@Samuel Ashen: You're not wrong that rules should be as clear as possible. Your analogy is completely flawed though.
&@Dol Ka: Punishment is bans, asset fines. Removal of Datacards the factions are not eligible to retain is not a punishment at all. Punishing is different from requiring/forcing compliance with the Rules. This needs to be clear, because apparently just like people can't police themselves, people can't understand that just because they experience negative effects from an action doesn't make that action a punishment against them. A primary argument people have made against removal of the Datacards is painting it as a "punishment" so they can argue that because they shouldn't be "punished" they should bear no negative effects at all.
@Tal Dorn: It's fine that we're getting somewhere:
- You/etc. have now admitted the Rule had to be followed and DCs needed revoking/selling.
- Everybody agrees that clarifications to Rules should be made now. The ASIMS did that in the SimNews, and there's a Rules Update post.
X- The point of contention left is how lax players should be with their interpretations of Rules
“Kay - "Oh, so somebody else evaded paying a billion dollars in taxes, and you just made a mistake in deducting a couple expenses twice. Tell me more about how we're being unfair to you when talking about making people pay their taxes owed."
It was already stated that RL examples don't apply here.
- "Tal Dorn" ”
I don't even know why you're arguing as if the point I'm making there is wrong, when you admitted repeatedly earlier in your post (at long last) "I am not saying the enforcement or penalties should be different."
You feel hurt / wronged at my apparent condescension. I don't think you're using that word right, but okay. I recognize this part. The Trial's over, the matter has been adjudicated, and now you're talking about costs. Do you want an apology or something? Cause maybe we can call whatever hurt/indignation/embarrassment effect of my 'condescension' a tax for you and your people spending this whole thread maintaining untenable positions, only for to pretend you agreed with them all along and were just arguing to have the Rules clarified. Then, of course, in the very last sentence of your post, you take a giant step backwards and argue the intention was never to have membership be maintained. *sarcastic clap*
As someone who bought uses from some of these factions I've not found them willing to compensate for our DC loses. One basically told me where to go when I asked if some compensation or alternate DC uses could be supplied and the other has replied not at all.
I suppose I know who not to get uses from in the future.
I had another friend that lost his faction couple months ago...decided to close it down. He found it very hard to compete because of the competition. I feel even worse for him now learning that some perhaps many of these companies were doing this :(.
I'll have some shortterm pain over it but I'm glad to see the Admins addressing the abuse.
It isn't surprising, Roche. I'm sorry you are out your credits but if the faction is part of conglomerate, maybe you can appeal up the chain. I'm sure groups will be rethinking their DC strategy now that they can't have all the "good ones" now.
Or if that fails, go to the Traders Lounge and report them for scamming. You're willing to work with them through this, if they're not willing to offer any form of recompense due to their inability to uphold the deal they made, it's on them.
My dear Kay unfortunately for Combine my analogy is right on the money, all you need is to widen the scope.
There is a witch hunt after the generic DC holders in place before someone bothers to right comprehensive rules, why against the generic DC holders? why not against Restricted?
If we on the subject of Datacard Abuse.
Restricted there around for many years yet now one bothers to right the rules about Restricted DC's retaining nor going after Restricted DC holders, is it not more pressing to solve ""abuse"" as old as combine it self?
Bothers, all good now, all happy and finished deflecting?
Edited By: Samuel Ashen on Year 18 Day 96 3:09 ____________
My dear Samuel, I don't know what the word "bowers" is supposed to mean, but no rules pertaining to restricted DCs have been broken. It's that simple. If a rule is broken, then action is taken. In this case, rules were broken so the matter is being rectified.
...I think "bovver" and "bowers" are both meant to be "bothers".
And in this case, "right" is meant to be "write".
In any case, Samuel, it's pretty obvious you were meant to have the numbers to have the datacards. Flooding a shell to get them all and then letting the people disperse is a pretty blatant disregard for the intent of the rule.
Edit: No Sam, you still haven't spelled write correctly. =P
Why don't factions with unique datacards have to maintain a set amount of members above the basic five members in order to utilize their datacards like factions with generic datacards?
Would it not be considered abuse if a faction gathered a large amount of temporary members in order to build many HQ's before downsizing to usual member count but still benefiting from all the HQ's?
No, dol, because you lose access to the additional hqs once you lose the member count. They can no longer function as fast travel spots nor spawn spots. (I'm pretty sure all hqs stop functioning until you come into compliance with the rule but don't quote me on that one).
As for unique Datacards, they give up other privileges for having uniques. They can't buy generics without giving up their uniques. It's a pretty fair trade. They're restricted to only their own dcs, or they have to give up their dcs and follow the membership rules.
Almost every other faction function has an automated system in place for enforcement. This specific rule is one of the few that doesn't, thus why it was manually enforced. I think it's safe to say in the future this rule will have code based enforcement, but when that future will come remains to be seen.
Edited By: Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss on Year 18 Day 96 6:30 ____________
TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - Y19 D170 RIP :(
Voted worst art team member of Y19
That would be considered abuse as well, Dol Ka, but then again what do you gain from a second HQ (other than spawn location)? Factions have gained millions upon millions of credits for generic datacards (potentially billions at this point) and just like real money, (some) people will apparently do anything to get some.
There is no requirements for restricted datacard holders other than being a faction and not dissolving. Since they cannot obtain additional datacards without direct involvement from the Administration, there is nothing to enforce. No rules exist therefore, as previously stated, none have been broken.
If we are just going to continue debating the rules and how they were (not if because they were) broken, this thread will be closed.
You are wrong Ulrike, I had faction merged with few mining groups before and had MUCH more HQs then could possibly handle by members count, and they all worked just fine!
As for generic datacards and potential billions, this is wrong too, please look closely to generic entities, they are worthless! In most cases you would hardly return money you sent on buying GDCs. This can be easily confirmed by CPM statistics!
All this scandal about abuse is just a nonsense and storm in a teacup.
Interesting. According to the rules, hqs continuing functioning after the membership drop is actually the intended functionality of them! Good catch, memnoch.
As for billions, mem, yeah. You can definitely make a shitton off of DC sales. Don't even pretend you can't. I'd imagine that "billions" figure has some basis in reality using knowledge that lowly players like us don't have. At the very least a lot of these factions could have been pulling in hundreds of millions.
Edited By: Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss on Year 18 Day 96 7:19 ____________
TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - Y19 D170 RIP :(
Voted worst art team member of Y19
Your analogy puts "Generic DCs" as the scraps and Factions as the Dogs. If you meant in general, that's certainly not clear from the context of your post (and this whole thread which has been entirely about Generic DCs). The major issues with the analogy include, for example: 1) putting scraps on the ground for the dogs is the equivalent of giving all the Generic DCs to the Factions with no restrictions or rules, which isn't what happened (Rules were given and ignored/misinterpreted). That still doesn't hold for DCs in general as all the dogs would have access to the restricted DCs in your analogy, and again with NO rules or restritions, when there have always been rules and restrictions. 2) Factions as Dogs implies that players have no more control over their actions than animals, which is patently untrue and purports to absolve the Faction Leaders/Players of any responsibility for their actions.
Not saying there are no issues with the DC system in general (Can we have a DC Draft?), but yeah, your analogy is still seriously flawed regardless of how broadly you say you want to apply it.
“ Why don't factions with unique datacards have to maintain a set amount of members above the basic five members in order to utilize their datacards like factions with generic datacards? ...  Would it not be...abuse [to pump members and make more HQs and then downsize]
 Factions with unique ("Restricted") datacards cannot purchase Generic DCs. Any DCs they have which are Generics they already had. Seems like an interesting thing for Admins to consider what would be fair - but they're in compliance now. Given for the Restricted DCs you have no choice of dropping individually, it may be unreasonable to assign Slots to the Restricted DCs themselves and require Member numbers. I instinctively wouldn't mind the Generic DCs those factions also own to be removed in fairness to the other factions (seems "fair"). I haven't really thought about it. Maybe the numbers shake out that it'd be very unfair to some of the 'legacy' factions, especially (as Ulrike says) because they can't participate in acquiring Generic DCs or selling the ones they have. The devaluing of their existing DCs is more or less a wash - they enjoyed years of monopolization and limitless profits - but Ulrike is ultimately right: with no ability to optionally get rid of DCs, holding them to a membership standard is unfair. Being able to sell DCs is the intended option. Hiring sitters also works, but isn't the intended solution either.
 Yeah that's abuse of a rule and should also be punished if discovered. I don't independently know what restrictions fall into place when membership numbers drop with existing extra HQs.
“...please look closely to generic entities, they are worthless...
If they were 'worthless' people wouldn't have bought them or sought to amass access to them, or be selling them, or be selling the produced entities. I appreciate you think that "billions" is an exaggeration, but unless you show data to correct the exaggeration, you're just exaggerating in the opposite end of the spectrum with less credibility.