FORS is very annoyed by this

[P]etya

Re: FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by [P]etya » Tue 2. Sep 2014, 21:09

So recently I thought about this whole situation again and I must say that Fors is just being attacked, mostly without reasons. Why I do believe that he does things that he shouldn't, my question is, who doesn't do similar things? It's ONS, these actions are inevitable in certain cases if not most.

While videos might be able to show something, it's easy to cover up the backstory. I imagine I can also record some players while they are doing things they shouldn't and then post it that they do it always. A set of fully recorded matches are needed to be a solid proof, otherwise it worths nothing.

So here are things which are popularly believed, but they are actually not true:
-Fors camping for Falcon -> Incorrect, he gives it away if he sees a person who wants to get it for himself/herself. Those who say that he camps for the Falcon should consider whether they camp, because I'm certain that those who say it are campers themselves on certain maps. (Seriously aren't we all?)
-Fors doesn't provide link to his teammates at building nodes -> In fact he is among those who actually do that.

Since this might launch an avalanche I say that leave Fors alone and his mute should remain. While I do believe that other ppl would deserve it more, or even ban, it's for the best.

Zon3r
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu 7. Apr 2011, 07:46
Description: Don't shoot at me!

Re: FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by Zon3r » Thu 4. Sep 2014, 23:23

Since by you petya "i'm making up shit, lying, psycho, fucking douchebag" here is a demo where fors is "not camping the falcon", its not a 1 min demo, it's nice and long, i don't care anymore if he's camping, i just posted this to see what excuse will you bring up this time. enjoy

recorded 2 clips cause i had to reconnect to stop lagging
http://www.4shared.com/archive/trtTl21x ... -fors.html
Image

[P]etya

Re: FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by [P]etya » Fri 5. Sep 2014, 14:31

You did the same on Kingdom, but not with the Falcon, but with the Mino.

User avatar
warlock*
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue 13. Jul 2010, 18:07
Description: ...too sexy for this century..
Location: Brasov_Ro

Re: FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by warlock* » Sat 6. Sep 2014, 08:20

-Fors camping for Falcon -> Incorrect, he gives it away if he sees a person who wants to get it for himself/herself.
This is true. Few times he let me to take Falcon, although he was first next to it. One time I refused to take it because i'm noob using it and he is good in Falcon and i wanted Fors to fight in it to be good for team. He left and took the Raptor....
Fors is a strong player and only envious players may complain of him.
I remember the days when Fors was able to write and except that spammy/annoying message he never insulted or accused other player. How is possible any like untrained players and hate skilled one? Maybe competition do this?
I wish someday on Ceonss to play with/against strong player and nobody complain about this. For example, Nicolas, Monk or Salko kill me every time very easy, they are strong players, but I never become mad for this...much more, I try to play harder, players like them make me to increase my level in the game. We need good players in Ceonss. Stop accuse them with no reason, they someday will live the server and I bet with u other will do the same and Ceonss will not become be a better place. Talented players make the server important/precious, not vice versa.
I'm not suffering from insanity, I'm enjoying every minute of it.

User avatar
Karma_geddon
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue 13. Aug 2013, 17:33
Description: from Italy

Re: FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by Karma_geddon » Sat 6. Sep 2014, 14:29

I wonder how much this thread is still useful.

We are at page 7. Page seven. Seven pages of people accusing or defending fors for things he might and might not have done (and meanwhile getting angry and accusing each other of other stuff).

I believe that, at this points, the admins are quite aware of the problems (real or imaginary) with fors, and they are in the best position to monitor him and his behavior, and to take decisions about him accordingly.

If someone has demos that might prove somethings, of course it's a good thing to send them to the admins, as always.
But I don't see any point with keeping arguing about fors publicly on the forum.
You can find me on fb here, if you want: https://www.facebook.com/paolo.davolio.3

User avatar
Cat1981England
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon 23. Aug 2010, 15:35

Re: FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by Cat1981England » Sat 6. Sep 2014, 15:05

Very well said Karma :clap:

Thread locked.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

User avatar
Pegasus
Posts: 1105
Joined: Wed 4. Nov 2009, 23:37
Description: ONSWordFactory
Location: Greece

FORS is very annoyed by this

Post by Pegasus » Sun 7. Sep 2014, 06:25

Cheers, Boss; maybe time off from this thread might be able to restore the peace and allow everyone's heads to cool off about the subject.

Then again, later developments might require unlocking the topic to inform people about possible new enforcement action or to merge subsequent members' reports about the same person with the already existing discussion, and allow for further examination thereof (people allowed to get more than one threads "dedicated" to them here would be a far less wise idea IMO). With that in mind, there's some clarifications I'd like to offer that I belatedly began putting together last month, but as tempers had already began simmering down by the time I was halfway through compiling 'em, I decided against posting 'em in the interest of keeping things civil. Turns out, there's some cranks you can always count on to be given another turn sooner or later, even 'round here, so I might as well get on with it.


- First of all, Rules and Anti-Cheat Enforcement (RACE) will continue to not be conducted by way of bargaining, third party vouching, public polls or any other type of crowdsourcing. Like Karma correctly suspected, this runs parallel to the "this is not a democracy" principle, and the best analogy I can come up to describe it is with a ship at sea: there are rules everyone's expected to abide by and there are penalties for not following them, but those rules are not enforced on behalf of the passengers; passengers, in fact, are free to come and go at each port as they please, but the rules remain the same. The rules on CEONSS are enforced in the server's name and that of its owner. They were decided upon, instated and started being applied back when this was a community of (half) a dozen people, ingame or here, they still do and are refined as/where necessary now that we're nearing 200 msg. board members, and they'll continue to be in place regardless of where we go from here, up to 2000 and beyond or down to 10 regulars again. It may be a minor distinction, but it makes a big difference in how we approach the RACE subject.

- As I've said in the past, CEONSS may not be a democracy - and cannot be one by the very nature of the project - but that doesn't stop us from having democratic aspirations or realizing that applying such practices wherever there's room for it can have beneficial impact on our community. Similarly, while we recognize the reasons why the Rules, Bans & Appeals (RB&A) subforum's threads cannot function as a Court of Law, that still doesn't mean we're prevented from looking up to that system and porting over as many principles n' practices from it as can be reasonably accommodated to improve CEONSS by, such as the presumption of innocence, reviewing based on facts and evidence instead of hearsay or biased/one-sided allegations, a graduated response n' punishment method based on previous behaviour, the offense's severity and other relevant context, and the ability to appeal a decision. As this very thread has aptly served to demonstrate, however, there's very good reasons why verdict based on a jury of peers and advocacy for the alleged offender or the server by fellow members acting as self-appointed defense lawyers or prosecutors would both be very, very bad ideas to include in RACE. Most members' opinions would doubtlessly be coloured by their personal affinities, preexisting social circles and cliques, their view would likely be subjective and incomplete regarding an incident or trend the alleged offender is involved with because they're not always there or able to observe from every angle, not to mention that, unlike in the real world, the ingame "reality" has far fewer facets and most of them are possible to be recorded and easily reviewed by the IAs as a matter of automated fact, thus making the need for proof-free, "witness testimony" type posts considerably reduced. When the IAs opine here or internally, they do so equipped with greater knowledge than the average member. If anything, the only contribution the crushing majority of this "advocate" type of posting makes to threads such as this is to raise tensions, create an acrimonious environment and lower the overall signal-to-noise ratio, embittering the community. Bottom line here is, there's a reason why volunteers from the community were sought out and granted the authority and responsibility to enforce the rules as our Ingame Admins, and there's a reason why each of our appointed IAs has been entrusted with their individual post. That reason is aiming to hit and maintain a higher standard of Rules and Anti-Cheat Enforcement than arbitrary, oligarchic rule or public court in squares with guillotines level of "justice".

- Speaking of our IAs, I'd just like to remind everyone that they are regulars just like yourselves we diligently vetted for suitability before every expansion (just like with every other staff member) and they are the same people that were welcomed enthusiastically and unreservedly again n' again n' again. Given that and their service so far (the most senior nearing the 2 years' point these days), it's kinda baffling, then, to now be seeing some people focus so much on this particular case's (multiple) rulings and opting to react through sarcastic tone or by making vague insinuations that the server is employing double standards for some reason, that the IAs are out to get certain individuals and turn a blind eye to others' similar misdeeds, or whatever other evil is supposed to be going on "behind the curtains". I'd've thought the celebrations during each of our enforcement staffers' accession were indicative of the community's implicit trust in them, and in every other situation that seems to still be the case, weirdly enough, but when it comes to this case, the trust all of a sudden evaporates for some and is replaced by a multitude of deflective fallacies about how another's comparable (or worse) misbehaviour apparently makes one's own okay or less needing of review. I regret to have to be the one that informs some of you who truly cling to such notions that this, in fact, is not a logical argument, that RACE is not carried out in a perpetual triage state where only one case, the presumed worst offense, can be addressed at any time, but that alleged offenders are reviewed in isolation and only with their past history in mind instead of comparatively to others, and that, ultimately, unsubstantiated accusations about the server supposedly ignoring multiple other rules violators' deeds to exhaust its strictness on one other aren't any kind of a helpful contribution to the community. In fact, more often than not they kinda come out as pretty damn disingenuous and convenient, considering the social association between those leveling them and the supposedly persecuted offender. Still, I've always believed the best way to disinfect a mistrustful atmosphere is by addressing anyone holding such convictions, taking their words at face value and asking 'em to present their evidence. Just like Ema mentioned previously, if your belief in this great CEONSS conspiracy is rooted in a string of instances where, to your mind, people clearly broke rules and were able (allowed?) to get away with it just because of who they are(n't), by all means, go ahead, take the first necessary step, use this subforum as it is intended and submit a report with any evidence you may have! It's really that simple. The purpose of the RB&A subforum has always been to offer transparency and insight into how server rules are applied and why any specific enforcement decision against a player was deemed necessary; previous cases are meant to serve as examples by which to convey to the community that we continue to try n' keep their ingame experience as fair, civil and otherwise unfettered as we humanly can, and to inspire confidence that the server isn't abandoned to all kinds of troublemakers wanting to do as they please. Laying out the facts of any incident someone might theretofore consider suspicious and getting the IAs' take on why it was treated the way it was, is IMO the only way to tackle skepticism and convince mistrustful members of our intentions - that's part of why transparency is needed and why RB&A is there.

- As previously mentioned, we try to be democratic where we can. One of the main ways this is demonstrated to members is on the numerous occasions where, as early as a new one joining the msg. board and making an introductory post, we invite 'em to offer any (constructive) feedback they might have about the hosted content, the server's rules and policies. It doesn't matter if it's member #20 or #200, if we've been around for just one year or for 10 and have probably "heard it all before", a good idea can come from anyone, at any time, and fresh perspectives are essential in revisiting issues previously considered resolved and addressing whatever flaws there may still be that we might've previously missed by becoming accustomed to. That's why constructive criticism is a fundamental element to improvement and it's one we'll continue to ask of our community as long as CEONSS has one. Still, it's important to understand that the fact the listed server management aspects we always welcome members' input on (content, rules, policies) does not include "opinions on RACE decisions" is neither an accident nor an oversight. It's entirely possible that among the various rules governing ingame play on CEONSS there may be room for misinterpretation that some players could find n' abuse, or some other kind of flaw or omission could exist that could be causing players' ingame experience to not be as good as it could, and if anyone believes they've identified such a flaw in the system, they're more than welcome to bring it to our attention. Equally importantly, staff members under the Boss aren't beyond reproach or scrutiny after their appointment either, so should people out there believe they have legitimate grievances to air about any staffer they feel has been misusing/abusing their authority or has been exhibiting unbecoming conduct, they're also encouraged to come forth and speak out either publicly or, as Ema well pointed out, in complete confidence to us if they're concerned about potential backlash. Between those two avenues of redress, there should be enough leeway for members to help us modify the RACE efforts for the better whenever they perceive something as not working quite right and thereby improve the server as a whole. Beyond those parameters, however, members engaging in cherry-picking of just those RB&A cases whose judgements they happened to not like, antagonizing enforcement staff whose appointment and credentials they never questioned before when those IAs are just applying there, much like in every other case, the same server rules those members never challenged before, backseat modding and bickering amongst themselves about what evidence should be considered proof and of how damning a nature while obviously lacking the broader perspective and knowledge the IAs have access to, and, ultimately, turning the whole process into an unabashed back-n-forth insult flinging circus spectacle, is simply an unacceptable development.

- This spillover and complete loss of control here signifies the situation has long since come to a head regarding what those people post in RB&A topics compared to what they reasonably should be expected to. If these threads are to continue having any usefulness instead of just being drama-drawing lightning rods that divide the community, IMO it's finally time to start doing something about nailing down n' formalizing a set of posting rules specifically tailored to the RB&A subforum's needs. Considering how long this thread's been going on, that thought is something that's been on my mind for quite awhile now, but, much like how it was with another subject about this time last year, I guess it required reaching a tipping point on the msg. board to prod me into action - although even with last year's issue, it's still uncertain how well the toxic impact of casually bigoted/hateful/exclusionary commentary in gaming communities might've sunk in for some people. At any rate, you can be sure the matter will now be raised to my fellow staffers internally and that, whatever framework is produced out of those deliberations, it'll primarily focus on reining in and nipping in the bud exactly this kind of behaviour so that we won't have repeat performances of this mess in the future from the same group of people. In the most backward way imaginable, then, I guess... thanks to them for that? Please understand that this doesn't mean that until those rules are out, clearly stipulating proper RB&A posting practices and any sanctions for not observing them, members should still consider themselves free to go about and pick fights in any other thread in this subforum. Undesirable posting practices have already been described above in enough detail that, I'd like to think, even a g.mod request should be sufficient deterrent for the meantime.

- As a final point, there's a reason why all the notes above dealt exclusively in the institutional and server policy side of this thread's issues, and that's because getting into the particulars of Fors' past ingame conduct and the enforcement action that ought to merit is both beyond the realm of issues I'm currently able to tackle (far too many details about it I'm probably unaware of), but, more importantly, constitutes a subject that falls completely outside my purview as a g.mod. Reviewing rules violations and handing down punitive decisions where necessary with the community's best interest in mind is entirely the IAs' jurisdiction and I have far too much respect for them and their work to be interfering with that. The only comment I can make as a player is that, regardless of whether Fors' sanction remains permanent or not after however many infractions, if there's any chance for change possible at all, it can only start with him. The first thing he might want to work on is regaining other members' lost trust through a consistently more mature and less confrontational attitude to everyone (yes, even his "haters"), and see how his relationship with the Enforcement Team (Cat and the IAs) can evolve from there. On that, I can only wish him patience and determination.


That's all I have to add here. Thanks for reading, and please try to keep these suggestions in mind when posting in this section of the msg. board in the future.
Image