Quote:
Originally Posted by -Catherin-
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Derubael
I honestly don't see how Sirken's statement of "no trackers on the spawn point period" could be interpreted any other way than how it was stated, but,
Please give me examples of:
What evidence I can provide that makes where they are standing clearer than a screenshot with a loc. I know someone on that staff knows the location of Sev and can put the pieces together with what was provided.
And how I am supposed to get something clearer than a screenshot with a loc without actually getting close enough to provide that.
Basically, what are you looking for that you consider solid? Because this will happen again. And it will keep happening until someone finally gets caught and pays for it. The last few FFA Faydedars had agro by trackers which then died and dropped the agro onto other trackers, effectively killing all the trackers. I had originally petitioned this hoping someone could actually pop in quickly and see what was going on for themselves, as that would have worked out a lot better than me providing the unrealistic proof that seems to be required (what is needed is not clear, even if I get enough then im in violation to get it)
This has been going on regularly since the first sev dispute and nobody can give anyone enough to "prove it"
|
Fraps, or some other video recording software is always best in terms of evidence. When attempting to identify "how long" someone is sitting in a particular location, using the /time command is essential - more than once if using screenshots. I have absolutely no idea how long these people were standing on the spawn point because none of your screenshots show a server time. For all I know you and the TMO trackers were standing there for the same length of time, in equal violation of what you are disputing. You have to look at these things from our standpoint, which is that we don't trust anyone - the primary reason why we ask for thorough and clear evidence of any given dispute - and that the only way we can truly objectively mediate or rule on a petition/claim is to rely solely on this evidence when making a decision. Extra corroboration through other sources such as logs, matching testimony from opposing sides, and various other presentations, while helpful, must always be carefully scrutinized and matched to other more reliable forms of evidence, like video or even in certain cases, a screenshot (or 50).
I understand that you may feel frustrated that your evidence does not sufficiently corroborate your accompanying explanation, but hopefully this will give a better idea on what is considered thorough and clear evidence in the future. While it may be easy for players to pass judgement in circumstances like these, particularly in high-stakes - or even heated encounters like we frequently see in the raid scene - we as GM's have to scrutinize very closely every piece of evidence when a decision is required by us in order to ensure we are making the right call. These decisions often affect dozens if not hundreds of players and may impact future disputes - there is a lot of pressure and expectation for us to get things correct - even though that may not even be possible with the evidence provided. It may seem abundantly clear to you what occurred, but we are very rarely present for shenanigans as they take place, even though we wish that were possible, the raid scene is only one small - but important - part of P99 CSR and we have to balance all aspects of that in addition to our real lives, just like everyone else. This is why we
have to receive as much detailed information as possible that provides a clear picture of the events that prove objectively beyond a reasonable doubt who is at fault before we are going to feel comfortable laying out something as serious as an entire guilds' inability to (essentially for a Class C guild and to some extent a Class R guild) play the game, potentially for weeks at a time. We are also abundantly aware that regardless of what we decide, there will always be people upset with our interpretation or implementation of the rules and the decision those rules lead us to - this truth has always caused us to do what we feel is right, makes sense, and is fair, even if that conclusion is not the "popular" one.
Once again, video is
always the best bet - record in at least 720p or in whatever format shows clear nameplates, geography, etc. or it's use may be limited. Most video recording software will timestamp videos internally on their own, but it's always good to use that in-game /time command at the beginning or end of a video in order to establish when the video was taken - this is extremely important in helping us identify where exactly the video falls within the petitions timeline.
In this particular case, I feel that you had other options of gathering the evidence in your original post, that did not involve violating the very rule that you are claiming TMO broke. This is something that everyone needs to be very careful of to ensure that they are not themselves causing an infraction. That will, at best, give the violating guild something to use against you, or at worst, cause your guild to end up with the same punishment if one is handed down. "I didn't have any other choice" is very rarely, if ever, going hold any water or be considered a valid excuse.
Lastly, as I stated in my post, it is my interpretation - and likely Sirken's intent - that his statement be taken as a strong suggestion or even a warning that standing on a mobs spawn point will probably get you in trouble, as when a mob spawns if you are there and you get aggro, you've suddenly violated the tracker rule and may be subject to punishment. Generally speaking when we make a new rule - which is what is being implied was established in this post - the new rule is very clearly acknowledged as such, oftentimes reiterated by other staff members or otherwise clearly communicated as being "law", rather than included off-hand in a forum post. Again, as I stated, I could be wrong about this and Sirken's intent in that message, but generally speaking, when a new rule is created, or a new interpretation of a rule is clarified, Sirken and I take a significant amount of time to discuss this rule, oftentimes needing approval from Rogean in order to set it in stone (if it pertains to the raid scene, Rogean approval is almost always required for a new rule). Again, you'd have to ask him to clarify his intent, I am not the Lead-CSR GM.
As stated previously, this is my stance on the situation as well as recommendations for the future, with my former post giving suggestions on how to address concerns and disputes that will inevitably arrive down the road. I feel like I was fairly clear in my posts, and that all I did here was elaborate slightly on what was stated previously. I hope that this clarifies my meaning and that your questions were sufficiently answered. I have had busy week and look forward to an even busier week catching up with p99 work, so I may just be worn out and misinterpreting the situation. That's one reason why we have two GM's, and I'm sure Sirken will give his thoughts when he is able. In the meantime, Argh made a great suggestion in the Current Raid Scene thread near/at the end that could use some thought. I'd like to continue encouraging guilds to work together whenever possible despite potential animosity during encounters like this. I think, despite some negative attitudes, is an attainable goal.
Good luck!
~deru