[mmiles8]

Originally Posted by Xzerion [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

agreements are all well and good, most us of would agree thats whats best. But what happens when one guild breaks the agreement? Whats that accountability look like?

Here's how policy was, by the book. I've trimmed the parts that are irrelevant like funny names and bad language, and bolded the parts that answer your question. Above all else, the point that I'd most like to illustrate, is that when this policy is enforced consistently - across the board, and to the letter - no one likes the RNG, and they choose to work amongst themselves to find a mutually agreeable solution.

8.2.3 Contested Spawn Complaints

When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested, a disruption investigation should first be initiated according to the procedures of section 8.2.2 to determine if harassment or Zone/Area disruption is occurring. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If another complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

8.2.3.1 The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

8.2 Disruption

8.2.1 Disruption is defined as any activity that is disruptive to the game play of others, though not necessarily with the intent to do so. Disruption has been sub-categorized into major and minor types.

8.2.1.2 Examples of Major Disruption:

Zone/Area Disruption – monopolizing most or all of the kills in an area rather than stealing from a specific player or group of players, deliberately blocking a doorway or narrow area so other players can’t get past, refusing to cooperate with the other parties at a contested spawn site after having been instructed to do so by a CS Representative

8.2.2 Disruption Procedures

8.2.2.1 Disruption is the most difficult problem to deal with, as the accused are frequently not doing it with the intention of disrupting, but simply having fun or behaving as they wish. The key to dealing with Disruption situations is to defuse them with as little customer aggravation as possible.

8.2.2.2 When a Disruption petition comes in, the process is as follows:
• Identify the complainer and the suspected antagonist. Document their character name, level, zone, and account name.
• Go to the zone in question, remaining invisible and anonymous, being sure not to tell
the petitioner you are coming.
• Bring a fellow Guide if possible, preferably invisible and /anon.
• Observe the behavior in question and that of those complaining.
• If there is no problem with the behavior as you and your fellow Guide see it, then explain this to the complainer and close the petition.

8.2.2.3 If it is not possible to distinguish which behavior is worse, the accuser or the accused, engage both groups.

8.2.2.4 If it appears that the accused is being intentionally disruptive,
• Gather information.
• Engage the accused, explain that their behavior is disruptive, and issue a warning. Tell the accused to stop the behavior, then disengage from the incident.
• Do NOT argue or debate the incident with the accused. Do not discuss the incident past what is required to explain the nature of the disruption to them.
• Take note of everything said by the accused and add it to the documentation.
• Record the incident in the abuse database and in the customer's soulmark (using the /warn command) for further review.

8.2.2.5 If the accused is obviously being disruptive, but not necessarily intentionally,
• Engage the accused.
• Attempt to convince the accused to cease the activity, explaining that it is disruptive.

8.2.2.6 If the customer becomes confrontational, treat the issue as if it were intentional, described above.

8.2.2.7 For minor disruptions, three warnings will be issued. The perpetrator will then be suspended for a minimum period of three days. For major disruptions, two warnings will be issued, followed by suspension for a discretionary period with a one-week minimum. The next major disruption offense following suspension for major disruption will result in the player being banned.

Yes, everyone will have their own personal anecdote of support staff who didn't follow protocol. There was a reason Guides were eventually forbidden from handling disputes, and plenty of GMs who got canned. But that's what happens at 8 bits an hour. Xev was a tight ship, and you can see what happens when it's run like one, from fastboy's post above.

Ok I'm done editing now.