, MW's example is nothing like that. This is almost akin to a (much simplified) legal process, not counting votes.