To be honest, I am quite pleased with the *idea* of more strictly enforcing spying rules. However, I think the general community consensus is to enforce the rules more strictly when everyone knows someone is abusing them, as opposed to using game features in a way used almost universally by any faction aware of them.
I'd like to point out that if Dreighton needed to test features best used on large factions, she is welcome to join the NR when we merge(*very* soon). :)
I don't suppose Dreighton could test whatever she is testing on the Dev server since it was set up specifically for testing purposes. I know for a fact that resources abound on Dev as anyone can bring it out of thin air, just lacks the people. What is there need of to be tested that involves having to be in a faction that has tons of people?
As far as I can remember since I joined the Combine, Admins like Dreighton have been using their powers to do stupid stuff like this. I've lost any hope that she'll leave. I've only ever seen a few foolhardy asims get ousted. They deserved to get ousted too, after stuff they pulled. I'm in agreement with her going, just don't see it happening.
As an aside, per Tnsumi's references concerning it:
The Golden Rule, de jure:
Use the Combine features in the spirit in which they have been designed. Don't try to exploit the features, use your common sense when using them. Ask yourself what is the purpose of the feature you are using and as such, what is the normal use for it. Abuses will be punished.
The Golden Rule, de facto:
The Empire is gold to the admins.
To clearly see the nature of the game is to be liberated from it.
"# Fake any game behaviour in order to hide or change your current in-game status. For example, you may not use a Star Destroyer custom picture for your Ugly or unarmed freighter. Similarly, you may not use an avatar picture showing you are under arrest if you are not."
Since the ship does not have a custom picture of a TIE scout. It is what is it is. Don't even know how this information got so high to a point that it was considered a banable offense.
I agree with Zero, it doesn't say even in the new 'rule' (of you can call it that) that you can not rename a ship...God knows how many ships out there are named the same thing even government ships...if using the same name gets you banned, shouldn't we ban pretty much everyone?
IMO Xior did NOTHING to break the spying rules or any rules of combine for that matter, unless fighting a war against the GE is against the combine rules now or using tactics and not letting the GE just walk in and take everything?
The ban should be removed and 'some' admins should stop making up rules to defend the GE.
Personally I am confused as to why this was added at all. I know the specific example of using an avatar that says you're under arrest when you're not was used to arrest an Imperial, and I chatted with several asims about it to ensure there wans't a problem. As Selatos told me, its in the motif of lying, which is a vital part of the game.
To me, using a fake avatar to show yourself under arrest is the game equivalent of chewie being escorted into the detention center with loose handcuffs. The combine's 2-d environment doesn't allow us to simulate that quite in the same way, but isn't a fake avatar just teh same? its easily detectable, especially since the real arrest avatar extends outside the picture's borders, and a simple 'copy link location' reveals that its fake. If you take simple precautions, and don't make assumptions, all these deceptions are eaisly detectable.
As for the fake ship avatar, I should not that those are denied to begin with, so its not possible.
What I think needs to be done is something that is done by judges whenever a law is interpreted: Produce a test. Currently the golden rule is a bit vauge "Don't use features for ways other than intended." What is the intent of each feature? how do we know what is intented, what is not? Are we allowed to fake screenshots ? Are we allowed to disguise ourselves as an npc by changing our avatar to the race's main one and removing info fields? These are far far too vauge.
So what sort of test can we use that will be more or less fair to everyone, and still allows the clear abusers to be punished? I can't say I have a definate answer. But for me, looking at a situation, the test has always been: Could there be a logically explanation for this in character? Can it be prevented by the victim? (if yes, than its fair to both sides, if not, than don't use it.)
What do I mean by this? Well using the arrest avatar -> its simply faking your arrest. This is often done in character - just look at a new hope. However what means are there in the game to portray this? Yes, you can actually be arrested, but then thats certainly not faking it. Changing your avatar and faking screenshots is more or less the only way it can done.
As for changing the tie's name, even if we can say its intent was to disguise it as an imperial ship (which i imagine was the itnent). Once again, this is something that happens in character. Think of the lambda shuttle in return of the jedi. So yes, there is an in character explanation. What possible ways are there to do this in the combine? Faking ship ids etc. are not implimented yet. But changing the name of your ship is, and if you've got any sort of a brain, you'll know that its very possible and likely that it could happen.
But those are two examples I wouldn't characterize as abuse. Lets apply the test to something that we would: Having a friendly arrest you in order to prevent the enemy from doing so for 24 hours. What happens here in character: rresting the leader ofYou are arrested by a friend, and this some how makes you invincible for the next 24 hours. Is it preventable by the ohter side: no, they can't possibly know that you're invincible until its too late, nor can they undo it until the time runs out. In this case, it would be abuse.
Another example: using your generator to turn the power off to buildings, when the buildings owner have their own generator. Is this logical in character? of course not. Yeah, its preventable (be careful where you build) but really, its not something that can be explained in character, and the flaw here is not the other side, but the limited nature of the combine's features.
I think that this test would be a good standard, and would be fair to all sides involved. I also think we can then start putting down precedents and explanations based upon this, so that future incidents can be prevented.
Ok I had a chance to take a look at this issue and I can't believe I am going to say this and most of you are going to bitch but well tough. I think Dreighton was correct in enforcing the spying rules against Xior in this matter. I think a CP deduction would have been better though, but that is my personal opinion.
As to why I feel this way it is simple. Xior changed his ship name to match a GE ship that in itself is not illegal explicitly and I have no issue with that. He then sent out a hail that would make people assume he was the GE pilot of the ship with the same name. The hail was a message saying the pilot of the ship was going to defect.
It is this combo that makes the action illegal. The content of the message combined with the ship name change make it seem without a doubt that the pilot of the GE ship wth the same name sent the message and then it is only his word that proves he did not send it. If you do an action and purposefully let people assume you are another member of the combine that is impersonation.
Here is a bit of advise for you all instead of trying to come up with more ways to sneak by the rules or whatever and just try to play the game without coming up with sneakier ways to get ahead or to accomplish something in the end it will save everyone time and effort.
“As for the fake ship avatar, I should not that those are denied to begin with, so its not possible. ”
Unfortunatelly there are ways around that which could be exploited, like simply change the image but keep the url. You get one picture approved by the art team then switches to another later on. If you ask me that should be, if not already, punishable.
there is a difference in spreading false information and impersonating another member.
Oh wake up, Kyle! Everybody, and I mean nigh on EVERYBODY has been sneaking around the rules for years! The only difference is that it only seems to be punishable when the victim is a friend of the Admin!
Why are people being banned without Sim News announcements?
Why are Sim News announcements of bans referencing rules that do not exist?
Why are the Spying Rules being changed without any announcement?
Why are things suddenly punishable when they've been allowed and going on for years?
There is nothing, IC, to stop Xior - or anyone else - from doing what he did. He did not claim to be another member of the Combine, he did not spread protected information about a group, he certainly didn't hack anything.
If I rename a YV-666 the Grainne Ni Mhaille and add Teniel Djo to the crewlist to trick her to get on board, am I breaking the spying rules? If I use the same renamed ship to hail Imperial ships and say they smell like monkey poop, is that bannable?
Spreading propoganda to sow dissent and confusion amongst your enemy is a valid military tactic, and also allowed by the rules. It's as valid for them to do as it is for the GE to sit their ships in Anzat space (or Rebel space, as they've done before, or wherever else they like) when there's nothing that can be done about it.
Edited By: Hal Breden on Year 8 Day 117 9:14 ____________
"May the Grace of Ara go with you, and His Vengeance be wrought upon your enemies."
note, this comment is not about a specific case but in general.
People always say that people have been breaking this rule forever, abusing this and that in a certain way forever. But I must say it does not seem very often you see thoose things reported to lets say email@example.com.
again, that was just a general comment not about a specific case.
The problem is oftne that they're not against the rules. They're against certain unnamed admin's interpretation of the rules, that very few people seem to share, and which have a tendency to vary from case to case.
Anyway I think kyle has a point. " If you do an action and purposefully let people assume you are another member of the combine that is impersonation." - this has precedent I believe, though I can't exactly remember whether it was an actual case or people talking with the admins. Even though he didn't explicitly state that he was a certain person, he was more or less deliberately impersonating them. Its definately a grey area though, but a 3 week ban is next to nothing.
However I think what needs to be clarified here as whether he was banned for the combination, or for the name change alone.
I also have to agree with DeMeer, I see very very few cases brought forth to firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com. The ones that are brought forth usually result in a ban.
Also the art team is supposed to check prior suff that is already accepted custom image wise and remove all that are broken links or wrong entity type or whatever. If it is deemed nessicary I will implement a way for them to notifty the admins to punish abusers or do it themselves.
“ Impersonate a member of the combine for any reason. This means you may not steal a person's name on IRC or register on message boards with someone else's handle.
- RULES ”
If we read very carefully the above phrase, there are important issues we need to note:
The rule speaks of impersonating a member of the combine, not a character, which is a completely different thing.
The rule is phrased to explicitly, specifically and exclusively refer to out of game comunication methods.
For example, in a game situation, I can walk from the shadows to a certain lieutenant, cover my face with a cloak, let just a bit of my costume rental admiral uniform show from under my cloak, and speak to him in a hoarse voice, giving him specific orders.
This is a case of face-less communication, and if the said person does not verify who the face behind the voice is, it's his mistake.
They need to have a secret pass-word or code-word that changes periodically or whatever, for this specific cases.