PR COOP Rules Discussion

[=VG= keed]

I would like to hear your opinion on a issue. Background is the growing conflict concerning "flag jumping".

Flag Jumping means you skip an active (cappable) flag and go to the next one in order. And wait. Personally when I lead a SQ I do it 90% of the time. I don't get called out on it and I fall back if necessary without hesitation but I've seen admins and long term players use this rule to force the jumping SQ to fall back. 

Is this worth to look into a rule or statement? I think there should be a official statement on this topic.

 

 

 

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

It's under baserape @=VG= keed

[TEDF]

Quote

Tanks do not need to have the commander/machine gun seat occupied to leave the main base, but the squad cannot be locked until all available seats are filled.

I kind of disagree with this one. I personally think that it should be up to the Tank Commander (squad lead) to decide if he wants to have an extra gunner or not. Same as for the CAS huey.

5/7 times the extra gunner turns out to be a dude who just finished downloading the mod and has no clue of what's he's supposed to do, resulting in the annoyance of rest of the crew, slowing them down or worse case causing the crew to lose the vehicle due to the dude aggroing every single bot in the area by shooting randomly.

[Double_13]

On 8/10/2011 at 2:20 AM, =VG= BLuDKLoT said:

Mechanized Infantry: Infantry squads who wish to use an APC as transport must clearly refer to this in their squad name by naming their squad Mech Inf, APC Inf or something similar. APC squads have first claim on armoured vehicles.

Rule should note that even if Mech inf is created before APC squad, the APC holds the rights over the assets. This because some maps only have 1 APC and the faster loading people making a Mech inf out of it only because it can carry 8 people and has some Armour.

Example of this issue can be seen on Kokan where a SL loads up First makes Mech Inf and the second squad is APC created 20 sec later. The map is still in the loadup phase so APC should have priority. Sadly the SL doesn't agree since he is the first squad. 

 

Pending the flag hopping. I mainly follow the rule that the flag has to be neutral in order for the next squad to attack the next flag.

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

11 hours ago, Double_13 said:

Rule should note that even if Mech inf is created before APC squad, the APC holds the rights over the assets. This because some maps only have 1 APC and the faster loading people making a Mech inf out of it only because it can carry 8 people and has some Armour.

That's exactly what

Quote

APC squads have first claim on armoured vehicles.

Means.

APC squads get the claims on APC and IFV assets, mech inf gets left overs

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

On 8/9/2011 at 5:20 PM, =VG= BLuDKLoT said:

APC, IFV and AAVP assets are primarily fire support vehicles for infantry.

I've changed the wording on this line from Assets & Vehicles, from the Armor section.  Nit picky, I know, but "fire support" refers to indirect fire such as cannons or artillery used to support infantry, and the APC, IFV and AAVP are "direct fire" vehicles which attack in support of infantry while having a direct line of sight to the opposition.

changed to:

Quote

APC, IFV and AAVP assets are primarily direct fire vehicles used for supporting infantry.

 

[=VG= m823us]

maybe include the link to where to make an appeal for Bans and "admin abuse" threads?

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

21 hours ago, =VG= m823us said:

maybe include the link to where to make an appeal for Bans and "admin abuse" threads?

Done - but it could look better - I feel like I ruined the very nice looking rules list by adding that to the top the way I did.  Any ideas to make it look better, or better wording, or maybe whether it should be move to the bottom of the list... or maybe if we should just jot down the Appeals format at the bottom instead of linking people to it AND the unban requests forum...  feel free to change it or provide input.

 

Also, about the end bit,  "False Allegations", I feel it needs to be expanded in a small way.  It comes up very rarely, but I've seen it happen a handful of times over the years, and it just did again:  A player bypasses our system, after a short period of time has passed (often following a denied ban appeal) someone will misrepresent themselves as someone else or use certain subversive means to minimize or outright mis-tell the events leading to their ban and if not enough documentation is found or research performed by Admins, a simple unban can be issued to minor and major violators who have indeed been given a "permanent ban".  It is rare, but we cannot allow any incident where a previously denied unban appeal is not referenced or know in this type of "second appeal" - though they do fly under the radar once in awhile.

"Going to Mom cuz she will say 'Yes' after you already got a 'No' from Dad"

 

All VG Clan Members who are PR Admins must check the website periodically, and preferably as often as necessary, to watch for posts in the VG Admin section of the forum as well as PR info and unban requests that may date back some time or even those that already have been addressed - things drop off the Top 5 on the front page fast, you must check the forum topics themselves from time to time.  Obviously, non-VG PR Admins need to be checking the PR forum sections often as well.

**Also note that when we hand out a permanent ban to a player on the PR server, in some cases it is not automatically a ban from all of our servers until that becomes necessary - I can't stress it enough that this system has rarely been abused and we do not and should not automatically add that person's name, IP and UID's to our site, TS3, or other game server's banlists for every offense unless needed or until we have to -  BUT such a player using our other servers is certainly on a permanent probation for all purposes.  This means that any questionable actions or immature behaviors on any of these other servers will get them more attention, leading to further bans up to and including a FULL and permanent ban from the site, TS3, and every server we have a banlist for.

***obviously this is not applicable to, for example, the racist or the mass teamkiller or the intentional griefer - but only to the lesser offenders who became banned permanently for an action or behavior.

 

Between the Regular Player and the Intentional Teamkiller is the grey area where the Nuisance Player exists - and they make it difficult for players to enjoy a mature teamwork based game without disruptions.

A player who has been banned from one of our servers permanently who begins to make a proper name for themselves as a Regular player on OTHER servers DOES NOT lower or diminish their current standing on the server where they were permanently banned from, nor does a person who slides under the radar with a second unban appeal that doesn't take into account the previously denied one.  This is because in order to remain fair and ethical to all players, VG Admins involved in Rules Enforcement must not hand out special treatment, unilateral pardons or blind forgiveness irrespective of prior decisions and lacking input from any admins involved in those decisions.  A person who receives an unban from a 'permanent ban' status is especially subject to a subsequent permanent probation, they can and should be banned again if they exhibit any continued immature behaviors, actions, or disruptions on our servers.

We are seeking a mature, friendly, and disruption free gaming environment, and while age is not a factor that is regularly enforced here, we don't need immature kids on our servers - anyone else who handles themselves in a kind and mature manner is welcome, even if they were 12 years old, for example.  Most all of us are familiar with the type of lazy, insincere, and disrespectful unban requests that come around, and also those that are merely written by someone with a language barrier or genuine misunderstanding/naivety -- the first group often shows their true rotten colors after a few questions or interactions with them in their unban posts, just like the second group demonstrates the truth (or lack thereof) in their mistake or action on the server after a little back and forth, but at all times, there will be certain people who willfully attempt to misrepresent themselves or the facts to a degree that is outright contemptuous of the rules.

 

If a person is deserving of a second look at their unban request, to be fair to all people who are banned, Admins have a responsibility to reference and include all previous posts, logs, or other Admins previously involved, and to make notice if any of these things were missing or unavailable  -- not that the rights of fairness to all the people we've had to ban seems to matter so much at first glance, but it truly is the heart of fairness and our goal to be honorable to our community and each other as well.  If someone, after a period of time, has genuinely matured and changed, and decides to attempt to appeal their ban once again with respect and a proper ownership of their words and actions, it will be open to the discussion of Admins, but including involved Admins and quoted references to all previous discussions.

 

So, I've added Misrepresentation to the False Allegations section at the bottom, open to edits or changes to the details:

 

False Allegations & Misrepresentation (Lying)

If you lie to get another player kicked or banned you will be banned instead.
If you misrepresent yourself as someone else or use any type of subversive means to present the facts or minimize to a large degree the events leading to a ban you are appealing, you will be banned from all VG servers.

[=VG= Acro1]

Wow, this actually looks just as good as in the original.  I thought the website formatting would mess it up. Good upload!

 

@=VG= SemlerPDX: Just put them on 2 lines. If you still think they interfere, put them at the bottom. That's what I did with the original files.

 

Unban Requests should provide the information as detailed by BLuDKLoT:  Appeals Format 

All Unban Requests should be posted in this forum:  Unban Requests - Project Reality

 

@=VG= m823us @=VG= Melon Muncher : Didn't you want to post the shorter version here and link the larger file as a readable shared doc?

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

I was thinking this might look better for the top portion:

 

Rules Enforcement: Standard Operating Procedure
If you violate our rules expect to be punished. The rules below are enforced by our admin team who adhere to strict guidelines.
If you feel you have been punished unfairly by one of our server admins, or wish to report a player, post here:  Complaints/Report Disruptive Players
When no PR Admins are online or in the TS3 Channels, use the !R report command in game.  If you need to make a private report, message TEDF, MelonMuncher, SemlerPDX, or BLuDKLoT

Project Reality Unban Requests go here:  PR Unban Requests 

(Start a New Topic - do not reply to other unban threads)

 

 

(and then this bit at the very bottom after the last rule)

 

Project Reality Unban Requests go here:  PR Unban Requests 
(Start a New Topic - do not reply to other unban threads)

If you would like to Appeal your Ban, please provide the following information:

1. Banned Username
2. When did this happen?
3. Reason you were banned
4. Describe the events leading up to your ban ( how did this occur and why? )
5. Personal Statement ( Why should we unban you? )
 

As a courtesy we look into all unban requests. The nature of the offense and the
information you provide in your personal statement will determine the final
outcome of your Appeal. (the admin who banned you must also agree to the terms)

We try to resolve all bans within 72 hours of the Appeal.

All unbanned individuals will be placed on a watch list for 30 days.
If any further issues occur during this time, your Ban will be reinstated
and any future appeals will be denied...permanently.

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

@=VG= SemlerPDX Feel free to edit the format as you wish.

 

@Acromartslinking rules is too difficult

[=VG= Acro1]

@=VG= SemlerPDX does the ban appeal sticky section need to be included here? Seeming as it's already in the Ban Appeal sticky.

 

@=VG= Melon Muncher i could just turn off editing so it's a read-only file ;).

[Double_13]

Isn't there a way where you have a preset form people can fill in. Something like This.

That way people have to fill in the blacks to post it, and we no longer need to spam the fill in this form ect....

I personally do not like the looks of attaching the unban template in the rules since it has nothing to do with the Rules. Sure we can link it in the rules but it should not be copy pasted in  the rules.

[=VG= m823us]

I do like the pre-populated ticket submission idea, is it possible?

[=VG= Acro1]

I've also thought about the idea of a ticket system, but the good thing about the forum is it's public character that allow admins and banning admin to respond quickly and openly. For good functioning, we would need a page with ticket titles, and comments section underneath each ticket on its own page. Unless you want to hook the form results into a script that generates a forum post? I could have missed that.

[Double_13]

Well it could be implemented that they make a ticket and the ticket gets posted on the forum, after which others can comment. The only thing I am interested in is having the people filling on all the required info on default and not seen the first reply be please fill in the form before we help you. 

[=VG= SemlerPDX]

So, which one of you knows HTML and CSS?  Any friends or friends of friends who know?  That would be needed in order to implement that.  I'd also like to see it implemented, but it would take some coding.  I could fumble through it for weeks and weeks, learning as I go, I'm fairly good with LUA and Java at this point but I know only the basics of CSS and HTML and this is at least an intermediate coding project.  Any takers?

[=VG= Acro1]

There's a paid add-on for our forum platform already : https://invisionpower.com/files/file/7606-forms/

 

Many other free and open-source forum platforms have plugins or mods that can achieve exactly this. I don't have the time to look into them atm but I assume those code snippets can be extracted and used on this site, depending on how they were written. Below are some open-source code pages. They are plug-ins for other platforms, but the code could be an inspiration.

 

A plugin for SimpleMachines: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1279 

One for MyBB: http://mybbhacks.zingaburga.com/showthread.php?tid=288

Another one for MyBB with a code snippet https://community.mybb.com/thread-124121.html

Same discussion here, for PHPBB: https://www.phpbb.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=2145735

 

Perhaps there's a possibility that this code could hooks into ours? The code blocks look similar in many cases.

[=VG= Kavelenko]

Hi Guys,
 

As you all know there are bot assets on most maps that can be flown, and from talking to other admins in TS the consensus seems to be that we are supposed to kick players who continue to use these assets.

I was wondering whether this a definite rule or something we think is a good idea. Another question is how long will this rule need to be enforced?

I find myself arguing with players a lot about whether or not they can use these bots. The current rules do not mention bot asset usage as being a kickable offence (as far as I can ascertain).

Otherwise I am happy to kick offenders as required.

cheers,

[TEDF]

Using bot assets = Cheating, which is against the rules, as those vehicles have: unlimited ammo, are a lot easier to operate, don't require special kits.

Melon and Double tried to remove the bot assets from the maps, but most of that work got undone with the latest update that reset all the map files again. All we can do atm is to wait for the Devs to fix the issue and send out the message for players not to use those assets for the time being.

If anyone uses the bot asset don't hesitate to use the !kill command, if done again, feel free to swing the boot.

[=VG= Kavelenko]

Thanks for the clarification TEDF, I'll direct the protesters to this page.

[Double_13]

I was planning on editing all the mapfiles and send them over to Melon for checking and implementation, however my sickness past few days prevented me from doing so. 

[Jersans]

On a different issue I just had a conversation in an unban request that rose a few admin issues/questions.

Just to be sure.

1.) We admins are supposed to enforce the 'join a squad' rule correct? Meaning !w, !w, !k?

2.) As admins we are/should be required to lead squads when needed as for example in the previous conversation where it was painfully obvious that the game became frustrating due to people soloing and in the wrong squad.

3.) Is there actually a valid reason to have more people in a Trans squad then the pilots? I see no reason for it as Trans typically crashes or gets shot down with a missile?

Also - I will gladly admit that sometimes I sit out a map with trans or play as a medic/lat/grenadier because I don't want to play it (as SL) and just blablabla with my friends but I will always, when things go south, leave and create a squad to assist or finish the map. 

4.) We are pretty clear on the fact that if you have a defense marker on your flag it's perfectly valid to keep your squad there and build an FOB for fire support and defenses? Because that was just an odd thing there to me but I'd like to see it clarified for future reference.

5.) As squad leader you can obviously ignore orders from the commander if you deem them too risky or foolish. To be honest I am actually not clear on what to do as an admin when an incompetent commander takes charge. Ignore it. Resign him/her? What's the protocol?

Thanks. I hope this discussion will avoid future events like yesterday's. Because frankly I think that these unclarities helped cause it.

[Jersans]

@=VG= TEDF

Just in reference to your comment on the previous unban request thread  - wasn't the situation there something that would require a defensive stance? I mean 15 blue-berries soloing and several others in the wrong squad out of 33 people?

It is a question because a fully agree that when squads are camping it is ruining the game and I don't even understand why some people do it. 

But I often take a defensive stance when I see no reasonable means to assault so I am curious if I am breaking rules? Many people can attest that as a squad leader I sometimes force them to stay to defend a position for an entire map without even attempting to push simply because I don't deem it feasible or possible and more often it's actually quite hard to even hold the position against enemy assaults. 

Typically I use a few 'golden' rules for assault and defense

1.) When assaulting it is okay to push up if your current flag is neutral and there are assets or troops to defend it. Is that okay?

2.) When defending you must have a defense marker on your flag, if that goes you have to push up. Is that correct? 

3.) As a squad you can be supportive to a flag capture i.e. by destroying enemy columns of inf and armour but you have to be within an reasonable vicinity to the flag and squad you're supporting, typically a few boxes. That's okay right? 

Thanks. 

Again I am asking to clarify a few things that I believe lead to a ban of someone who seems like a pretty good guy but moreover there were a lot of other things that went wrong.

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

10 hours ago, Jersans said:

1.) We admins are supposed to enforce the 'join a squad' rule correct? Meaning !w, !w, !k?

2.) As admins we are/should be required to lead squads when needed as for example in the previous conversation where it was painfully obvious that the game became frustrating due to people soloing and in the wrong squad.

3.) Is there actually a valid reason to have more people in a Trans squad then the pilots? I see no reason for it as Trans typically crashes or gets shot down with a missile?

Also - I will gladly admit that sometimes I sit out a map with trans or play as a medic/lat/grenadier because I don't want to play it (as SL) and just blablabla with my friends but I will always, when things go south, leave and create a squad to assist or finish the map. 

4.) We are pretty clear on the fact that if you have a defense marker on your flag it's perfectly valid to keep your squad there and build an FOB for fire support and defenses? Because that was just an odd thing there to me but I'd like to see it clarified for future reference.

5.) As squad leader you can obviously ignore orders from the commander if you deem them too risky or foolish. To be honest I am actually not clear on what to do as an admin when an incompetent commander takes charge. Ignore it. Resign him/her? What's the protocol?

1) No, we do not have a forced squad rule nor is it to be enforced by our admins.

2) No, you're admins to keep the server in order. You're not required to lead squads or play anyway you don't actually want to. (Besides abiding by the rules) Play the position you want to play.

3) Unless it's a full squad or close to it I normally have no issue with it. I believe in not causing drama when there's no need, If the pilots are happy I don't care.

4) Yes, because there is a chance for the enemy to recapture. Obviously it takes less to defend than to offend, so the more capable squads should be on the offense.

5) Depends on the situation, but it may fall under disruptive gameplay and you can resign. You don't need to obey order but should at least consider all valid orders.