Quote:
Originally Posted by Fammaden
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Do you guys really think every petition is simply that cut and dry? There's a lot of grey areas, a lot of give and take, a lot of interpretations of the rules, a lot of misunderstandings.
This idea of punishing "wolf calling" belies an underlying belief that there's specific entities who are more guilty of frivolous petitions than others, and I truly don't believe that to be the case. Every petition can be argued by either side convincingly, this stuff isn't ever as simple as we'd like it to be and the evidence is notoriously hard to evaluate.
There's simply no objective way to say someone's acting in bad faith, most of the questionable petitions tend to be questions of intent, which is nearly impossible to determine, rather than something that you can immediately call an outright lie or bad faith petition. Additionally, with the long delays involved in the process of ruling on these things a punishment is not as significant of a deterrent. Behaviorally, its well established that punishment doesn't work for shaping when its randomly applied and the longer its delayed from the target behavior.
"You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" — Obi-Wan Kenobi, Return of the Jedi.
|
The concept here is to indirectly force guilds to work together. A member acting in bad faith versus an accident is, in most cases, clear. And in most cases, is something that is recognized immediately. These accidents don't always need to result in concessions, however, and I feel like that's where we need to start.
If someone runs through North Door, trains wyverns, and wipes a guild, the guild leaders can work together to pause all progress until both guilds are back to their "pre train" status. However if that happens, and the guild proceeds to FTE and kill a target (leapfrogging the trained guild), they used a clear accident to benefit them and should yield a punishment (concession or whatever). If that doesn't get resolved and a petition is filed, the GMs can choose to punish the guild that trained the wyverns, or punish the guild that filed the petition. But if it gets to the point where GMs need to be involved, a ban should be the outcome for one or both guilds.
IMO; The toxicity of the raid scene is stemming from the lack of consequence for actions. More, and more, people feel slighted while raiding and are actively looking for things to call other guilds out on, because be it tiny accidents or gigantic fuck-ups; they always go to petition since the leads wont work together. At worst, if the GM rules against you, you're forced to concede 1 or 2 of the target and thats it, which ultimately yields the same consequence as if you hadn't involved the GM to begin with. So I ask; Why bother the GMs, and not own your mistakes and move on? (Your being a generic 'you'.. not pointing at any guild/person directly)
The raid rules clearly state; "if you request that another guild concede a mob, you better be 100% certain that they made an error, otherwise you may be punished harshly." Let's use the one rule that's black-and-white as the foundation for the steps moving forward.
Another black-and-white on the same topic, "Note on Rule Lawyering – I think the spirit of everything we are trying to accomplish here is pretty clear. Anyone that tries to twist the words to support and/or justify nefarious actions will not be rewarded. There will be no “technically this could be that”, or “well it doesn’t exactly say this word for word”. From this point forward we will be actively enforcing the spirit of these rules more so than the exact letter of the law. Don't expect to skirt passed a raid suspension on a loop hole or technicality."