• Play
  • About
  • News
  • Forums
  • Yppedia
  • Help
Welcome Guest   | Login
  Index  | Recent Threads  | Register  | Search  | Help  | RSS feeds  | View Unanswered Threads  
  Search  


Quick Go »
Thread Status: Normal
Total posts in this thread: 256
Posts: 256   Pages: 9   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] [Post new Thread]
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 26397 times and has 255 replies Next Thread
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Or maybe I am just not understanding why she referenced it out of the blue like that. I viewed it kinda like saying my gloves don't fit because my shoes are on. One doesn't connect to the other, even if bother are perfectly true. She doesn't get to alter what we've said because there was a debate in 2005.


What you've said in this thread is based on Cleaver's posts about Robertdonald and Scallywag Syndicate. The story behind Cleaver's posts is not the story behind the situation here. RD was not banned because of the repeated serious blockades against the same island, he was banned because he no-showed at 2 AM after a long period of repeated blockades, many of which weren't contested after round 1. The current situation seems to be that someone is fighting a 3 round blockade at normal times and showing up to attack.

If someone can blockade you every week with a legitimate attempt for the island, they are allowed to do so. At some point they will run out of funding to do so, especially if you're making it sinking. If you are personally tired of blockading, I guarantee that there are ton of people eager to step into the critical blockade positions. Train up some new folks and have them defend the island to give yourself a break.

If blockades aren't fun for you anymore, take a break from them and come back in a bit. That's what I've done over the years with YPP, every so often I'll get burnt out and take a couple of weeks off and come back with fresh enjoyment of the game. There's no reason why this can't apply to blockades as well.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by Culiford at Feb 9, 2010 6:35:49 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 6:35:15 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
OdorOfFrodo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Posts: 4426
Status: Offline
Re: Debating 101 for Sweetie Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Are you sure you know what it means?

Sigh. Yes.

I took logic classes in university. I feel no need to Google things I already know. Your mental masturbatory tactics, on the other hand, give your arguments very little substance. You are referring to people as closet psychologists (which is not really humour, but more what humour eats), rather than actually rebutting.

And I'm okay with going ad hominem, as you can see, but I've stated my case previously. You're all a bunch of whiners, and your case makes no sense. Not because you're all a bunch of whiners.

Edit: Forgot to note I didn't actually say you were guilty of ad hominem. Just said you were NEARING it. What you are guilty of can be called personal attacks.
----------------------------------------
Ecavatar by Ecastasy!
Talisker wrote: 
Obviously this calls for dressing up as Karl Marx.

----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by OdorOfFrodo at Feb 9, 2010 7:06:52 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 7:01:37 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
123Jackpot

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 787
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Ok seems we have a lot of people that have lost touch with reality and just want to flame. (Yes I know welcome to parley.) Lets start with a very simple fact:
Attrition is against the rules; as it is a form of harassment. I've had this confirmed by senior OMs.

In the case of CC vs. Cairna, it was ruled that if more blockades took place there would be OOO intervention. Also in this case we were lucky enough that the person responsible for the blockades went onto parley and said point blank, (not an actual quote but very close,) "I don't care for the islands I just want to blockade them until they run out of poe and ships so they can feel my hate raining down on them." Even with this direct admission; it took many weeks of many petitions to wrench an answer out of OOO.

Though this particular case may be closed the question that stands is; what exactly constitutes attrition and where are the limits?
People like sweetie may feel that complete anarchy within the blockade structure is acceptable, I think there should be some sportsmanship and civility. Lets try some helpful talking points so we do don't go farther down the road of home invasions.
Should a flag be able to blockade an island ad infinitum regardless of their intentions?
Extra Credit:
If not how many times should they be allowed to blockade in a row?
Should a flag be able to blockade an islands ad infinitum if they do not want the island but only to spend poe and sink ships so their enemy is defenseless, defeated and spent?
Extra Credit:
If not how many times should they be allowed to blockade in a row?
What if they do not implicitly state they do not want the islands on a YPP forum?

Edit: Just for Fun
 
I took logic classes in university.

How well did you do? Because taking a class and learning something from it are not the same thing. Perhaps if you had paid more attention, you'd be able to make a better argument here. It's not nice to insult people for things you can't do properly yourself.

I did notice being called a hypocrite regarding the shoppe blockades, if you think that paying someone for items that they make a profit off of is attrition, you probably need to consult a dictionary. Or perhaps start a harassment thread, though I would argue the only ground for harassment is repeated actions and the repeated actions were only because there is no mechanism to buy in bulk, which I would have preferred. I won't discuss that here anymore btw as it is a complete derail.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 3 times, last edit by 123Jackpot at Feb 9, 2010 7:50:40 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 7:34:29 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
IantheKorean

Member's Avatar


Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 2864
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Ok seems we have a lot of people that have lost touch with reality and just want to flame. (Yes I know welcome to parley.) Lets start with a very simple fact:
Attrition is against the rules; as it is a form of harassment. I've had this confirmed by senior OMs.

In the case of CC vs. Cairna, it was ruled that if more blockades took place there would be OOO intervention. Also in this case we were lucky enough that the person responsible for the blockades went onto parley and said point blank, (not an actual quote but very close,) "I don't care for the islands I just want to blockade them until they run out of poe and ships so they can feel my hate raining down on them." Even with this direct admission; it took many weeks of many petitions to wrench an answer out of OOO.

Though this particular case may be closed the question that stands is; what exactly constitutes attrition and where are the limits?
People like sweetie may feel that complete anarchy within the blockade structure is acceptable, I think there should be some sportsmanship and civility. Lets try some helpful talking points so we do don't go farther down the road of home invasions.
Should a flag be able to blockade an island ad infinitum regardless of their intentions?
Extra Credit:
If not how many times should they be allowed to blockade in a row?
Should a flag be able to blockade an islands ad infinitum if they do not want the island but only to spend poe and sink ships so their enemy is defenseless, defeated and spent?
Extra Credit:
If not how many times should they be allowed to blockade in a row?
What if they do not implicitly state they do not want the islands on a YPP forum?

I did notice being called a hypocrite regarding the shoppe blockades, if you think that paying someone for items that they make a profit off of is attrition, you probably need to consult a dictionary. Or perhaps start a harassment thread, though I would argue the only ground for harassment is repeated actions and the repeated actions were only because there is no mechanism to buy in bulk, which I would have preferred. I won't discuss that here anymore btw as it is a complete derail.


Hey here's a crazy idea; take it to GD if you want the established game to be changed or any sympathy for your situation.

But to humor you; yes any flag should be able to blockade any island as long as they're capable of putting forth a reasonable challenge (ie contesting, and at least for three rounds). Whatever reasoning they might cite for blockading is irrelevant. If you start getting into intent as a cause for griefing, it opens up a can of really retarded worms. It would not be a good precedent.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by IantheKorean at Feb 9, 2010 7:44:58 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 7:44:27 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on)--It did! Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Hallelujah! Somebody with something to respond to!

 

What you've said in this thread is based on Cleaver's posts about Robertdonald and Scallywag Syndicate. The story behind Cleaver's posts is not the story behind the situation here. RD was not banned because of the repeated serious blockades against the same island, he was banned because he no-showed at 2 AM after a long period of repeated blockades, many of which weren't contested after round 1. The current situation seems to be that someone is fighting a 3 round blockade at normal times and showing up to attack.

If someone can blockade you every week with a legitimate attempt for the island, they are allowed to do so. At some point they will run out of funding to do so, especially if you're making it sinking.


That's a pretty big "if" at the start of paragraph 2 above. And it's the heart of the matter. Actually, I agree with you. "IF someone can blockade with legitimate attempts, there is no particular rule to stop them. But my contention is that it was not a legitimate attempt at the island. The opposing monarch admitted as much on the forums. These blockades ceased being fun once it became clear they would not ever be competitive, which was around weeks 4 or 5 for most of us.

Well, actually, I'm not sure sure I do agree, really. I checked the blockade history of all oceans since January of 2007. While I freely admit I may have missed something, I only saw one other flag face more than 3 straight PvP defenses. That was Imperial Coalition on Viridian in July-Aug 2008 with 6, a few of which they did not contest. A bunch had 3. Some of them even did an attack right before or right after. It seems like 4 is about that magic number when most folks want to take a break or the ocean shows a little mercy. So it's definitely a unique situation that calls for further exploration beyond just blithely saying "that's what you signed up for so deal with it". It's not really what anyone signed up for in practice because it happens so rarely. But it's definitely a much closer call than these set of 6---none of which saw shots fired in anger in round 3, none of which saw a round 4 (none were called early by the OMs), and only one of which had a sink ratio under 10-1.

 
If you are personally tired of blockading, I guarantee that there are ton of people eager to step into the critical blockade positions. Train up some new folks and have them defend the island to give yourself a break.

If blockades aren't fun for you anymore, take a break from them and come back in a bit. That's what I've done over the years with YPP, every so often I'll get burnt out and take a couple of weeks off and come back with fresh enjoyment of the game. There's no reason why this can't apply to blockades as well.


Where did I ever say blockading wasn't fun for me? On several occasions, I have said I don't enjoy kicking the crap out of someone any more than I enjoy getting the crapped kicked out of me. That's not unique to me nor is it unique to PP. It's not at all the same as not enjoying a "fun, fair, competitive blockade".

Again, this all happened 14 months ago and was made an issue elsewhere recently. I am tired of my defense responsibilities and I am giving them up voluntarily---now. We were still colonizing that island at the time. And it was important to me to see that through. It had nothing to do with being tired of blockading. It was all about being tired of having to go through the same motions each weekend with no end just because someone couldn't find a better outlet for his rage.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of repeating that. So can we dispense with the strawmen that I don't like blockades or am even discussing defending in a "fun, fair, competitive blockade" multiple times in a row? I'm not. They weren't competitive.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 7:46:59 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Talisker

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2003
Posts: 11261
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

The statement that you have confirmation that all of this was ZOMGriefing and was just about to be punished by OOO and the statement that the issue needs clarification from OOO because nothing was ever said in response to complaints at the time are completely at odds. One of them is clearly false.

If you've got the requested clarification, why not post it and be done with it?
----------------------------------------
Leif
The Forums
Gunnermooch wrote: 
I can't respond because I do not understand what the hell you are talking about. Sorry.

Av by Ecastasy
[Feb 9, 2010 7:51:24 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
123Jackpot

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 787
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Hey here's a crazy idea; take it to GD if you want the established game to be changed or any sympathy for your situation.

We won the petition and the war a long time ago. I seek no sympathy for a situation that was dealt with nor do I care to "whine" that we won in every way possible. Simply trying to gauge what is attrition to the level that OOO should intervene according to global parley. I think it's an interesting topic that is not related to having your house broken into, thats all.

Leif, I choose to keep the petitions private. The blockades were stopped and Dalnoth was unaware of the final verdict. There was however no clear statement where or how the line was crossed and what exactly the other side had done to warrant the intervention. So , the question of are Blockade of Attrition against the rules was never answered, rather one situation was dealt with.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by 123Jackpot at Feb 9, 2010 7:59:29 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 7:55:47 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
In the case of CC vs. Cairna, it was ruled that if more blockades took place there would be OOO intervention.


Why does this thread even exist if the OMs gave a ruling? If there were 7 blockades barely contested with the attackers clearly stating that they were out to make the game miserable for the defenders, and OOO says that if there were any more then action would be taken, it seems to me that 8 blockades is your magic number.

My view on what it would take for OOO intervention:
1) The attackers admit that they are out to make the game unfun for the defender
AND
2) The attackers provide a less-than-legitimate attempt on the island

Anything that doesn't meet both requirements should be dealt with through game mechanics such as war and sinking blockades. Eventually the attackers will run out of money/ships if the defenders are more skilled. If the attackers are more skilled, then they'll just win the island outright.

And if someone can provide a full attack every weekend against the same island, they should be able to do so for as long as they want, because legitimate blockades are always a good thing, no matter what the intent of the attackers is.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 9, 2010 8:02:35 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
OdorOfFrodo

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Posts: 4426
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
How well did you do? Because taking a class and learning something from it are not the same thing. Perhaps if you had paid more attention, you'd be able to make a better argument here. It's not nice to insult people for things you can't do properly yourself.

I got an A. And if you can point me out where I insulted someone for not being able to do something I can't properly do myself, I'll send you one of those stupid e-greeting cards. Or something that will tax my sanity.
----------------------------------------
Ecavatar by Ecastasy!
Talisker wrote: 
Obviously this calls for dressing up as Karl Marx.

[Feb 9, 2010 8:02:38 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
jenny

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Posts: 2960
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

I haven't read the entire thread. I will say this one thing though.

The internet is no longer JUST the internet anymore. People aren't as scared to say who they are to strangers on the internet, people are getting more personal to others in chat rooms, games, dating sites, facebook, myspace etc.

So, let me get this out right now. YPP is a game, to some it may JUST be a game, and to others... it IS game. We all have our own hobbies, hobbies we invest in and spend time on. We learn to grow, build, play, form relationships, and many other things. THIS is the internet. We live in a digital age now where jobs and relationships are formed online.

Here it is again.

The internet is not longer just the internet.

There are people here that take off work to blockade on a weekend. There are people that really invest in this game. So, yes.. it is a game. It should never come before family. But friends? Maybe their friends are online friends, Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, it can be if they never leave the house and see the sun, become unhealthy and waste away playing these games.

I have actually met many of the YPP players outside of the game (i hate the term "real life" because this is real life). My opinions of the game and the internet has changed greatly since I have been to the YPP meetup and my current romantic relationship is with a fellow YPP player. Times are changing, things are changing. Please, just realize that to some YPP is an investment. It is a hobby just like some of you make football, basketball, sewing, cars, movies, etc. all a hobby. You put money into it and you put time into it.

No. It doesn't justify some one coming in here and whining about every little thing when it doesn't go their way. But, don't tell them to get a life and that they have mental problems because they have an attachment to the game, or an attachment to some aspect of the game.

Thanks for reading my slightly off topic but yet on topic post.
Have a great day.
----------------------------------------
Hypnos wrote: 
I appreciate your (mostly) harmless habit of posting scantily clad pictures in Shore Leave threads.


Tokinjen/Dancinjen Everywhere!
[Feb 9, 2010 8:10:18 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

No answer is an answer. It might not be the answer you were hoping for, but it is an answer.
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 9, 2010 8:35:19 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 


My view on what it would take for OOO intervention:
1) The attackers admit that they are out to make the game unfun for the defender
AND
2) The attackers provide a less-than-legitimate attempt on the island

Anything that doesn't meet both requirements should be dealt with through game mechanics such as war and sinking blockades. Eventually the attackers will run out of money/ships if the defenders are more skilled. If the attackers are more skilled, then they'll just win the island outright.


That's a pretty clear case that fun, fair competitive blockades are not occurring but by this standard, if somebody just keeps his mouth shut, he can griefcade until the cows come home, especially on dub oceans with the potential of buying dubs if all else fails in recouping losses. It can be obvious to everyone that knows the particular ocean politically but as long as he doesn't admit it, anything goes. That just doesn't seem right to me. I think at some point, the second condition has to be able to trump the lack of the first one, somehow, some way. I don't have a really good idea as to how that would occur, I freely admit. Generally speaking, I dislike the notion of trying to define a recipe which bakes a griefcade. However, I dislike like the notion that anything goes far more. That covers one heck of a lot of ground, too much ground, in my mind.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 9:14:47 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
IantheKorean

Member's Avatar


Joined: Dec 29, 2004
Posts: 2864
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 


My view on what it would take for OOO intervention:
1) The attackers admit that they are out to make the game unfun for the defender
AND
2) The attackers provide a less-than-legitimate attempt on the island

Anything that doesn't meet both requirements should be dealt with through game mechanics such as war and sinking blockades. Eventually the attackers will run out of money/ships if the defenders are more skilled. If the attackers are more skilled, then they'll just win the island outright.


That's a pretty clear case that fun, fair competitive blockades are not occurring but by this standard, if somebody just keeps his mouth shut, he can griefcade until the cows come home, especially on dub oceans with the potential of buying dubs if all else fails in recouping losses. It can be obvious to everyone that knows the particular ocean politically but as long as he doesn't admit it, anything goes. That just doesn't seem right to me. I think at some point, the second condition has to be able to trump the lack of the first one, somehow, some way. I don't have a really good idea as to how that would occur, I freely admit. Generally speaking, I dislike the notion of trying to define a recipe which bakes a griefcade. However, I dislike like the notion that anything goes far more. That covers one heck of a lot of ground, too much ground, in my mind.


Nah one can only "griefcade" as long as island holders allow themselves to be "griefcaded." "Griefcade" is almost as stupid a word as you are a terrible poster, by the way.
[Feb 9, 2010 9:39:10 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

As long as the attackers try, that doesn't trigger 2. However, a no-show will get OM action because that's clearly against the rules. Just trying and failing miserably (on purpose or no) does not demand OOO action, unless it reaches that unknown threshold (I guessed 8 based on what you guys have said, but who knows, really) that the OMs think that there are just too many blockades in a row.
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
[Feb 9, 2010 9:44:16 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
msanthrowpe

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 4, 2004
Posts: 1316
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Generally speaking, I dislike the notion of trying to define a recipe which bakes a griefcade. However, I dislike like the notion that anything goes far more. That covers one heck of a lot of ground, too much ground, in my mind.


Someone else probably said this already, but since it's not sinking in, let's try one more time.

You own an island. You took that island by force. You have to defend that island the same way. There is no recipe here. If you don't want to have to defend week after week, get rid of the island. If you want to defend, shut up and do so. All you are really doing here is reinforcing what makes a lot of good players who make the game interesting and fun leave. I know Ianthekorean has probably told you this multiple times. I am sure he has, I've known him a long time now. He is actually responsible for making me respond to your stupidity. You are NOT being griefed even if the same people blockade you every week from now till Jesus shows up for round two. If they are putting in one boat, even a sloop, they are within the guidelines and it's a blockade.

Weeping baby Zeus, get over yourself and just play the game. Your posts look ridiculous, your logic is flawed beyond anything even Mr Spock could fix and you do belong in a sandbox with items that are not sharp and won't fit inside your mouth. You almost make me wish I still played a lot and had money to waste on a doub ocean just so I could blockade you till your eyes bled bright orange road paint.
----------------------------------------
Sailmaker


Death, but no sins.
Rumbullion tells ye, "ok sails I need to log, but remember, the liver is evil... it must be punished!"
[Feb 9, 2010 9:54:50 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Culiford,

Ok, fair enough. But what's a no-show? Do you mean a total no-show of not one ship on the board? Does sending in one sloop = contesting?
A WB? One frig? One frig at a time? Somewhere in there, there is a line that separates a sham attempt from a real one. It's a tough question because different conditions can alter where that line is. Maybe 2 brigs and a bag is where both sides top out to a lower pay cade over an outpost at an odd hour. Do that for a noon drop on a large island on a dub ocean, and it's not a real attempt.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by NickScorpio at Feb 9, 2010 9:58:29 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 9:57:11 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
msanthrowpe

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 4, 2004
Posts: 1316
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

A sham attempt at blockading is equal in value to the sham attempts at logic and reason you are making here.
----------------------------------------
Sailmaker


Death, but no sins.
Rumbullion tells ye, "ok sails I need to log, but remember, the liver is evil... it must be punished!"
[Feb 9, 2010 9:59:16 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
dalnoth

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 1492
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 

Nah one can only "griefcade" as long as island holders allow themselves to be "griefcaded." "Griefcade" is almost as stupid a word as you are a terrible poster, by the way.


You're one to call someone a terrible poster, from what I can tell you spend most of your time on the forums being bitter and perfecting that pissy attitude and superiority complex in every post of yours. Thats productive +++



In general.

IF THE RULES WERE DEFINED, AND ACTUALLY A POLICY BY THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE/RUN THE GAME. NONE OF THIS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DEBATED. This is like playing a board game where people make up rules as they go along, and then people claiming that it means X, Y, Z. Which is the entire point here. How the hell can anyone follow the rules, or know what is within the rules, when they aren't written anywhere. And no sorry, Silence isn't "good enough." When it comes to company policy.

----------------------------------------
Dalnoth
Novo tells ye, "Howtie removed me as a manager from her tailor, my wager swordfighting career is over :(."
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by dalnoth at Feb 9, 2010 10:28:29 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 10:25:01 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message    http://somethingawful.com [Link]  Go to top 
Culiford

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 24, 2009
Posts: 452
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

No ships at all is clearly a no-show. Anything else could be petitioned to the OMs for them to decide.

You can't draw a line and say "this is not a legitimate attack and is griefing" because some flags are just that bad at blockading (/me points at Iris on Midnight last weekend) that their "best attempt" is something far worse than anything any island holder can put together. I think the attackers had a brig and a couple of sloops and contested 1 round. That's not griefing because they tried their best, they're just bad. However, if Cold Steel or any other proven blockading flag did the same you could put together a decent case that it was griefing.

Everything has to go on a case-by-case basis for griefing (except for just straight up not showing). It depends on who's attacking with what force and on what the defenders think. If the defenders don't complain about it, it's not griefing because no one is being griefed.

EDIT:
 
IF THE RULES WERE DEFINED, AND ACTUALLY A POLICY BY THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE/RUN THE GAME. NONE OF THIS WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DEBATED.

Okay, so we couldn't debate it. How do you propose OOO goes about creating general rules for something as complex as a blockade that can actually be applied to in-game situations? Every case is different.

Also, clear rules mean that people will press right up against them and look for every little loophole which forces constant rule revision instead of forward progress for the developers (/me points at RD).
----------------------------------------
Culliford on the Cerulean Ocean
Prince of Universe A
----------------------------------------
[Edit 4 times, last edit by Culiford at Feb 9, 2010 10:44:27 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 10:26:18 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Culiford,

Yes, absolutely there are flags that just don't know what they are doing on every ocean. I don't think those flags should be punished, they should be educated. If they are not, and they continue to prosecute cades they have no business prosecuting, that's the fault of everyone that knows better and just doesn't try to help. So there is a good example of the difficulty in trying to define anything.

The case by case model of determining things presupposes fair and consistent judgment by the people making the decision. I guess I'm not prepared to say I don't believe OOO has that because there are definitely good OMs. But there are some bad ones, too. Maybe that's a different topic for a different day.

The closest thing I've seen to a hard and fast rule I like is PvP immunity after 3 straight weeks of PvP defense. Since Jan 2007, which is a strong statistical sample, that would have prevented blockades in two cases (6 total cades, the majority of which were not that memorable). I don't think losing that few blockades is the end of the world. I don't think that negates the option of removing an intractable opponent (thanks for the term, hahvahd, I like it) through weakening of resources. And it ensures the break that has been the practical effect of gameplay in the vast majority of cases in the last 3 years.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 9, 2010 10:57:46 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
123Jackpot

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Posts: 787
Status: Offline
Stop changing the freaking title Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
Okay, so we couldn't debate it. How do you propose OOO goes about creating general rules for something as complex as a blockade that can actually be applied to in-game situations? Every case is different.

There is already a rule that says an uncontested blockade is against the rules. Meaning that if the flag isn't seriously vying for the island it is greifing.
I say a flag that blockades an island with no hope of winning other than the other side being unable to defend (as a result of repeated attacks from the attacking flag) should be considered uncontested, not because they aren't vying for an island, but because they are not trying to win a blockade. They are merely trying to win an island while also trying to avoid legitimately winning a blockade. IMO that's as bad as not trying to win the island. The island and the blockade should be honestly contested.
I'd say that after three or four unsuccessful back to back attempts it is reasonable to assume the attacking flag knows they will not win a blockade pitted against the other sides talents and are merely hoping to find some other way to obtain the island.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 3 times, last edit by 123Jackpot at Feb 9, 2010 11:42:47 PM]
[Feb 9, 2010 11:39:44 PM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
sweetnessc

Member's Avatar


Joined: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 16105
Status: Offline
Re: Stop changing the freaking title Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

 
 
Okay, so we couldn't debate it. How do you propose OOO goes about creating general rules for something as complex as a blockade that can actually be applied to in-game situations? Every case is different.

There is already a rule that says an uncontested blockade is against the rules. Meaning that if the flag isn't seriously vying for the island it is greifing.


Actually, no. The rule is that not showing up to give your opponents something to play with is griefing.

The rule is most decidedly not that not vying for the island is griefing. (For the most flagrant example of this, cf. Ketchy Cubby, again, 2005, and post-RD's exile.)
----------------------------------------
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton

Sublime is shame.
[Feb 10, 2010 12:58:06 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Roleni

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 28, 2003
Posts: 4171
Status: Offline
Nou Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

The definition of "griefing" in YPP is pretty loose - and pretty generous. It's my opinion that all YPP players that call griefing on someone should experience 0.0 sector space in EVE or play WoW on a PVP server when outnumbered by the opposing faction by 10 to 1 (or some equivalent world PVP situation with the potential for plenty of experience in getting PK'd) and then come back and reconsider whether or not they even understood the concept of griefing previously.

 
Weeping baby Zeus, get over yourself and just play the game. Your posts look ridiculous, your logic is flawed beyond anything even Mr Spock could fix and you do belong in a sandbox with items that are not sharp and won't fit inside your mouth. You almost make me wish I still played a lot and had money to waste on a doub ocean just so I could blockade you till your eyes bled bright orange road paint.

I <3 you Sails.
----------------------------------------
Thalatta & others

Hera tells ye, "You got me so flustered by the spanking, I booched my chat response!"
Hera tells ye, "Purple is the most awesome colour ever!"
[Feb 10, 2010 1:12:43 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Fjandr

Member's Avatar


Joined: Sep 16, 2005
Posts: 688
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Disclaimer: I don't care about this issue one way or the other. On any given issue I've been as likely to be at odds with CC as support them, so please no knee-jerking assumptions. I'm not on anyone's side.
 
Don't like defending? Take islands and give them away, then you'll never have to blockade at a time that's inconvenient to you. That's the brilliance of the sandbox set-your-own-goal design.

Since nobody actually appeared to address this (unless I missed it or it was posted by someone whose posts I skip over), I thought I'd speak up on this point.

This is exactly what CC did. They gave everything away (in one way or another). This argument is not about protecting their win record, as there never appeared to be a viable threat to it in all these events. Worst-case scenario is that this is an attempt to save face over something that happened long ago. The only people who truly know are those who brought it up, but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't all about ego. If anyone does, at least be forthright about it an say so directly (I'm not talking about the people who already have, as I can read and know you already have).

For those too caught up in arguing minutiae to see what the actual desire is here: (Hank, please send me a PM if you disagree with this, since I won't be back to this thread otherwise)
People want clarification they feel they didn't get on an issue that is long dead. The answer will not affect their current gameplay because it does not, and has not for a long time, had any relevancy to their gameplay.

Yes, there are specific circumstances surrounding Cleaver's posts. There is also a certain amount of ambiguity in regard to how much those circumstances impact the particular meaning of choice phrases in those posts. There is also ambiguity as to how far OOO's desires have drifted since that time. Not a single person currently posting in this thread can make concrete claims about how those original statements apply to this situation, pro or con. Unless and until there is clarification posted, both sides are still 100% speculation, and both sides have logical arguments that support their respective interpretations. I know this is Parley, but responses from many parties (on both sides of the issue) who generally tend toward good logic and rational discussion have definitely cranked the rhetoric up toward 10.
----------------------------------------
Nemesis wrote "And by special request - it now auto-bans people who say "pilly" and "lucker"."

Fjandr
Captain of Yeyi Xoxocti Coatl - Emerald
Projects: Weathered Helm
[Feb 10, 2010 1:46:39 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
BobJanova

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 5008
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Any sort of rule whereby a contested blockade (i.e. the attacking flag actually brings in ships) can be deemed 'not good enough' and bannable just means that large flags (who can afford a 'real effort', i.e. a million frigs all the time) can't even be challenged.

I read the Yppedia page for the 'seven deadly sins' series and it seems that most weeks there wasn't even a blockade, so that isn't directly relevant to the question in the thread. On Viridian we had a flag repeatedly blockade TLM and push a pay war until it won (back in summer 2008) and I don't remember anyone calling griefing on it.

The only series of consecutive blockades on CC on Hunter was 6 by the same flag in late 2008. Six weeks. If that is 'attrition of will' then you really aren't enjoying the idea of island holding and you should let somebody else have a turn. (Either by not contesting the blockade at all, or letting other people within the flag organise it; I'm sure there are plenty of people who would have loved to be admiral, nav, JC etc in yorur crews.) None of them are listed in Yppedia as 'Beyond the veil did not contest', so see the first paragraph.

I think some people here are posting with too long a history in large, 'serious' flags and think that you shouldn't be allowed to blockade unless you can field 5 frigs and pay 2000/seg. Winning an island by causing the defending flag to outspend you for five weeks, misjudge you and not defend with full force on the sixth should be acceptable because otherwise no other flags will ever be able to take an island than those in huge alliance rings.
----------------------------------------
Bobjanova on Viridian and Malachite
Shops and stalls with fair and profitable wages for all: Jubilee, Napi, Chelydra
Stripped/Barely Dressed (Malachite)
Phantasm/Reign of Chaos (Viridian)
[Feb 10, 2010 5:46:13 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
NickScorpio

Member's Avatar


Joined: Aug 6, 2006
Posts: 2329
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Spending other people's time is a little like spending other people's money. It's pretty easy to see the need to throw around dollars that aren't yours. It gets more complex when its your money. People can talk about theoretical defense responsibility all they want but until they've lived it, they really don't know how they'd react. I sure didn't see it coming that the game would become such a grind. But it did.

Frankly, I don't give a crap if anyone thinks I'm a whiner for saying that. Or that I don't like blockades or I don't know game mechanics or whatever other kind of nonsense people want to peddle. Those opinions don't affect me nor do they change the fact that it's different when you live through it. I've been around the block long enough to recognize attempts to divert attention away from the real issues, even if those people are naive enough to think otherwise. We now have two cases that demonstrate that responsibility is not absolute, one well documented on the forums and one that may or may not be believed.

I think we can all agree that island ownership should be settled on the blockade board. Or at least I hope we can all agree on that. The question becomes at what point is that "settled". I don't that the point is necessarily one blockade. I don't even think it is two. When you beat someone five weeks in a row, it's pretty clear just who is better. I'm not going to get into the psychology of thinking you've 'won' if you're clearly getting lucky but I will say it strikes me as a hollow victory.

The point being made that island holders shouldn't get so attached to an island that they are unwilling to walk away swings both ways. There are plenty of islands available to attack on every ocean. Why shouldn't the attacker be the one to move on to an island they can actually earn? If they can't find one, why should they get an island? We're playing a game and in the game there are winners and losers. I'm firmly in favor of rewarding winners more than losers. Oops, there goes those darn illogical arguments--that winning should mean something.
----------------------------------------
Hankscorpio
[Feb 10, 2010 7:52:19 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

This is how the typical round in those blockades went:

Start of the round: CC sends in 8 frigs, BtV sends in 7 frigs.
After 10 minutes: All BtV ships have been sunk.
From 10 minutes through 1 hour: BtV decides to "regroup" for next round sending in no ships or 1 ship every 5 minutes for the rest of the round. CC has to choose to give their jobbers something to do and drain their resources on jobber pay, or ground hundreds of jobbers on land.

This happens three times each blockade for 6 weeks. I think there were a couple of rounds that were fully contested for 2-3 segments. Both sides have to explain to a combined >400 jobbers that they're helping them "win" by sitting on land and not being compensated for it.

I don't really consider that a fully contested effort. They were no longer real blockades. It became a challenge to see who could coerce the most number of jobbers to sit on land and waste their time for weeks on end, with the endpoint being one side running out of resources. I can certainly understand how that can become quickly unfun.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 3 times, last edit by vnork at Feb 10, 2010 8:25:59 AM]
[Feb 10, 2010 8:22:40 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
vnork



Joined: Jul 22, 2006
Posts: 1004
Status: Offline

Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

As an addendum to the above: I love blockades, but I hate jobber abuse. I hope anyone who's ever jobbed in one of my flag's blockades realizes that I put a lot of effort into wasting as few people's time and effort as possible.

To me, this isn't an issue of attrition of will to blockade, but an attrition of will to have friendly jobbers waste their time on your behalf and to buffalo independent jobbers into sitting on your ships. That's the real problem with "total" wars of resource attrition. It is often the case that doing better in the war involves yanking around jobbers in a way that I'm not really comfortable with.
----------------------------------------
[Edit 2 times, last edit by vnork at Feb 10, 2010 8:58:24 AM]
[Feb 10, 2010 8:55:55 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
cmdrzoom

Member's Avatar


Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Posts: 7327
Status: Offline
Re: Sweetie is a pretty cool lady (/me sees if this title catches on) Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Culliford wrote: 
1) The attackers admit that they are out to make the game unfun for the defender
AND
2) The attackers provide a less-than-legitimate attempt on the island

Hang on, so... by your lights, it's perfectly okay for me to try to make this game unfun for you, even drive you out of it, as long as I can demonstrate I'm making a serious/genuine/sustained effort to do so? o.O
----------------------------------------
Starhawk of Mad Mutineers, Azure
Catalina of Twilight's Sabre, Cobalt
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by cmdrzoom at Feb 10, 2010 9:03:28 AM]
[Feb 10, 2010 9:02:41 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
BobJanova

Member's Avatar


Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Posts: 5008
Status: Offline
Re: Blockades of Attrition: Yes or No? Reply to this Post
Reply with Quote

Seven frigates a round is not a real effort? That's not even a blockade of attrition, that's sending lambs to the slaughter. But if you want to ban that sort of effort, you want to ban basically all blockades. That's not even nearly a no-show.

Now don't get me wrong, it sounds like these guys were (to use a term from another thread) 'barrelstoppers'. But there's a difference between being barrelstoppers and griefing.

Yes, it is unfortunate that jobbers are a vital 'resource' for blockades, for a number of reasons. Blockades and islands need a serious overhaul if they are to be fun and fair. But that isn't a reason to ban anyone who tries and fails at blockading repeatedly.
----------------------------------------
Bobjanova on Viridian and Malachite
Shops and stalls with fair and profitable wages for all: Jubilee, Napi, Chelydra
Stripped/Barely Dressed (Malachite)
Phantasm/Reign of Chaos (Viridian)
[Feb 10, 2010 9:17:05 AM] Show Printable Version of Post        Send Private Message [Link]  Go to top 
Posts: 256   Pages: 9   [ First Page | Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next Page | Last Page]
[Show Printable Version of Thread] [Post new Thread]

Puzzle Pirates™ © 2001-2016 Grey Havens, LLC All Rights Reserved.   Terms · Privacy · Affiliates