Free Allegiance Forums

Hit yourself with it. I say your proposed situation never happens in a real game. It makes no sense for someone to plan a secret mutiny without first asking the current comm for comm before the game starts.

`2! Secret mutiny for the win!

mostly, there are noob coms who are not going to give it up, and if i was open about planning the mutiny, it might not work, thus I get the teamspeak stack, or a group of core vets to help me mutiny

perhaps what people are complaining about is my definition of noob com

this really hasn't been an issue, but if noat comes off the fence to mutiny someone, then too $#@!ing bad.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Nov 3 2008, 06:57 PM) I say your proposed situation never happens in a real game.

If you read the thread, you will know that it has ben stated that it does, and people have said they do it.
QUOTE It makes no sense for someone to plan a secret mutiny without first asking the current comm for comm before the game starts.[/quote]
which is why we want to have them banned

Psychosis wrote:QUOTE (Psychosis @ Nov 3 2008, 09:55 PM) `2! Secret mutiny for the win!

mostly, there are noob coms who are not going to give it up, and if i was open about planning the mutiny, it might not work, thus I get the teamspeak stack, or a group of core vets to help me mutiny

perhaps what people are complaining about is my definition of noob com

this really hasn't been an issue, but if noat comes off the fence to mutiny someone, then too $#@!ing bad.

All we are saying is ask for comm before doint it.

noob gets comm
you: "Make me commander!"
noob: "Negative!"
you: ok, you comm

then you start the mutiny planning, and you won't get banned under the proposal, you don't have to announce the mutiny, just say you would rather have someone else comm / have someone else volenteer to take comm / generally float the idea that people aren't happy with that person comming.

what we want to ban people for is:

noob gets comm
noob: "anyone else want comm?"
<silence>
noob: "well, i guess i can command if noone else want's it"
<silence>
*you start planning mutiny at this point*

Drizzo wrote:QUOTE (Drizzo @ Oct 28 2008, 03:19 PM) Well, to be fair that's not what Crono is talking about. He's talking about guys like Privateer, Yiggz, and so on, who get mutinied and booted 5 minutes into the game because they took up command when nobody else wanted to, even though explicitly saying they will give command to someone more experienced. That's just rather distasteful. IIRC Tontow, KingArthur(Not the uber one), and so on stopped playing because of this. I mean it's clear they weren't the most popular commanders, but they were learning, and that was okay with me. If their commanding is so painful, then doesn't someone take command from them before the game starts? People just enjoy mutinying and booting someone in hopes of making them stop playing.

Oh and there already is a rule for this. Pook's rule for dummies Number 1. Everyone gets to play. Anyone who does the mutiny/boot combination is already violating that, and iirc, the punishment for such is most severe.

In the terms of suckvoob mcgee hostaging, off with their head. If there's no @alleg present of course.

I am MrChaos and approve of a ban for this type of behavior

madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Nov 3 2008, 05:05 PM) what we want to ban people for is:

noob gets comm
noob: "anyone else want comm?"
<silence>
noob: "well, i guess i can command if noone else want's it"
<silence>
*you start planning mutiny at this point*

So your plan is to make an admin search the logs to make sure that someone asked the noob for comm before the mutiny occured? Frankly I think that is idiotic and a huge waste of time. Any n/voob could complain about being mutinied and an admin would be obligated to waste his time searching logs.

Commanders have a great deal of lattitude when it comes to booting. If that were to change, even fewer qualified commanders would step up to the plate. Lets not impose restrictions to mutiny for the same reasons - qualified comms should be allowed to mutiny, or mutiny and boot if the situation so calls for it.

Also, I still think the above is a situation that almost never happens in a real game.

Now if an @alleg is present and witnessing (or if an admin sees in the logs) someone acting like a total asshat, ban them for being an asshat. But creating overly-technical rules relating to booting and mutinying is just going to create all kinds of problems without providing any solutions to people who want to act like asses in game. The asses will just find the technicalities/loop holes and use them to create drama.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Nov 5 2008, 01:38 PM) Now if an @alleg is present and witnessing (or if an admin sees in the logs) someone acting like a total asshat, ban them for being an asshat. But creating overly-technical rules relating to booting and mutinying is just going to create all kinds of problems without providing any solutions to people who want to act like asses in game. The asses will just find the technicalities/loop holes and use them to create drama.

There was a day when this happened and there was an admin on(I can't remember the name, but can search my chat logs if you so demand) and when asked to do something about this problem, the admin said they had no authority under the current ROC.

What does BV and the gang think of this?

post the logs