Banned for Defending miners

DareDevil · Post by **DareDevil** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:41 am

This post is essentially a plea 4 clarification on apparently unclear or even contradictory rules and for ban stick holders to consider the entire situation before making Assumptions (Red flag a mistake is being made). Choosing to pick out an individual and ban them during game when they don't see the whole story isn't smart or cool so I'm taking the time to address this and prevent it from happening in the future. Sorry it takes a bit of doing but the interpretation of guidelines and laws is a bit harry if anyone knows the US legal system. Additional specific info and rambling under the heading FYI.

IMHO a decision was made w/o appropriate knowledge that commander was at fault for not letting people on fast enough. There was no wanton attempt to prevent people from playing. In fact an effort was made to give com up so such could be done. Another fact, a com was banned for trying to do what a com is charged with: do what you think is best for your team to win...and thus the conflict in guidelines vs the interpretation by a member of @alleg is thrashed about below.

Short summary: only one guy with the com defends miners. They save miners with a thread of hull over and over. This fact is backed up by players on both teams. Com gives command to other player due to him spending too much attention on defending miners to com properly. Player gives it back. Spidey sees guys not being let on while com is busy, bans com from game (while he's actively naning another miner hanging by a thread), further hurting the players on that team and it's chances of survival. Imagine if the com is HTTing a tech base or SB/bomber pilot with one missile left to kill the tech base and has been focusing on that potential wining ploy so much they feel they can't risk taking their efforts off it period!

As you can guess, Spidey booted me even after I gave command to other team member. He claims I didn't let on 6 people, but I seriously doubt that we were down 4 players for 6+ minutes. Someone even said I was up 60 elo... I felt the game was lost and posted a resign thinking I'd nan miners up and IF the resign failed, I'd still give the team a chance to do its own thing and win by going into F6, let players on and/or try give up command again. I found lots of ROC Enforcement FAQ notes that coms have lattitude on letting people on. In fact I see that under the Acceptance of players part of the Enforcement FAQ the following:

"So we grant some leeway to the commander to balance teams. This is why we are strongly suggesting you have auto-accept turned off....You will attempt to maintain balanced teams at your discretion."

"If there are a large number of players sitting in the lobby, go start another game if it becomes difficult to join the one in progress. We do need more people willing to command. Hence I am always going to lean a little towards the commander's side.

In summation, I will give some latitude and power to the commander until he wantonly misuses it. You know what is right and wrong. I see a consistent history of abuse and I will deal with it in an immediate and harsh fashion. "

So I had AA off as suggested and a ton of people we coming on-line during the evening when everyone get's home. Where is the "history" here justifying a ban? Only history I know of is the axe Spidey has to grind with me. Thus this post isn't in his "LORD OF THE FORUM" Rant forum.
-

So the question is does the com HAVE to stop what they're doing-no matter how much it might hurt the team-to let guys on, even when he feels letting them on is secondary to what's he's doing? If what he's doing is taking all of his effort for 3, 5, 10, 20 minutes or more??? If he doesn't, does that justify unexpectedly (maybe a newb gets it...) taking away the commander from his team?

I think this issue will arise again and it should be thrashed about until a clarification put in the enforcement FAQ as "I will give some latitude and power to the commander until he wantonly misuses it" doesn't seem to be clear enough. Players on both teams indicated they felt this situation didn't warrant removing the commander. The excuse by Spidey was that I was violating Pook's rules which in the FAQ is prefaced by:

"The best overall post was made several years ago by Pook. If you follow these guidelines you will never violate any of our rules or guidelines."

Might I point out the word GUIDELINES is used as in Pooks post is NOT the RULES!!!

Post Summary:
This issue needs clarifying and/or Spidey needs to own up to this as an occasional "uncommon stupidity" act we all commit from time to time--Guys in the know on BOTH teams defended my situation. Either way, Spidey's claiming what are described as guidelines posted by a retired player (largely due to back-lash of his heavy handedness) are LAW AND applied at his discretion, despite FAQ statements to the contrary--"go start another game if it becomes difficult to join". IOW, we need the LAW defined more tightly vs. just leaving guidelines out there that are apparently contradictory at least to such an experienced player as Spidey. If Spidey interpret guidelines as LAW others will too. So it should be spelled out more clearly before this issue significantly effects game play and does exactly what is expressed as a concern in the FAQ: "We do need more people willing to command". This sort of booting results not only me being less likely to com, but in others seeing the risk at getting jacked out. I mean I could have just bitched that no one was defending miners and let them die, but my effort to salvage an economy resulted in a boot.

---------

More FYI on the situation: I only had time to get in base, F3 to place a con, hear an enemy/miner warning before I saw a scout (idan again) come after miner and had to launch again, send miner to me and try to nan while avoid mines, etc. This basically occurs 3 times. I'd taken a chance cons would die waiting 4 placement (one went the wrong way) and reserch stalled while I flipped to F6 and accept guys. Have several PMs during this from OMB. Because I recognized the team badly needed miner D which was not allowing me to do a proper job commanding, I gave com to OneMB for him to deal with as he kept PMing me to buy this, save that, push this, etc. I figured he had time to think about it and type it (which was more than I did) and the team needed a strategist working for them. At that point I stopped thinking about letting people on as I'm not the com. During all this Idan actually pmed me a compliment on saving a miner. I had 1 guy helping me. I wasn't even aware I was given com back till my order of miner showed up in bold, but I absolutely had to focus on miner or it was dead. I do a #resign soon as I get some hull on the miner, then have to go back to nanning him. Meanwhile a miner goes to it's death next to their sector as I couldn't watch it and nan, and give orders and research at the same time. So that is a ban offense???

Then Spidey tells me to feel lucky it was for zero seconds!!! Guess when Spidey is around and doesn't like you, getting guys on is more important that saving a desperate miner or 2 or 3 or caping/blowing up a tech base, etc.....

--

From my point of view, I played the game the best I could and tried to give the com responsibilities to someone when it was clear it was in the best interest of the team (as I couldn't do them properly while doing what I felt must be done to win). I think there was an ax to grind, particularly when spidey said for me to be glad it was 0 seconds. I do know he didn't see what was happening in game, and booting a com from the game while in progress is a drastic measure that shouldn't be done until @alleg has all the facts. Players from both sides explained how the com was occupied. Occupying the enm com and team with miner attacks is a very well know tactic. And, in this case, was extremely effective due to lack of people willing to answer the call to defend miners (only 2-3 were needed)--one miner was soloed by a scout right next to our op as I saved ones at another base. So I made decision that I could save a miner and hopefully our econ and give a different pilot who was trying to run the show via PMs the com chair.

When I'm so inundated with PMs and miner attacks that I'm forced to give up com and tell people to stop PMing (they won't stop even if I let peeps on) so I can concentrate on helping my team, should I have to fear the ban stick for lack of free time or a difference in my priorities from someone sitting on NOAT? The message is clear, com at ur own risk to being banned for trying to do what a com is charged with: do what you think is best for your team to win...

Buyo · Post by **Buyo** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:46 am

... Eh... hm.. can you make a tl;dr version, that's just way too much

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:50 am

seriously, especially because when i read it i imagine DD talking in my head

Sycrus · Post by **Sycrus** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 am

Logs as provided by Dome

QUOTE 09/22/09 13:42:30: HQ (all): cream of crop is no more.
09/22/09 13:43:45: Wrong (all): spidey
09/22/09 13:43:46: Wrong (all): WTF
09/22/09 13:43:47: Wrong (all): U ass
09/22/09 13:43:51: Wrong (all): I have to D miners
09/22/09 13:43:55: Wrong (all): much more important
09/22/09 13:43:58: Wrong (all): that leting peeps on
09/22/09 13:44:05: +spideycw@Zone (all): just be happy it was a 0 minute ban
09/22/09 13:44:14: +spideycw@Zone (all): thats how we lose newbies
09/22/09 13:44:19: Wrong (all): SHOW me Where in the rules it says that I have to sacrifice the miners
09/22/09 13:44:21: +spideycw@Zone (all): when they cant play for 7 minutes after requesting
09/22/09 13:44:39: Wrong (all): I'm waiting spidey
09/22/09 13:44:45: Wrong (all): you boot a com
09/22/09 13:44:47: Wrong (all): playing in a game
09/22/09 13:44:53: Wrong (all): with only one other guy
09/22/09 13:44:56: Wrong (all): defending?
09/22/09 13:44:58: Idanmel@RT (all): what does it matter, he might not want them on his team?
09/22/09 13:45:01: Wrong (all): spidey?
09/22/09 13:45:03: Wrong (all): I"m waiting
09/22/09 13:45:05: Idanmel@RT (all): he has to accept people?
09/22/09 13:45:10: +spideycw@Zone (all): sorry idan but you cannot keep 6 people waiting
09/22/09 13:45:14: +spideycw@Zone (all): those people had no way to play
09/22/09 13:45:18: Idanmel@RT (all): Does he have to accept people?
09/22/09 13:45:23: +spideycw@Zone (all): yes
09/22/09 13:45:24: +spideycw@Zone (all): or else
09/22/09 13:45:27: Idanmel@RT (all): really?
09/22/09 13:45:27: +spideycw@Zone (all): no one can play
09/22/09 13:45:38: +spideycw@Zone (all): EVERYONE gets to play idan
09/22/09 13:46:00: Wrong (all): they were hanging by a thread
09/22/09 13:46:02: +spideycw@Zone (all): go make a QQ post about it or something
09/22/09 13:46:06: +spideycw@Zone (all): I've explained it
09/22/09 13:46:12: Wrong (all): WTF
09/22/09 13:46:14: Wrong (all): one man
09/22/09 13:46:17: Idanmel@RT (all): corr, what if I don't want to accept someone because my team is too stacked?
09/22/09 13:46:18: Wrong (all): you have no Idea
09/22/09 13:46:27: Wrong (all): I saved them
09/22/09 13:46:29: +spideycw@Zone (all): idan its more situational
09/22/09 13:46:32: +spideycw@Zone (all): in this case
09/22/09 13:46:33: Wrong (all): ask idan
09/22/09 13:46:37: +spideycw@Zone (all): wrong was up about 30 as
09/22/09 13:46:43: Idanmel@RT (all): situational is bull@#(!
09/22/09 13:46:44: +spideycw@Zone (all): 2 newbies tried to join with a cadet for 5 minutes
09/22/09 13:46:52: +spideycw@Zone (all): 1 of the newbies logged out
09/22/09 13:46:57: +spideycw@Zone (all): the other one never got to play
09/22/09 13:46:57: Wrong (all): Spidey
09/22/09 13:46:57: Idanmel@RT (all): either you have to let everyone in, or you don't
09/22/09 13:47:05: Wrong (all): you can't blindy boot the com
09/22/09 13:47:11: Wrong (all): when you don't know what is happeing in game
09/22/09 13:47:11: Idanmel@RT (all): there is too much gray in between
09/22/09 13:47:28: +spideycw@Zone (all): sorry you feel that way idan
09/22/09 13:47:33: +spideycw@Zone (all): but everyone gets to play
09/22/09 13:47:52: Idanmel@RT (all): spidey, if that was the case then aa should be on all the time
09/22/09 13:48:04: Idanmel@RT (all): if aa is off, it meaqns that not everyone gets to play
09/22/09 13:48:09: +spideycw@Zone (all): you are either trolling
09/22/09 13:48:11: +spideycw@Zone (all): or amazingly stupid
09/22/09 13:48:15: +spideycw@Zone (all): ill assume trolling
09/22/09 13:48:34: Idanmel@RT (all): spidey, how can I answer that?
09/22/09 13:48:54: Idanmel@RT (all): that's not an argument, it's just an insult
09/22/09 13:49:08: +spideycw@Zone (all): if you find the truth insulting
09/22/09 13:49:09: +spideycw@Zone (all): oops[/quote]

Malicious Wraith · Post by **Malicious Wraith** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:03 am

I am sure this thread is full of brilliance, but as said tl;dr

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:21 am

I read the first 3 paragraphs and I think an appropriate summation is "WTF spidey booted me for not accepting noobs onto my team when I, as com, had to be out of base defending miners for a few minutes"

Broodwich · Post by **Broodwich** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:30 am

ah thats much more clear. No DD does this all the time, imo the ban should have been longer. I guarantee if a vet tried to join he would have been accepted in seconds

MrChaos · Post by **MrChaos** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:32 am

DareDevil

Deep breaths, deep breaths.

The community as a whole has the attention span of a six month old with a wet diaper.

TA's account I concur with but try again in 300 words or less my man

OK Ive busily vented my spleen elsewhere, and wish to slink off as is my custom, therefore I'm gone but before I do; Best of luck and damn the torpedos full speed ahead.

Makida · Post by **Makida** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:45 am

It sounds from DD's post (assuming it's all accurate) that DareDevil's behaviour was somewhat justified or at least understandable, but spidey had no way of knowing that.

I am wondering whether spidey bothered to PM a warning to DD before booting him? I'm guessing not.

Spidey's explanation to Idan in the chat log basically makes sense, but of course is presented in the most arse-hatted way possible, this being spidey.

So, spidey is technically right, but also went out of his way to be as much of an arse-hat about it as possible. Business as usual.

Sonic · Post by **Sonic** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:52 am

Suck it up and move on, it was 0 minutes. NEXT.