yes, if a DM was required to interfere, then there must have been rule breaking, but if a DM /did/ interfere, they did not neccessarily /have/ to do so. Since the complaint concerns over-active dms your point is a non-sequiter at best.Salathar wrote: there _must_ have been rule breaking if a DM had to interfere.
The Stifling on Chat is killing the game
Moderators: Board moderators, Metalforge staff
-
- Forum Fanatic
- Posts: 852
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:07 am
- Location: Hemel Hempstead
It all suddenly starts to make sense, we are going in a direction of 'what should be on chat' as opposed to 'I want to use shout as I please'.mrbrklyn wrote:Salathar wrote:So what exactly is the problem?mrbrklyn wrote:
Aside which, the major problem here is the chat channel rule.
What is the subject line of this thread?
Ruben
Offtopic chatter is allowed which is a major change since at least summer, when offtopic chatter was no allowed in shout. So how do you call this 'Stifling' ? This is a huge relaxation of the rules which is happily seen in a form of 'chat.
Correct. But the problem is that Leaf doesn't have the resources to asure the prudent enforcement of the rules and the DMs can not be trusted to not become abussive and expand any rule enforcement to the maximum level that they can. It is just the nature of people in that they are volunteering, and it is an ego trip. The only two solutions is to either kill this rule, or change the programming so that the chat channel is the default communication channel. The programming is not going to be done in the near future. So the RULE HAS TO GO.cavesomething wrote:yes, if a DM was required to interfere, then there must have been rule breaking, but if a DM /did/ interfere, they did not neccessarily /have/ to do so. Since the complaint concerns over-active dms your point is a non-sequiter at best.Salathar wrote: there _must_ have been rule breaking if a DM had to interfere.
Ruben
http://www.nylxs.com
The New York Free Software Scene
The New York Free Software Scene
Quite on the contrary, DM interference = rule breaking, where 'rule breaking' can fall under the clause 'do what a dm says or else'.cavesomething wrote:yes, if a DM was required to interfere, then there must have been rule breaking, but if a DM /did/ interfere, they did not neccessarily /have/ to do so. Since the complaint concerns over-active dms your point is a non-sequiter at best.Salathar wrote: there _must_ have been rule breaking if a DM had to interfere.
What is claimed to be an over active DM here, is probably someone breaking some rules or commiting undesirable act which is against the interest of all players and then complaining that a DM did not have to interfere.
In most cases a DM is nice enough to give an advance warning to stop the undesirable behaviour at it's root. However, unfortunately there is no DM online at all times simply because of the nature of what a DM is and the amount of time people are prepared to dedicate themselves to others.
There are many servers out there without any DMs, they happen to have no players either, can you see the correlation?
I think that making listen 10 default level is a good idea. With those wishing to ignore 'chat taking time to type 'listen 9. On the other hand typing 'listen 10 ain't that difficuilt either. So why does the rule have to go again?mrbrklyn wrote:The only two solutions is to either kill this rule, or change the programming so that the chat channel is the default communication channel. The programming is not going to be done in the near future. So the RULE HAS TO GO.
<<Offtopic chatter is allowed which is a major change since at least summer, when offtopic chatter was no allowed in shout. So how do you call this 'Stifling' ? This is a huge relaxation of the rules which is happily seen in a form of 'chat.>>
What? Nobody ever enforce the rule of no off-topics on shout to any dillitating extent and now noone can say BOOOO any more in shout without getting run down.
Ruben
What? Nobody ever enforce the rule of no off-topics on shout to any dillitating extent and now noone can say BOOOO any more in shout without getting run down.
Ruben
http://www.nylxs.com
The New York Free Software Scene
The New York Free Software Scene
<<I think that making listen 10 default level is a good idea. With those wishing to ignore 'chat taking time to type 'listen 9. On the other hand typing 'listen 10 ain't that difficuilt either. So why does the rule have to go again?>>
That with a HUGE MOTD to say
type:
CHAT I want to talk to everyone
when you mean
SHOUT I want to talk to everyone
and then say
SHOUT The server is going berzerk
When you have a server problem or need DM help.
-------------
But this is completely changing the working of the game. Turn off Chat, keep SHOUT and make a DM Channel or Party
Ruben
That with a HUGE MOTD to say
type:
CHAT I want to talk to everyone
when you mean
SHOUT I want to talk to everyone
and then say
SHOUT The server is going berzerk
When you have a server problem or need DM help.
-------------
But this is completely changing the working of the game. Turn off Chat, keep SHOUT and make a DM Channel or Party
Ruben
http://www.nylxs.com
The New York Free Software Scene
The New York Free Software Scene
As long as it gets the damn DMs off everyones back for regular play and conversation.Salathar wrote: I think that making listen 10 default level is a good idea. With those wishing to ignore 'chat taking time to type 'listen 9. On the other hand typing 'listen 10 ain't that difficuilt either. So why does the rule have to go again?
Ruben
http://www.nylxs.com
The New York Free Software Scene
The New York Free Software Scene
It does really sound like a personal problem which may affect a very small number of people, you should probably bring this up with Leaf and it's not a reason to make server wide rule amendments.mrbrklyn wrote:Correct. But the problem is that Leaf doesn't have the resources to asure the prudent enforcement of the rules and the DMs can not be trusted to not become abussive and expand any rule enforcement to the maximum level that they can.
DMs _should_ expand the rules unforcement, because that's part of a reason for haivn g a DM in the first place.
However, the recruiting policies are up to a server admin, and what he says goes argue or not. But if an admin does choose to give someone DM access they better prove themselves worthy, or so would most players would want I presume.
-
- Forum Fanatic
- Posts: 852
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:07 am
- Location: Hemel Hempstead