I thought about implenting a charter about battles and campaigns the clans can sign;
in Battles we may can use "Rog Ironfist's Seven Golden Rules of Battle Etiquette" (If he agrees)
in Campaigns we can work one out.

This would have been nothing to do with Req or the game rules, it´s just something like the UN-Charter that would make our life here "better". It would be easier to trust ppl.

Just a thought though.
Ideas? Opinions?

edited cause of typo

Last Edited : Friday, 8 April 2005 - 20:53

I'm strongly in favor of this idea, should a good charter be drawn up. I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.

Not to try to "upstage" anyone, but I did make an attempt to discuss "ground rules" for "fast 7", which I admit that I didn't expect to be used as a "charter";
but there are some questionable issues mentioned in that "Fast 7" thread that I suspect might need attention in any "charter".

Some folks might not like players who don't make NAPs readily and send scouts sneaking around stealing resource piles or even unclaimed resource buildings, but I have played very compatibly with several players who use just such tactics.
I also feel very strongly about the idea that just because a player was first to realise that a territory has become available because a player has quit or gone inactive shouldn't be reason for him to think that he has any special claim on it.

Territories gained by defeating active players I think are different and I feel it is dishonorable for others to pilfer even unclaimed resources from territories of active players who are at war.
In any event the issues I have mentioned here and in the "Fast 7" thread are issues open for discussion (i.e. I have made proposals of how I like to play but I'm not expecting that anyone has to accept my proposals and I may not particularly like the proposals that others make either so IMO this does need discussion).

TR

Let me see if I get this right. Viva is suggesting some kind of code of honor. This is sort of like Bin-Laden suggesting a freedom of Religion act.

Considering the fact that my experince with him and his other IJA henchmen have been less that honorable, I'll pass. This is just another lie, another trick, no thanks. I play by a code of honor already, as do most of us. We dont need what he's selling. Viva, if you want to improve things around here, do what you promised and leave.

Oh and explain the details of the end of Slow 11. Were dieing to hear how you took first and Funker took 2nd.

Last Edited : Friday, 8 April 2005 - 23:33

I think it is a great idea. Ideally we can police ourselves with suggested rules.

The trouble is that a "charter" is idealistic as Big doesn't exactly say but suggests.
Already we have certain things that most of us don't do but some of us do do.
How will it feel to play in a game where you no longer do things you used to do or didn't used to do but there are players doing everthing past and present that are not supposed to be done?

TR

**cough cough**

Last Edited : Saturday, 9 April 2005 - 00:03

@Viva – I think your offer is sound. There’s much merit in having some sort of code of conduct and my rules for battles are there for everyone to use, so I thank you for the vote of confidence.

However there are some limitations:

1. My suggested rules deal with personal behaviour and Battle mechanics only. They in no way deal with battle tactics. If this ‘Charter’ is meant for these out-of-the-game issues, then by all means I agree. We all know that in-game tactics, will be impossible for drawing in some guidelines and even more impossible to enforce.

2. The rules suggested are meant for Battles. It would be nigh impossible to draw rules for Campaigns because of the multitude of factors involved. However, this does not mean we should not try. If you mean for us to try and come up with behavioural rules for posts in forums, general code of conduct and the likes, then I strongly support you but then again… You have already seen some replies to your suggestion. It would be hard to convince most people to support and even more so, to adhere to a set of behavioural rules upon a voluntary basis. We can’t enforce any of it, so I feel it would be a futile effort.

3. Since however there is much merit in Viva’s idea and good ideas should never be wasted, maybe we could each come up with ONE rule of behaviour. These rules will be sent by a private message to … *drums roll* … of course, The MOG, who will compile them into some coherent ‘Charter’ and present us with his handiwork at a certain agreed date. [Stop arguing Mog! You have been volunteered for this position so just bear it up in silence. ({silence of the lambs})] I suggest one month for people to send Mog their ideas and also ask Viva to clarify what type of Charter he had in mind.
(Ohh and don’t worry BA, it’ll all be supervised by the furriest authority )

i hoped we´re able to talk about it without behaving like little childs.

A charter would from my view implent also what BigAmigo is doing here again... being insulting in the forum. don´t you guys realize that we´re down to 439 players atm? the reason is not only MPOGD it´s also that we´re not a community anymore. it´s not possible to talk about ideas or aspect without facing annoying posts.
it may happen that ten players one day have to play alone here.



-> and i´m still here cause i still like this game and most of the community. the work i had to do was moved to a date some weeks later.

Why dont we all get alonnngg... Then we can all be friendssss... cause you gotta have friendsss.... *Continues for twenty verses*.

Well, a charter of a sort seems to be a good idea. But one thought. How are you planning to enforce it? You can enforce the forums (maybe), but what about Webcaht, and IRC? Messges can be tracked by Requiem, but hes too busy to pay attention to every message.
Also, boys and girls will be boys and girls. People will insult each other. If you made a charter that said "Anyone who insults anyone will be deleted", you will have half the community gone in about a week. Its a WAR GAME. People ore gonna get mad, and piss each other off. Theres a gangbanging post a week here. Its great that people are putting some thought into this, but you have to be realistic. I dont mean to be a pessimist, but we all cant get along. We could make a charter about the absolutley horrible things, but people will insult others. If mog is too lazy to write it, ill do it on my immense spare time. Message me!

*Vote Demosthenes!*

Demo, you expect there to be enforcement? If people don't obey the charter, the only bad thing that's going to happen to them is that people will know that they don't obey the charter. The whole purpose (from what I gather) is for honorable players to take pride in their honorability and give other players a way of assuring that they're trustworthy. Don't know if you should make an NAP with a guy? Go check to see if he signed the charter. If he has, then you know he hasn't done anything bad that would get him erased from the charter-people-signer-list-thingey.

Well, i am only a noob in the game, but not in wargames and real live matters. What i see in this game is that "honor" rules in battles are possible, but not in campaigns, there are so many factors that do a campaign unique, that what in one campaign would be an honorable or rightful style of playing in another one would be fool or just unfair.

Perhaps some offgame ettiquete would be good, but ingame rules i think would be so effective like a UN proposal....

Another problem i thought of...
WHat if you find someone you dont like, just because you maybe got attacked by them, insulted lightly, or they are better looking then you, could you not destroy thier reputation by erasing them from the charter? And also, will this just add to the problem of people being blacklisted and quitting the site?

We can come up with something for campaigns. Just keep it general. Something like

We, the signers of this charter, promise to keep all of our in-game agreements. We promise not to exploit bugs. We shall not blatantly gangbang, nor shall we play the game in any other way that goes against our personal code of honor.

Demo, erasing someone from the charter wouldn't be easy. You'd need to have, oh...I dunno...proof. Besides...I think what might be more effective would be, rather than erasing an offender from the charter, making note of their violation. Simply erasing them from the charter leaves other players without knowing whether that person is dishonorable or just too lazy to sign. If you sign up for the charter and violate it, they'll be a note of it. Then, they either start behaving themselves or they get more and more black marks. Of course, it'd be silly for somebody who intends to ignore the charter to sign up in the first place.

I was talking about that Sage, what do you mean with..."our personal code of honor"?

Your code of honor, mine, the signing members one?

But this chart wont will do unhonorable anyone not signing it, that will be like the US not signing the Tokio Protocol.

Sorry
but I don't think this will work for me for two reasons:

one being that I don't like being a part of all the bickering which I do think tends to drive players away (i.e. especially when folks become overly vehement with half-baked accussations);

and two because I don't want to make "half-baked accussations" backed with before and after screen-shots and defence messages and game news that don't give all the details, plus having to save all of that "half-baked proof" that doesn't really prove anything;

so that IMO accussations will always tend to be "half-baked" and I don't like to make them or be accused by someone making them.

TR

Koning, I just threw in that last bit about a personal code of honor so that players could state that they DID have a code of honor that they follow, regardless of whether such actions are forbidden by the charter or not. Obviously you can't get somebody kicked off the charter for disobeying their own code of honor, you can't prove what their code of honor is unless they tell you.

"You'd need to have, oh...I dunno...proof."
BULL**** all I had was 2 BOS players WORD. and that was more than enough.

"in-game agreements. We promise not to exploit bugs. We shall not blatantly gangbang, nor shall we play the game in any other way that goes against our personal code of honor"

in-game agreements are determind by communication and the majority of gangbang posts are from the lack of communication.

gangbang would have to be defined far better than just gangbang other wise I know of a few players who are guilty of such, but then my word is worth nothing because of the word of majority.

There are far to many loop holes in your idea, but then those are details that can be worked out.

Also what if someone like say ME was to sign the charter, would that make any of you not black list me? I dought it.

UN-Charter and how much teeth do they have sweet F all They are a waste of the worlds time and money. Will be the same here. Dont start making the game into a Fast Leave It The Way It Is.
And don't forget whos baby this is REQ's

The UN has as much power as we give it. In it's place, we could go back to just invading countries and making up reasons as we go along...oh, we already do that.

I support the idea of the UN, I wish the US would pay its committments to it. Give them a real army and let them work out some of the problems in countries where they could do something, like in Sudan, for instance.

As to a charter, I don't know how much good that will do, sounds nice, just like the UN charter! People will come and go, play fair or dirty and get the reputation they deserve, I suppose. With a set of player's rules, we would be arguing until the cows came home and then went back out again.

Mooo