#IPLAYFAIR Kurage Crisis Online Campaign – Dishonest Tactics Truce. On behalf of the PanOceanian command group we commit to avoiding unhealthy and unproductive tactics. These were common during previous campaigns among many factions. We seek to keep the campaign healthy and will not implement any of the following: – Spy accounts – Fake Battle Reports – Spamming Battle Reports – Last moment Battle Report surges – Downvoting good quality Battle Reports PanOceania also condemns anyone among our faction who would use these kinds of tactics. Together we can make the Kurage Crisis into a pleasant experience. Disclaimer: It is understandable that one individual cannot take responsibility for entire community of players. This movement is about setting an example in promoting healthy rivalry and condemning damaging tactics which are harmful to our community. Please share and let it be known across the Human Sphere. Here's the individualised message you could share: #IPLAYFAIR Kurage Crisis Online Campaign - Novvy Cimmeria Convention. I commit to avoiding the unhealthy and unproductive tactics that were common during previous campaigns among many factions. I seek to keep the campaign healthy and will not implement any of the following: - Spy accounts - Fake Battle Reports - Spamming Battle Reports - Last moment Battle Report surges - Downvoting good quality Battle Reports I also condemn anyone among any faction who would use these kinds of tactics. Together we can make the Kurage Crisis into a pleasant experience. Disclaimer: It is understandable that one individual cannot take responsibility for entire community of players. This movement is about setting an example in promoting healthy rivalry and condemning damaging tactics which are harmful to our community. Please share and let it be known across the Human Sphere.
I agree in principle, but I think it also needs to be stated that nobody as a player should be calling people out for any of this: Spy accounts: Not everyone wants to play a single faction, and really none of us are capable of constructing battle plans that would be so fantastic that they rely on utmost secrecy, and even if we were, the system won't let us execute them. We already had a pretty big problem early on last year with people being accused of being "combined army infiltrators", luckily it resolved itself, let's not count on that happening twice. Fake battle reports: Again, some people don't have as much time to put effort into the write up and pictures, the system already limits the impact of these reports. The petulant toys thrown from the pram variety should be reported to the organisers. Spamming reports: This is poorly defined, if you can play 14 games a week, and have the time and talent to do the write-ups more power to you, if you play 14 games a week but don't have the extra hour or two to write them up but submit them anyway, the system already hurts you. If you write them all up on the weekend and fire them off at once, from what we saw last year, the system basically ignores you. Last moment battle reports: Again the system takes care of this when done individually, if enough people co-ordinate a last moment surge, I'm sure it would have some impact, but the system in place almost definitely would limit it. Downvoting good reports: Hard to prove, but I do have my suspicions... ultimately this is harder to fix without being exploitable in other ways, we'll just have to trust that the majority play fair, and when they don't it's accounted for. Ultimately, we all need to be cool with each other, and anything you *think* someone has done shady needs to be reported to the organisers, not the community.
So you "agree in principle" but don't want to actually follow through on that with any change in behaviour. Cool. You do you. But maybe you do that in your own faction forum.
No, I'm saying that you should define what you won't be doing rather than using fairly ambiguous terms that sound a lot like the complaints that people can play too many games. I gave reasons how false positives to the behaviour are very easy, and point out that the behaviour is counterproductive in the first place. Does that sound like I'll be doing it?
Yeah, naah mate. I'm really comfortable with the way this is worded. If you have a problem with that then that's exactly what it is. Your problem.
Jesus fucking Christ, who are we now? Yu Jing? Seriously? Mate you are doing an awfully bad job at promoting your own point of tolerance and friendly rivalry.
P1: "I pledge to be tolerant and follow a set of rules I defined for myself" P2: "That's cool but I really don't think it is needed for everyone to pledge" P1: "If you don't like my pledge, you don't belong here and need to leave, this is for tolerant players only" Everyone: ............... Me: "This is why I have nothing to do with this stuff"
*shrug* I disagree with the argument @cazboab is making, and expressed that in a way that I remain comfortable with. I will certainly not be going into other factions forums and commenting negatively on their efforts, despite disagreeing with some of their approach.
You might be comfortable. The players you should be reassuring of your intentions are clearly not with your wording or your responce to the text. Furthermore its undermining the entire point and makes the whole excercise seem like a means of saying "look at me". Not a means to illustrate a willingness in not engaging in the same behaviour that made previous campaigns a poor experience
*shrug does it really matter? Seems like pano is prescripted to lose this one. We keep hearing constant commentary of how we won the last two, and that now everything is being adjusted so larger size wont count as much. Some factions have odd mission advantages on their bases or particularly obnoxious to play missions that people will skip. What's more we've really nothing to show for winning two of em, hell CA made out like a bandit from losing the last one. In essence , lets just play , have fun writing narratives and not care about the results.
Yeah, sure mate. I have followed up on an initiative launched by another faction in order to draw attention to myself. And seagulling all over stuff in other factions forums isn't having any impact on the tone of this place at all.
Honestly playing pano is my first choice, but i will havr to make a secondary jsa account so my locals can actually play against jsa, as no other players are playing em
not quite the comment i was responding too. id say BoW has just introduced a normalization into the score. IE if Aleph plays 10 games and wins 6 of those, then they have a score of 6. however if PanO plays 20 games and wins 12, their score is 6 as well (its relative measure of games played to games won). This would eliminate the issue caused by shear volume of reports
Is hope so, i just worry we are constantly cited. When nomads and yu jing are very close to us in player population. But like i said its not like we get anything for winning
Nah they wont go "weregonna remove pano reports" or force us to score more. Itll just be a normalization to take numbers out of consideration. They want every faction to have a go. Even say aleph or tohaa
