BOARD: 'Hidden' rule clarifications.

  • Recently I encountered a 'hidden' clarification in the Combat Report rules. I want to raise a complaint that the posted rules do not have clarifications updated as mods and GO's define them. Over the few months I've seen similar cases where rulings are made via some undefined clarification that isn't listed within the rules themselves. I believe this is a major contributing factor to players feeling like the quality of GO and MOD rulings is below par or bias. I've included examples below to help explain:

    Combat Reports:

    Quote
    1. All members involved in the combat must be named on the title in the following order [Attacker(s) vs Defender(s)], regardless if it is a regular attack or a ninja.
    2. If one or more members are part of an alliance at the time of the combat, the alliance names (or tags) need to be included in the title as well.
    3. The total damage of the combat must be included in the title.
    4. It is mandatory to use a CR converter before posting it.

    I've been told that there is a specific format that this information MUST be typed in, and no additional text what so ever is permitted or the thread will be locked and closed. This format should be specified in the rules so that players can ensure their posts meet this format. While the use of a CR converter is mandatory, I think the 'approved' CR converters should be listed or the existing list should be linked so that players know what tools are actually required. Further, if there is a clarification as to any portion of the CR output that cannot be edited, clarification should be made. If the ruling is that these clarifications 'do not need to be made' then I think its inappropriate to instantly lock and ignore threads that fail to meet them. A warning should be givin or a request for an update to the thread, not a lock & removal for not 'following the rules' which are not actually written.


    Quote
    1. A reasonable contribution is required from all participants in a CR to be considered for a Top 10 ACS hit.

    I think this should also be explicitly clarified. I understand the obvious cases, like 1 probe being added, however what if its 10K LF in a 1Bn ToT? If a consensus can be made using numbers like a % of total fleet, or some flat point value that counts as meaningful. Perhaps not stating it as a hard requirement, but just giving an example of what is or isn't meaningful, so that players have some context.


    Quote
    1. If your CR is a New Top 10 CR, please use the label marking it as such, making it easier for the moderation team to identify it.


    I've seen different posts on this. I've seen mods REFUSE to touch any post that isn't labeled before them ahead of time, although the "rule" simply says please do x to help. If its a requirement, I think it should be rewritten or clarified as such. As this is written now, it sounds like a suggestion / request. Different mods handle it in different ways which makes some players feel like they are 'picked on'.


    I also think the conduct of staff is regularly aggressive and adversarial to players. I frequently see mods and GO's state that its not their job to do things for players or that its not their problem if players don't understand the rules. Personally, I feel the exact opposite. I understand that some players can be more difficult to work with than others and often lines are crossed by players that require a hard-nosed approach by staff, however I feel that staff frequently treat players poorly for no legitimate reason out of frustration, lack of patience, lack of care, or poor customer service. At the end of the day, staff are volunteering to support and help the community, we should not be made to feel like we are a problem that the staff "aren't obligated" to deal with. I think virtually every staff member i've ever seen is guilty of this at one point or another. Having been a member myself, I have empathy for the situations that are often challenging. However, I think alot of improvement needs to be made here as has been needed for a long time.


    Lastly, I think timeliness of response from GO's and MOD's is a topic thats consistently brought up by players. I personally understand the nature of volunteer staff and how players expectations for Ticket/Board SLA times might be misaligned, but perhaps thats something that can be clarified. Can we help players understand what to expect from ticket response times, where and how they can be escalated when a situation might be time sensitive and/or identify systems where other staff might be able to step in to assist. As an example.


    I have a CR thread thats closed pending a clarification, the mod asked for a PM, then the mod has responded one time over 4 days. Obviously mods have lives too, and a CR thread is far from urgent business, but could I have looped in another person who could assist with basic items while the original responding mod was offline? If the situation were more urgent, could I escalate it somehow? As a player I do not know the answers to these questions and I "complain" that the information to answer them is missing or too hard to find. Can we improve awareness for the community on how to get issues addressed in a timely manner, when time is a factor?

    I'm happy to brainstorm ideas on solutions to these problems, but felt just bringing them to the surface was a good start for now. Thanks for taking the time to read and thank you for your work supporting this community.

    XOs7XMZ.png

    Edited 2 times, last by Malicious: Fixing Typos ().

  • Hey Malicious, I appreciate the feedback, but I was wondering if you could split this into two separate threads - one for board-related complaints/concerns and one for game-related complaints/concerns?

    firma-2.jpg


    ~Thank you to my sig artist, fulmine0_1~

  • I would also like to raise the issue of MODs and GOs requesting API keys several days after a ticket or message is sent. In a uni where we are getting probes and raided 100s of times a day. These API keys get buried or deleted. If a Mod/GO is going to request an API key it needs to be requested in a timely manner, not 3 days after the issue is raised.

    bBvXPlH.jpg
    ~Thanks for the siggy Silverwind!~

    Edited once, last by Shadyj09 ().

  • I would also like to raise the issue of MODs and GOs requesting API keys several days after an a ticket or message is sent. In a uni where we are getting probes and raided 100s of times a day. These API keys get buried or deleted. If a Mod/GO is going to request an API key it needs to be requested in a timely manner, not 3 days after the issue is raised.

    EDIT To Clarify: Perhaps Making the API key a requirement in a CR is a simple thing to solve the issue. Then it's always there. Its not hard for a player to do and It can make the mod's life alot easier since the info to verify is immeadiatly available when they need it. Players then feel they are treated fairly because there is no "Why do I have to provide a key, but X-player doesn't"

    XOs7XMZ.png

    Edited once, last by Malicious ().

  • Hey Malicious, I appreciate the feedback, but I was wondering if you could split this into two separate threads - one for board-related complaints/concerns and one for game-related complaints/concerns?

    I feel like this isn't really necessary, but Its easy enough, I'll create a new thread for the game related items. I think I split them reasonably enough. EDIT: let me know if you think any further adjustments need to be made. Thanks Queenie!

    XOs7XMZ.png

    Edited 2 times, last by Malicious ().

  • Making the API key a requirement in a CR is a simple thing. Its not hard for a player to do and It can make the mod's life alot easier since the info to verify is immeadiatly available when they need it. Players then feel they are treated fairly because there is no "Why do I have to provide a key, but X-player doesn't"

    I totally understand that an API is necessary. I'm simply suggesting that the request for API needs to be timely.

    bBvXPlH.jpg
    ~Thanks for the siggy Silverwind!~

  • Queen Leo can you comment on the problem of Mods asking for API keys as late as 7 days after a hit has been posted. Should this be a new board rule that keys are posted with a hit? Should Mods be limited in how long they can wait to request API keys? Are we now being required to keep a log of all API keys? In an active uni it is absolutely unreasonable to request a 7 day old API key.

    bBvXPlH.jpg
    ~Thanks for the siggy Silverwind!~

  • Queen Leo can you comment on the problem of Mods asking for API keys as late as 7 days after a hit has been posted. Should this be a new board rule that keys are posted with a hit? Should Mods be limited in how long they can wait to request API keys? Are we now being required to keep a log of all API keys? In an active uni it is absolutely unreasonable to request a 7 day old API key.

    Not really, because I didn't know it was occurring. This is a BA issue though, the board really isn't my bailiwick. hawk ?

    firma-2.jpg


    ~Thank you to my sig artist, fulmine0_1~

  • Hello,


    As I explained via PM, the rules for titles, is in my opinion clear:


    1. All members involved in the combat must be named on the title in the following order [Attacker(s) vs Defender(s)], regardless if it is a regular attack or a ninja.
    2. If one or more members are part of an alliance at the time of the combat, the alliance names (or tags) need to be included in the title as well.
    3. The total damage of the combat must be included in the title.
    4. It is mandatory to use a CR converter before posting it.

    It states all the points a title should have and the converters do it like that, that information is included on them once you convert your CR, we could've just state that converters are mandatory and you cannot change it, but he also make additional clarifications of the title composition, if it states the nick of the attackers vs defenders, you are not supposed to change the nicks because you were using a different nick at the time, if you wish as to add that it nicks to be the nick ingame at the time of the attack, if you think that is relevant to understand the point of the rule, fine by me, we can add it. In the case of your thread, when it was closed I told you to PM me to discuss the matter, naturally the idea was to reopen the thread once the situation was clarified and the API was requested due to conflicting information from different sources and that was the way to confirm everything, edit the thread and reopen it.


    Since we're talking about the API, I will approach Shadyj09 question about time limits, as you know the rules state:


    1. A mod may ask you for the API key of the combat or any follow-ups to verify the legitimacy of the hit.

    There can't be any time limiting for asking for additional information, regardless if it is simple information or API, if valid questions arise regarding an attack posted, I'll not put a time limit of a few days stopping the Board Staff to investigate and take action, the Board Staff does not have accesses ingame, therefore, if we detect something or some case is reported, with need to check with the game side before taking action, all of this can take time, especially because as you all stated, we are volunteers and we can't be here all the times, I'll take upholding the rules correctly than making time limits that tie our hands. And I don't think it is needed to have the API posted in all threads, as situations like this where we actually need it, represent about 5% of the cases, maximum.


    1. A reasonable contribution is required from all participants in a CR to be considered for a Top 10 ACS hit.




    it would be impossible to specify a quantity of ships or something like that for this, because in my experience, some players would just add one more, if we say you can't send just one probe, you could send two and argue that the rules specify 1 probe, therefore 2 probes would make it valid, I've been here long enough to know with absolute certainty that this would happen, so we will just use common sense evaluating this cases, I do think it is pretty obvious when there is an actual contribution to an attack or not, besides, the contribution and it's value in the attack can be directly influenced by the size of the combat, to many variables to set a fixed number on a rule.


    1. If your CR is a New Top 10 CR, please use the label marking it as such, making it easier for the moderation team to identify it.




    Yes, it is a suggestion to help us, not mandatory, if someone is enforcing it like that, please send me an example via PM and I'll handle it.


    Regarding the time for answer and moving up the matters, reality is, we're very short staffed to deal with every case in a timely manner, do I like it? Absolutely not, but we work with what you have, in your case it took a few days simply because I had other more pressing situations to handle and didn't have time to check it faster, we need to prioritize sometimes, it's not fair to you, I know that, but again, we work with what we have. If it is something urgent you can always to try speak with the person above the one you are dealing with at the time, you know the hierarchy of the team, just follow the ladder, if it is not urgent, just way and we'll handle it as soon as possible.

  • It sounds like you just don't want to work harder to make these things easier or clearer.


    The title rules still don't state any limit to what can be included, it simply states minimum requirement.


    If you aren't going to put a limit on API requests, then make it a rule that it be included in the post or make it so they don't dissappear in game. I play on my phone. I can't just pull up a word doc and save my API key. I'm not the only one complaining about this. People don't want to keep a log of API keys.


    As for the limit of contribution to an attack, what is common sense? My common sense is different than your common sense which is different from the next guys. A ship # obviously is not the answer but a % of fleet I think is a completely reasonable answer for this. 10% of fleet comp for example. So what if someone adds 1 ship over 10%. Have a loosely worded rule such as this is a problem and for you to say it is has an impossible solution is just lazy.


    As you have emphasized over and over and time after time, Mal and I are ex-staff. We understand how this stuff works. We aren't bringing this issues up to be a thorn in your side. We are bringing them up because they are a problem for both staff and players alike. I would greatly appreciate it if you would be more open minded going forward. Your condescending tones in PMs and on the boards don't help bridge the gap between players and staff.


    Here we have provided several examples of issues that need fixing and you have brushed off just about every one of them.

    bBvXPlH.jpg
    ~Thanks for the siggy Silverwind!~

  • I'm failing to see where I was condescending as I even agreed to the possibility of adding even more clarification to the title structure. Regarding to the API, you were a Moderator and you know exactly how rare it is necessary to ask for it, I seriously doubt it is a big problem for the community the time it takes for us to ask for an API, since this is the first time someone complains about it and I was not condescending on the PM, this was my answer to you:


    "You were a moderator, so you should know how things work, if someone breaks the rules gets a notice or warning, and that thread is not valid as the title does not follow the rules, once the author answer my message for additional clarification of information I got ingame, then and only then the thread can be fixed and reopened."


    For the rest of the PM, you should know we don't issue warnings on request, maybe that is that part you thought was condescending. If you have any complains about me, you also know who to complain to: Queen Leo or Prongs.


    And I don't brush off anything, I answered and justified every single point raised by you, just because you don't agree with my point of view, doesn't mean I'm not answering your questions. For the common sense is the only solution I see for these cases, this is also how it is handled in other communities and how it is handled ingame in some communities for situations like ACS Split or Spam with ships on the overview. This has also not been a problem, no case has ever been brought to me due to this to be honest. If enough members want a change here or there in the rules, that can be discussed here and then internally, because the rules are not made just by me, there is a whole team here as you well know.

  • If you guys and gals want to post the API with the CR that's fine but not mandatory. If anything probably better to have it available for top tens if needs to be checked. If you prefer not to show the API in the post you can PM me and I can create a section for myself in a staff area to keep them on hand if anything needs to be looked into.