Goa oppinion

[Cromcruaich]

What they are saying is people have differant ideas of how the want to play, however there is no excuse for abuse or insults.
Cant argue with that really, just hope people can respect others rather then provoking them.

Aye, hence the overall sentiment is sound.

[Coheed]

imo its common curtesy to leave a 1v1 fight alone, unless the person /y (easy enough for them to type whilst fighting)

[Ovi]

Though the overall sentiment appears sound, the fundamental problem is that those who's play preference loosely falls within 'to follow the 120 allies who are making themselves ready to become the masters of the ...' obviates the play style preference of the majority of those others which we're listed.

Whatever I tried to do I found that rr10+ opted groups obviated my playstyle much more than any 120+ zerg, and in the end were the reason I left, and probably won't come back. It all depends where you are in the "Realm Rank food chain"

The overall sentiment is spot on though "it is not acceptable to have players insulting or threatening others".

[Cromcruaich]

Whatever I tried to do I found that rr10+ opted groups obviated my playstyle much more than any 120+ zerg, and in the end were the reason I left, and probably won't come back. It all depends where you are in the "Realm Rank food chain"

The overall sentiment is spot on though "it is not acceptable to have players insulting or threatening others".

Which playstyle was that?

[Ovi]

Which playstyle was that?

Anything not involving a zerg or being rr10+

[Kallima]

I'm with GOA that it isn't acceptable for people to insult or threaten others. Play styles vary, situations can get confusing, in the middle of the zerg it isn't realistic to think you have sole rights to an enemy, and what the other people want varies a lot. Some people want help others don't, you have to make decisions fast.

It helps if people are less quick to assume they are right and the other person deserves insulting. I would expect that just about all the people who feel they should not interfere with 1v1 and 8v8 fights have at some time made a mistake and added on a fight where they were unwanted even if they were not aware of it.

The last person who had a go at me for adding on their 1v1 was RR9. When I messaged him and pointed out what had really happened, he admitted he was wrong and hadn't seen that I was involved in the fight before he was. I had no problem with him joining in the fight, but I did with the emotes. Even though he admitted he was wrong, I could have done without the aggro.

[Sharkith]

Personally I found the statement over elaborate and therefore slightly confusing. I mean at the end of the day what it boils down to is be polite to others and don't expect them to play the game the way you want them to. Everyone who has any respect for anyone else certainly should have no problem agreeing with this.

Where the statement is actually less satisfactory is where GOA then engage with some of the codes of conduct or rules that groups of players have generated and try to sit on the fence with these. I find that bit slightly disturbing simply because it is impossible to steer a line through what is essentially a minefield. I mean clearly they know it is so why try to steer the merry ship through it?

In effect what they have done is give one particular group a sense of legitimacy at a time when there was a growing consensus that in fact things could be sorted out. I certainly feel sorry for people having to put up with rightnow's about some of the very sad ignorant behaviour you see in the game, however I do believe that somehow as people argue and talk through the medium of the forums they can reach an accomodation even if it is temporary. Of particular interest has been the recent debates on FH about 'adding' and respect for others and so on.

In all earnestness what we might see more than anything is that no matter how much GOA huffs and puffs that the rules will remain and people will generally get on with whatever staus quo is flavour of the month. So why attempt to get involved in such a direct manner?

I am not sure that GOA are any more better placed to resolve these issues than the people involved in them on a daily basis. So I would have suggested that it might be better to steer clear of it and simply state that rudeness will not be tolerated full stop. Still I might be being overoptimistic of the community and its ability to resolve differences in playing style.

I am not surprised that it has emerged as an issue post cluster and more significantly post-Glastonbury cluster. Fewer players around after the emergence of Glastonbury has pushed people together who could otherwise avoid each other and these people apparently are not too happy about this....

regards

Sharkith

[Kallima]

Personally I found the statement over elaborate and therefore slightly confusing. I mean at the end of the day what it boils down to is be polite to others and don't expect them to play the game the way you want them to. Everyone who has any respect for anyone else certainly should have no problem agreeing with this.

Where the statement is actually less satisfactory is where GOA then engage with some of the codes of conduct or rules that groups of players have generated and try to sit on the fence with these. I find that bit slightly disturbing simply because it is impossible to steer a line through what is essentially a minefield. I mean clearly they know it is so why try to steer the merry ship through it?

In effect what they have done is give one particular group a sense of legitimacy at a time when there was a growing consensus that in fact things could be sorted out. I certainly feel sorry for people having to put up with rightnow's about some of the very sad ignorant behaviour you see in the game, however I do believe that somehow as people argue and talk through the medium of the forums they can reach an accomodation even if it is temporary. Of particular interest has been the recent debates on FH about 'adding' and respect for others and so on.

In all earnestness what we might see more than anything is that no matter how much GOA huffs and puffs that the rules will remain and people will generally get on with whatever staus quo is flavour of the month. So why attempt to get involved in such a direct manner?

I am not sure that GOA are any more better placed to resolve these issues than the people involved in them on a daily basis. So I would have suggested that it might be better to steer clear of it and simply state that rudeness will not be tolerated full stop. Still I might be being overoptimistic of the community and its ability to resolve differences in playing style.

I am not surprised that it has emerged as an issue post cluster and more significantly post-Glastonbury cluster. Fewer players around after the emergence of Glastonbury has pushed people together who could otherwise avoid each other and these people apparently are not too happy about this....

regards

Sharkith

Judging from the first bit 'For a while now, we receive more and more complaints following arguments between players from a same Realm who don't share the same view of RvR.' GOA have stated their position on the RVR because the number of insults have been getting out of hand and they've been having to deal with a lot of Rightnows on it.

I agree, as with a lot of their news it could possibly have been written better, but I suspect it was written in french and translated. For me at least, it reads better in french.

[Ovi]

Sharkith,

I don't see that they are trying to get involved directly. The only area they are saying that they will get involved in is "it is not acceptable to have players insulting or threatening others". The rest is just SOB trying to explain why they won't get involved.

Which I think is about the only sensible position they can take, and I think almost everyone agrees with.

As they say, there is nothing wrong proposing rules of conduct, but they can in no way be enforceable.

[Sharkith]

Sharkith,

I don't see that they are trying to get involved directly. The only area they are saying that they will get involved in is "it is not acceptable to have players insulting or threatening others". The rest is just SOB trying to explain why they won't get involved.

Which I think is about the only sensible position they can take, and I think almost everyone agrees with.

As they say, there is nothing wrong proposing rules of conduct, but they can in no way be enforceable.

Ovi,

you don't see it like that however even here in this thread you can see that some of us found comfort and legitimacy for a particular play style. So it can mean different things depending on the reader. The meaning of their message for the reader is something that is not directly controllable and therefore the less said the less that is open to manipulation. Thats was I am driving at. The more vague aspects of the message are potentially encouraging a particular style of play and Crom got it right by pointing it out. However I do think the basic message gets through and I did say that.

So despite the good intentions and for the right reasons (I mean what are people up to bitching at each other like this?) they may well have unwittingly managed to reinforce difference rather than promote a more inclusive attitude in people. I feel thats what is risky about this kind of message.

I am not sure you know why I am saying it but I do read FH a lot and if you take some of the views and think about the likely perspective the poster can adopt on a message like this you might get what I am driving at.

Usual warning on the language applies.

(http://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?t=188488

This one reveals a lot about how some people can see this sort of thing.

http://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?t=188015

Still I can't help but feel sorry for 'em its got to be tough feeling that you have to manage a bunch of whiners like some of those on FH (me included!).



Sharkith