Omega wrote:
I've already corrected this, in this very thread. The first vote was about whether or not to try it (it being no tribute screen) for a week. The second vote could have been final, but wasn't because people voted to continue testing. The third vote was final.
Ok thanks for clarification. I haven't really been on these forums for very long so I'm not up to date on the majority of things that go on.
P-51 wrote:Omega wrote:Explanation on why I pretty much ignored the first request. You guys requested something that's already there.
One of two things were possible here. Either you're a moron who doesn't know how to read or you were trying to be an asshole like I said. When we made comments like "disperse our resources among our friends and allies" and "If you got rid of it because of glitching, try fixing the glitch maybe rather then getting rid of total tribute screen." I don't see how you could have possibly gotten confused about what we were requesting.
This does not relate to my quote above which was refering to this thread. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2555
I was responding (well, your quote is PART of my response, anyway) to your mini-rant of:
P-51 wrote:You being a sarcastic asshole like this is exactly why you are hated outside of your oligarchy. Why don't you just accept the fact that you are an awful admin and let the game go back to where it once was? At least give us some answers to why you are saying "no" instead of bullshit remarks like that.
In the whole response, I say at the end:
Omega wrote:
Perhaps I've come off as a bit flippant, but the reason for that is threefold:
1) My reasons are obvious (or should be) to anyone who's read this forum
2) It seems likely the only reason you+nicoly+jushe+HK are doing this is because you've all been recently banned for violating the ToU, and 3 are still banned.
3) I know for a fact that you guys are arranging these posting campaigns via xfire, so it seems pretty "fake".
#2 and #3 there also go to accounting for my reason to basically ignore the first request. Let's face it, you guys made a request that wasn't exactly sincere, without bothering to understand the basic history of what led to what you're seeking to undo, without putting in any effort to even ensure you were accurately or effectively communicating your request, and without putting any real thought into why you think the request should seriously be considered.
I think we made ourselves very clear, I have already provided you quotes from this thread viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2555 and there was no reason to mistake what we were asking for.
So, I locked it, with a reply that said:
Omega wrote:Blame the community if you don't like the outcome of the vote on tributes. Oh, and request granted, because the Tribute Screen is still there.
It's short and to the point, although all the points it hits on are things that you apparently missed. The second sentence is a sarcastic quip, but a well deserved one--you weren't even careful enough to actually request what you wanted in your request for it. If pointing out your inability to actually request what you thought you were requesting makes me an asshole, then so be it.
Is English your second language by any chance?
To fairly answer exactly the question you've asked, I would have to say that it is not necessary to take away the ability to tribute, or custom chat. I've also never said that it was. I'd also like to point out that I was not the person who made the decision to remove tributes, as the community decided that.
I can't speak for the community, as if I could there would have been no need for a poll (actually, a series of polls). I would however think, that nearly everyone in the community would agree removing tributes, or custom chat, was not necessary. They still voted for both changes though, because they felt that whatever the benefits were, outweighed the downsides. The principal benefits being stopping unit glitching in all games, and killing off covert trainer use in team games, respectively.
As for the assertions of wrongness, and that glitching units and trainer use were not much of a problem, the community clearly disagrees with you on both counts. The community could have just as easily disagreed with me on either, or both counts, but in that case I wouldn't be trying to assert that the community made a wrong decision, I'd just accept it and move on.
So are we just going to eliminate the possibility that the community made a wrong decision? There is clearly no reason for doing something this extreme to solve a problem that has little effect on the actual gameplay. Perhaps you answered this later in your essay but I still would like to know what is so hard about the way we reported cheaters at the VUG forums. It would make so much more sense then taking away tributes and custom chat.
P-51 wrote:Omega wrote:Perhaps I've come off as a bit flippant, but the reason for that is threefold:
1) My reasons are obvious (or should be) to anyone who's read this forum
2) It seems likely the only reason you+nicoly+jushe+HK are doing this is because you've all been recently banned for violating the ToU, and 3 are still banned.
No we actually care about our game and the direction its community is headed in. We have all been playing EE for at least 5 years and we like to be involved in the community. This is an issue I have been wanting to talk about but have never done it because I never had a name on these forums. It seems to me that because we have been banned you choose to take us less seriously than the people in your inner circle.
While what you're saying may be true, it certainly does not appear to be true. You (and here I'm using 'you' in the sense of referring to the 'we' you're talking about
I'm not speaking for all of us, all of the time. All four of us have the ability to speak as I am right now and they can voice their opinions as I am doing. )
claim to care about the game, and yet 3 out of 4 of your group is currently banned, and not for the first time either, with the reaction to the ban coming off as 'we don't care about ee that much, we'll just go play other games'.
No we just know that we can still play games through xfire. Banning us from the lobby doesn't stop us from playing EE.
You claim to care about the direction the community is headed, but from your lack of understanding of basic things, such as that there were 3 votes involved in the removal of the tribute screen (and somehow completely missing the two that involved lobby popups?), it seems clear that you're not paying much attention to where things are going or why they're going there. Registering on these forums takes 1 minute, maximum, and posting usually doesn't take that long either, so the fact you (JUST you in this case) haven't created an account until now also does not look very good, and the fact that the rest of the group has had accounts before and hasn't participated looks even worse for the accuracy of this claim.
If you want to think this it is still irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that we are long time players, that want our tributes back, and we have valid reasons for making this request.
As for the claim I'm not//was not taking you (again as a group) seriously due to the bans, this is partly the reason, yes. I judge people on the internet by their actions, just like I do in real life.
This is not unreasonable but you still do not know us so you shouldn't dismiss us as idiots for something that happened on one day. I agree with you I did a couple stupid things that day but that doesn't reflect everything I have done on EE.
The multiple bans for some members of this specific group, generally immature behavior, and so on, really don't lend me to taking any of you seriously. I am however taking you, P-51, somewhat seriously now, since I've decided there's a chance you're actually trying to be serious. As far as Jushe, Nicoly, and HK, at this point it would take a miracle for me to even consider taking them seriously any time in the near future, and this is based solely upon their own actions.
I assure this is a serious request and there are valid reasons for bringing this request up. I am unsure why they haven't said anything because they were already registered here but it took me this long to mention it because I never registered here.
P-51 wrote:Omega wrote:3) I know for a fact that you guys are arranging these posting campaigns via xfire, so it seems pretty "fake".
First of all how do you know this? I don't recall any of us ever mentioning xfire.
Second of all this should make no difference in the validity of this request. We all happen to be xfire friends and share similar views about our game so we are on xfire talking about what goes on in the game. There is no reason to think there is anything "fake" about this.
How I know is irrelevant to what we're discussing. Furthermore, I hope I've already made it clear you won't ever find out how I know from me.
I don't see how this is any more irrelevant than anything we have previously discussed. We all feel personally invaded by the fact that you know of our xfire conversations and that you possess screenshots of our conversations and we would like to know how they came into your possession.
By valid here, you seem to be meaning "having weight, force, or cogency". I'll go with weight as it fits the intended usage of valid well, and I'd argue that the motivations behind a request, along with the request its self, do have bearing as to the weight of the request (i.e. how seriously the request is considered).
Imagine you're a bigshot Venture Capitalist and two essentially identical startups are requesting to be funded, but you can only pick one. The only meaningful difference between them is that the founders of one startup have only the motivation of getting rich, whereas the founders of the other simply believe in making a great product. Which one would you pick? Of course you're going to carefully consider each, and weigh it against the other, but the one with the most weight wins, and it's the guys who believe in making a great product. Clearly motivations have some bearing on the weight, and therefore the validity in the sense you're using it (you can of course, use the same set of circumstances to show the same thing for force and cogency, which is why I say 'therefore the validity in the sense you're using it').
Now take the same set of circumstances, except this time the only difference is it is clear that one startup hardly put any effort in, whereas the other put in a modest amount or a good amount. Again, it's obvious, just as obvious as the case where one didn't think about what they were going to say, or how to communicate it, and the other did. Clearly, if you don't think or put effort in, a proposal carries less weight, it's less forceful, and less cogent.
I've already gone into my reasons to dismiss your first request elsewhere in this post, and the short version of them is that you (collectively--excluding White Fang) had poor motivations (insincere request), put essentially zero effort in to the proposal, and put essentially zero thought in to the proposal. Any of those three, and especially all three combined, do make your request less weighty, less forceful, and less cogent, and thus, in the sense you're using it, less valid.
I understand what you are saying, part of this is because I didn't expect the request to be locked. I assumed someone would respond and I would support my request if I needed to in response to other people. I do understand how you saw the request as weightless, however it is incorrect to assume that we are insincere about this because we wouldn't waste our time making three request threads if we didn't really care. You may think it looks like our motivations for making these were being banned but I am here to tell you those were not my motivations and I think this should be something that is up for debate because it has an impact on our game and after having this feature for the last five years it is ridiculous to take it away especially since cheating is less common then it ever has been in the past five years.
I don't see how the reply that doesn't hammer HK on his numerous shortcomings here makes me an asshole. I suppose it's because it's still pointing out the fact that you, and everyone else in that thread, couldn't even manage to take the effort to correctly specify what they were talking about, which isn't exactly courteous either, but it's still completely true, just like what I said is completely true.
I think we specified it very clearly, there should have been no way you could have misinterpreted what we were saying. Especially since you are the administrator and are aware of everything going on in the game.
I don't see how a reply designed to avoid writing a multi-page essay on how inept someone is makes me unfit to be an administrator. So what, you don't like the reply. Big deal. Get over it and grow up. It points out a mistake on your part. Fine. That's not a big deal either. Everyone makes mistakes. I don't care that you made a mistake and didn't communicate effectively, one way or the other, but, I'm not going to pretend like you did communicate effectively, and not mention it at all.
Communication is not an issue here. Whether it was intentionally or not, you have misinterpreted our request and made this clear by saying we were asking for something that we already had.
Essentially, the problem we're running into here is that the request was a failure on so many levels it's almost impossible to list them all in a logical manner using words, especially explaining why they're failures. You failed to consider the reasons for the change, the history that led up to it such as all the discussion, debate, consideration, and votes, as well as failed to communicate effectively, present a strong reason for why we'd pay much attention to your request due to the community disagreeing with you by a large majority (i.e. more than a supermajority) very recently, and so on and so forth. Just because you didn't even THINK to consider, didn't consider or completely ignored these things, and are now apparently having trouble comprehending them, does not make me in any way unfit to be an administrator. Sorry, that's just not the way it works.
You sir appear to be the failure, not I. http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/5426/pr00f.jpg
We left plenty of information to you to respond to and you decided to ignore it and lock the topic. This is something a good admin would not do.
P-51 wrote:Omega wrote:As for almost no one glitching anymore, as you claim, this is a claim without evidence. I can't provide evidence that many players glitch, either. I will say that based on the low amounts of reports of glitchers, that one of the three following things is probably true:
Indeed there is little evidence on the subject but since the WON servers were shut down I have never encountered any glitchers, hexers, etc. on the game. Very few of the people that did that kind of stuff are still around on EE, h4x0rz move on. Even if someone found someone glitching there was nothing wrong with the old method we used on the VUG forums. If people are too stupid to know how to report cheaters I'm sure there are people that will be willing to volunteer to tell them how.
I certainly won't disagree with the majority of what you say here, because most of it is agreeing with what I was saying, stating your own experiences, or talking about VUGs way of doing things. However, I do not agree with "Very few of the people that did that kind of stuff are still around on EE, h4x0rz move on."
25 people being banned in one and a half years is clear evidence that glitching has become less common. Three years ago we generally 25 banned every month or two.
That's the hall of shame for this lobby. That means the people who, on this system, have cheated, cheated noticeably enough to get noticed, and were reported with sufficient evidence to ban them. The bar to ban someone has been MUCH higher than the bar on VUG here, as for a large amount of time the lobby did not have a working, easily accessible locate, making proving that someone actually cheated virtually impossible.
Hardly anyone had the knowledge, desire, or expertise actually needed to prove that someone in your game really cheated during this time, even though people certainly did cheat, and even though the information on what to do was out there. About half of those on that list are, as far as anyone can tell, new offenders, meaning they never cheated on the old system.
Then shouldn't this tell you that people don't care about people that cheat in their games enough to justify the removal of the ability to tribute or custom chat?
It should also be noted that there are a ton of players on this game, that I know did cheat at some point in the past on the old servers, and some were reported/banned, others never were due to various reasons. Either way, most of them probably don't cheat anymore, but it still doesn't agree with the assertion that very few of the people that did "that kind of stuff" are still around.
Again, however, there isn't any hard evidence here, so it's pretty much pointless to speculate exactly how many ex-cheaters//cheaters are still playing ee, and their relative abundance compared to legit players, because at the end of the speculation you still don't actually know anything.
You're right I don't have real evidence but like I said, I never run into glitchers anymore and I know few people who have. The point of what I am saying is there is not enough of a problem to make the removal of tributes and custom chat a sensable action.
durrrrr.jpg
Directed at you? Yeah, I quoted you.
Demonstrably false? See my post, it demonstrates that the argument is clearly false, and so much so that it's obviously false to anyone paying any attention at all.
The argument being, in essence, 'an important part of the game was removed because of few random noobs', which completely ignores:
1) The entire active EE community isn't few, especially when we're using few as a relative term RELATIVE TO THE ENTIRE ACTIVE EE COMMUNITY. Unless few is almost equal to 100% which it's clearly not, then it's wrong.
2) What amounts to a complete sampling of an entire group can't be described as random. That's clearly wrong.
3) He doesn't have any data on who voted for what, so this claim can't even be made in the argument as it's, to him and everyone who's reading the argument and not an Administrator, unverifiable. If anyone is willing to take my word for it, though, it's false too--but even if I'm lying, the argument is still obviously fallacious due to 1 and 2, and even if 1 and 2 were magically fine 3 doesn't exactly work because there's no data from which to draw a conclusion.
You are correct in this case. You have the numbers and I don't. I said "a few random n33bs" because the majority of people I have spoken to (many more than just HK, Jushe, and Nicoly) do not agree with taking away our ability to tribute. I was speaking from experience which is obviously subjective since I am not in close contact with the majority of the EE community. This was indeed, a weak argument, but I was also expecting something to respond to so I can more efficiently support my position than you locking our previous request.
We have not exhausted all other options? Who is we? AFAIK I'm the only person in the community who's even tried to do anything about fixing the resource glitch, and I actually have exhausted *all* other options with regards to the patch. Why don't you go spend a few hours of your time doing extremely tedious work trying a probably hopeless workaround to fix the resource glitch, to have it blow up in your face again and again, then imagine multiplying that time by twenty or thirty and let me know how you'd feel when someone makes a comment as dumb as 'we have not exhausted all other options', or what Nicoly said in the 2nd post of the 1st thread... "try fixing the glitch maybe rather then getting rid of total tribute screen". The fact that people even assume that hasn't been tried is really just insulting.
I have not assumed you have done nothing but I was primarily referring to reporting cheaters via screenshot and math rather than doing something as big as the removal or some of the game's major features. If people were finding that people glitched in 90% of their games and 50 people got banned each week then perhaps this would justify taking away the ability to tribute. This has not been done though and this is what I was referring to by saying "we have not exhausted all other options".
And you're not even forced to live by the choice. You can unpatch. It's extremely easy.
But then I would not be able to play with other people which would be very counterproductive.
"And if you still continue to ignore us and leave at the tribute screen please give some reason supporting this instead of just saying that its what you wanted."
It's clearly not what you, personally wanted. It's what the community wanted. I don't know what reason I can give you that will satisfy you. You're not satisfied with it stops people from glitching units. You're not satisfied with people voted for it. You're certainly not going to be satisfied with other, fringe, benefits such as promoting more proactive teamplay in both offensive and defensive occurrences, et cetera. The benefits, all of them, and the drawbacks, all of them, have been discussed, publicly, openly, to death. And then some. And then some more. And then some more. And now, we're discussing some of them YET AGAIN. If you want discussions of these things, go read old posts discussing them, there are enough to keep you busy for a long time. And again, since all of these reasons have already been stated, it's not like me stating them again for your convenience does any good, as it doesn't seem you want to accept any of them anyway (in a sense, it's practically a forum version of the 'Why don't you yes but' game, which makes me LOL), but that doesn't really matter. The community decided. Deal with it. In the future, they might decide differently, and I'll gladly go along with it. Maybe they decide, hey lets go back to vanilla. I'm fine with that, too.
I understand what the community voted for as a whole. You do not need to say it 10 times per post. Saying this in every paragraph will not help things much. Can you at least answer one specific question, why is it so hard for people to report cheaters like we did back in the day at VUG? Are people really that stupid where we need to eliminate tributes to prevent glitching?
It is clear that the community voted for this but that still doesn't justify the fact that this is not a proportional action to the problem we had. I know very few people that think glitching was a problem on EE. Again read what I said above " If people were finding that people glitched in 90% of their games and 50 people got banned each week then perhaps this would justify taking away the ability to tribute. This has not been done though and this is what I was referring to by saying "we have not exhausted all other options"."
1) My reading skills are perfectly fine, and it's evident to anyone with a brain.
Unfortunately it wasn't because you misinterpreted something that we made pretty clear. Its really not important anymore but there was no reason for comments like "Oh, and request granted, because the Tribute Screen is still there".
