someone starts a witch hunt, it turns back around and another fine example of a bushtarion helper comes to his rescue 
the irony of it all.....
the irony of it all.....
So What
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
Re: So What
The fault lies with the original post/poster. He shouldn't have done what he did. but pursuing it in public is probably not the best way to go. Locking the thread was the right thing to do.
The fault lies with the original post/poster. He shouldn't have done what he did. but pursuing it in public is probably not the best way to go. Locking the thread was the right thing to do.
f0xx
Landscape Designer
Re: So What
Since when there is a rule not to discuss multies? Or lockings?
Since when there is a rule not to discuss multies? Or lockings?
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
Re: So What
EDIT: Nvm, i'm not going to further this crap.
EDIT: Nvm, i'm not going to further this crap.
f0xx
Landscape Designer
Re: So What
Alci, I actually agree with what Azzer did and I agree that "such people" do not damage the game. I myself have suggested account sitting to be legalised under certain circumstances.
We could have had a nice discussion in that thread, but oh well, lock the **** out of it I guess? :roll:
Alci, I actually agree with what Azzer did and I agree that "such people" do not damage the game. I myself have suggested account sitting to be legalised under certain circumstances.
We could have had a nice discussion in that thread, but oh well, lock the **** out of it I guess? :roll:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
Re: So What
I welcome the discussion to continue here if it can be done civilly, though there are actually rules going in to place for Age 5 for the forums (they're not technically in force yet or publicised yet, I think Bobbin is pre-empting them... *pokes Bobbin viciously*) that will forbid "individual cases" being talked about publically (because often times it's all subjective and opinionated, and usually leads to lies accusations and conspiracy), but does allow for the discussion of rules & punishment "in general" if not talking about any specific/individual cases.
I couldn't just "legalise" it because it would give more excuse for genuine cheats to claim safety under the new rules, generally the rules have to cover a lot more crimes than you actually punish for, so that you have grounds to catch the "bad" people out on, because the "bad" people will use any loophole, excuse, story, or rule they can to protect themselves. But I do personally agree with you - I think there's a fair few situations where really it's not harmful and in fact it's almost "natural" of a social game particularly when real life friends/couples are involved, as long as no boundaries are over-stepped and it's never over-used/abused. In the same way the odd 30 minute rule breaks are forgivable for most cases.
I mean I've personally witnessed a lot of technical "cheating" at Bush meets - people showing eachother their accounts, people using the only laptop in the room to log on to their accounts totally ignoring the 30 minute rule (if anything because I'm there grinning at them while they do it threatening to lock everyone while they try to get me to drink alcohol), and it's never been malicious or harmful to the game even though it's technically been breaking the rules.
f0xx said:
I welcome the discussion to continue here if it can be done civilly, though there are actually rules going in to place for Age 5 for the forums (they're not technically in force yet or publicised yet, I think Bobbin is pre-empting them... *pokes Bobbin viciously*) that will forbid "individual cases" being talked about publically (because often times it's all subjective and opinionated, and usually leads to lies accusations and conspiracy), but does allow for the discussion of rules & punishment "in general" if not talking about any specific/individual cases.
I couldn't just "legalise" it because it would give more excuse for genuine cheats to claim safety under the new rules, generally the rules have to cover a lot more crimes than you actually punish for, so that you have grounds to catch the "bad" people out on, because the "bad" people will use any loophole, excuse, story, or rule they can to protect themselves. But I do personally agree with you - I think there's a fair few situations where really it's not harmful and in fact it's almost "natural" of a social game particularly when real life friends/couples are involved, as long as no boundaries are over-stepped and it's never over-used/abused. In the same way the odd 30 minute rule breaks are forgivable for most cases.
I mean I've personally witnessed a lot of technical "cheating" at Bush meets - people showing eachother their accounts, people using the only laptop in the room to log on to their accounts totally ignoring the 30 minute rule (if anything because I'm there grinning at them while they do it threatening to lock everyone while they try to get me to drink alcohol), and it's never been malicious or harmful to the game even though it's technically been breaking the rules.
Re: So What
Can somebody explain to me whats going on? I obviously don't understand, since everybody is thinking this is "okay"
From what I heard a couple live together, and babysat each others accounts in the past. They admitted this to Azzer...and they didn't get locked.
Now, why are we saying baby-sitting is OK?
Edit: Reading Azzer's post in another thread...
It's not being a Nazi by locking the person in question, it's called following the rules CONSISTENTLY. It really doesn't send the right message, especially since you allowed this to become such a public matter. You basically just condoned cheating (argue all you want... you did. Period.). I don't agree with your decision (obviously) but it's not my choice and I reckon it's too late to change your mind anyways.
Also, sounds a bit lame that you made someone want to quit with a warning, the person in question should probably be extremely happy with your leniency.
Can somebody explain to me whats going on? I obviously don't understand, since everybody is thinking this is "okay"
From what I heard a couple live together, and babysat each others accounts in the past. They admitted this to Azzer...and they didn't get locked.
Now, why are we saying baby-sitting is OK?
Edit: Reading Azzer's post in another thread...
It's not being a Nazi by locking the person in question, it's called following the rules CONSISTENTLY. It really doesn't send the right message, especially since you allowed this to become such a public matter. You basically just condoned cheating (argue all you want... you did. Period.). I don't agree with your decision (obviously) but it's not my choice and I reckon it's too late to change your mind anyways.
Also, sounds a bit lame that you made someone want to quit with a warning, the person in question should probably be extremely happy with your leniency.
Re: So What
Its not OK,
Azzer said himself that he has shown leniency where the crime was not severe and "ruining" the game, i repeat ruining the game. As far as Azzer is concerned, babysitting is NOT ruining the game. Obviously it is cheating, and that is why Azzer issued the warning. If the offense occurs again then they would be locked. Azzer said himself that he was stricter in the past, but now takes more into consideration. Multis deserve to be locked, but i do not see babysitting as such a severe crime, as does Azzer it seems, so it does not warrant such severe punishment, Azzer decided a warning was suffice, and locking should be only necessary should they repeat the crime.
[edit] and i might explain that that Azzer did NOT condone cheating
con·done (kn-dn)
tr.v. con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
Azzer did NOT overlook or forgive or disregard, because he issued a warning. A warning does not count for nothing, once someone has been warned, should they recommit the offense then they usually suffer the full consequences, in this case, being locked. I dont think i need to explain this any further
Its not OK,
Azzer said himself that he has shown leniency where the crime was not severe and "ruining" the game, i repeat ruining the game. As far as Azzer is concerned, babysitting is NOT ruining the game. Obviously it is cheating, and that is why Azzer issued the warning. If the offense occurs again then they would be locked. Azzer said himself that he was stricter in the past, but now takes more into consideration. Multis deserve to be locked, but i do not see babysitting as such a severe crime, as does Azzer it seems, so it does not warrant such severe punishment, Azzer decided a warning was suffice, and locking should be only necessary should they repeat the crime.
[edit] and i might explain that that Azzer did NOT condone cheating
con·done (kn-dn)
tr.v. con·doned, con·don·ing, con·dones
To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
Azzer did NOT overlook or forgive or disregard, because he issued a warning. A warning does not count for nothing, once someone has been warned, should they recommit the offense then they usually suffer the full consequences, in this case, being locked. I dont think i need to explain this any further
Re: So What
I've never said someone can send away on my account and nobody ever has.
Any idea how many times i have died or had to log on in a club?
Pretty sure Azzer can check and see my id.
And i don't live with anyone who plays bush or who knows i play bush.
Like Azz said, dems has been on it while he has been in my house while i have been sitting next to him, and Azzer has been in the same room.
IoF - the proof i had of it was when she told me and Azzer directly?
I don't know why the thread got locked as i welcome this kind of discussion open.
If i could babysit other people's accounts with my activity then it would be INSANE.
I've never said someone can send away on my account and nobody ever has.
Any idea how many times i have died or had to log on in a club?
Pretty sure Azzer can check and see my id.
And i don't live with anyone who plays bush or who knows i play bush.
Like Azz said, dems has been on it while he has been in my house while i have been sitting next to him, and Azzer has been in the same room.
IoF - the proof i had of it was when she told me and Azzer directly?
I don't know why the thread got locked as i welcome this kind of discussion open.
If i could babysit other people's accounts with my activity then it would be INSANE.
Re: So What
And what did a warning do? Nothing. Nothing happend to the person in question. Absolutely ZERO consequences for CHEATING. Baby-sitting doesn't ruin the game? Then why is it illegal? It gives others an unfair advantage, THAT sounds like ruining the game to me tbh.
timtadams said:
And what did a warning do? Nothing. Nothing happend to the person in question. Absolutely ZERO consequences for CHEATING. Baby-sitting doesn't ruin the game? Then why is it illegal? It gives others an unfair advantage, THAT sounds like ruining the game to me tbh.
Bobbin
Head Gardener
Re: So What
Of course there are consequences to a warning...
The consequence is you don't get another one.
Iamsmart said:
Of course there are consequences to a warning...
The consequence is you don't get another one.
BlackWolf
Landscape Designer
Re: So What
This is one good example of what is so terribly wrong with this game. Rules are rules, they are same for everyone and if you break rules no matter how, why or who does it you should experience same concequences. The day someone who is broking rules is getting a way with it was the day this all cheating etc. increased dramatically. Nowdays I could actually call it a big problem... nad the reason lies in Azzers words:
For rule you must have punishment and there are no exeptions simple as that. That is one and only way to work and it is one and only way to show this community and players of this game that they all are playing from same line and they all must follow same rules. Let it be ingame, on forums or in IRC.
Well that is how I see it.
This is one good example of what is so terribly wrong with this game. Rules are rules, they are same for everyone and if you break rules no matter how, why or who does it you should experience same concequences. The day someone who is broking rules is getting a way with it was the day this all cheating etc. increased dramatically. Nowdays I could actually call it a big problem... nad the reason lies in Azzers words:
So you have witnessed breaking of EULA and/ rules and for the thing that others have been punished this people has not, that is very simply favouritism (how ever it is spelled) of certain people/players and as such it gives a very good show of what kind of game this is. You can break the rules as long as you are friend of Azzers at least on some cases and occassionally etc.Azzer said:
For rule you must have punishment and there are no exeptions simple as that. That is one and only way to work and it is one and only way to show this community and players of this game that they all are playing from same line and they all must follow same rules. Let it be ingame, on forums or in IRC.
Well that is how I see it.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
Re: So What
Seeing two people at a Bush Meet who I can see with my own eyes are two different individuals with their own accounts who live seperate lives, sharing the one laptop somebody has thought to bring, and ignoring the 30 minute rules to do so... I just can't, and don't, see that as "cheating" - and I don't lock for it because I don't find it detrimental to the game (in fact I'd find locking them more detrimental to the game as they'd probably feel so angry at the gross harshness and unfairness of punishment they'd quit and cause a lot of complaining about how Azzer is an evil nazi admin that made other players quit too). In these Bush meet cases they didn't even get a warning, though they usually do get me jokingly saying I'm going to lock and ban them all for cheating at the meets - which is the very worst they'd get for it.
Away from Bush meets, there are some circumstances where I do not think a lock suits the crime, but do think they need something - and official warnings get issued so the user knows they've been caught once, and if caught again they'll likely face a lock. Other circumstances warrant instant locks for the crime. And rare circumstances warrant outright banning of a player "permanently", or at least for a duration of time.
What a terrible, evil, unfair admin I am for having this lack of nazi'ism in me where I don't always lock & delete everyone for anything and everything... I have to say, I'd frankly be scared to play a game adminned by you
Seeing two people at a Bush Meet who I can see with my own eyes are two different individuals with their own accounts who live seperate lives, sharing the one laptop somebody has thought to bring, and ignoring the 30 minute rules to do so... I just can't, and don't, see that as "cheating" - and I don't lock for it because I don't find it detrimental to the game (in fact I'd find locking them more detrimental to the game as they'd probably feel so angry at the gross harshness and unfairness of punishment they'd quit and cause a lot of complaining about how Azzer is an evil nazi admin that made other players quit too). In these Bush meet cases they didn't even get a warning, though they usually do get me jokingly saying I'm going to lock and ban them all for cheating at the meets - which is the very worst they'd get for it.
Away from Bush meets, there are some circumstances where I do not think a lock suits the crime, but do think they need something - and official warnings get issued so the user knows they've been caught once, and if caught again they'll likely face a lock. Other circumstances warrant instant locks for the crime. And rare circumstances warrant outright banning of a player "permanently", or at least for a duration of time.
What a terrible, evil, unfair admin I am for having this lack of nazi'ism in me where I don't always lock & delete everyone for anything and everything... I have to say, I'd frankly be scared to play a game adminned by you
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
Re: So What
Nope. You'll get at the bare minimum a warning if caught babysitting another user's account, and if caught doing it regularly, actively, to a particularly bad degree, or you have other things on your account that indicate any form of cheating, it can lead to a lock. If you want it to become legal, post your support for f0xx's idea in suggestions, but it's incredibly unlikely to ever be legalised.Iamsmart said:
Re: So What
Just to say i agree with azzers view in this case, not particularly the individual situation (which i know nothing about) but just the fact that including a bit of humanity in running this game cant hurt...each case is individual and some things need to be taken with a pinch of salt...etc..etc...etc
x
Just to say i agree with azzers view in this case, not particularly the individual situation (which i know nothing about) but just the fact that including a bit of humanity in running this game cant hurt...each case is individual and some things need to be taken with a pinch of salt...etc..etc...etc
x