Public Raid Petitions: P99 Freedom of Information Act

[Fael]

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

Remove respawns.

Full Repops only. People will spread out and less petitions over all since people aren't herpderping all over each other to get the one dragon that spawned early in his 16-hour non-classic window.

Nah.

[Tpar]

I'm not involved in raiding at this point, and its unlikely I will be any time in the near future. However, some things I would point out on this proposal, which I think is interesting and has some merit.

1) Yes, there will be some rules lawyering. There is already rules lawyering going on, and I don't think this will affect it one way or another. It might mean that the public petitions will have to be more "professionally prepared", if they are going to meet some sort of standard for being succinct and relatively brief.
2) There can be some "rules of conduct" established, that everyone who practices before the GMs are obligated to follow. That could include rules of procedure that include a requirement that an argument not raised in the initial petition is deemed to be abandoned. (Its a rule of law in real life courts that with rare exceptions. and argument raised the first time on appeal is generally not permitted).
3) The GM staff, it it turns out that guild officers are abusing the public process, could add a new forum for these special petitions, and could make them read only for most, and only allow certain people who have demonstrated that they will follow the posting rules, (i.e. not post frivolous petitions, have consistent and well prepared arguments, etc), to post on behalf of a guild. I know this sounds like lawyering again, but, there are reasons that all states require lawyers to be licensed.
4) I like the idea that the initial petition would need to have all the evidence attached, and once that has been received, the responding guild / individual would have a certain time to respond, and then the case would be considered to be submitted. The GM who is adjudicating the matter would then need to issue a ruling, hopefully within a certain time period, and yes, that ruling could be used as a precedent. However, just as in our current real life legal system, a precedent is not always binding. Often, an appellate court will note a similar case, and then come to a different conclusion. I see no reason why that couldn't happen here.

As I noted above, I'm not involved in the raiding system, but it seems to me as an outsider, that a public and transparent system makes a great deal of sense, as long as there is an established policy and well enforced rules of practice before the GM's.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Yes, to your point #1. The idea is that all claims must be included in the initial pleading. A little FRCP never hurt anyone.

also, abuse of process can easily be dealt with. Fines, raid suspensions, or forfeiture of a claim all would work.

[Derubael]

I'm a big supporter of public raid petitions, so long as they are done correctly.

For a long time I had no interest in this kind of system. There's plenty of little issues that could pop up, and it just seemed like a hassle. My opinion has completely changed, however, after overseeing a long period of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and outright bullshit that makes Sirken and I - and, by extension, the rest of the staff/server - look like biased incompetent assholes. I was naive enough to think that if we were patient, informative, and honest about our decision making process to a few individuals involved in the dispute, that our reasoning could - at the bare minimum - be communicated clearly and in its entirety without being skewed, improperly summarized, or straight up lied about. Obviously this is a pipe dream, and even players with the best intentions and respect for the staff can make these mistakes, especially when tensions are high or decisions are seen as wrong/unfair. As a result, I'd have no problem with public raid petitions, so long as a few things were set in place. The poster I've quoted has a good start:

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

1) It might mean that the public petitions will have to be more "professionally prepared", if they are going to meet some sort of standard for being succinct and relatively brief.
2) There can be some "rules of conduct" established, that everyone who practices before the GMs are obligated to follow. That could include rules of procedure that include a requirement that an argument not raised in the initial petition is deemed to be abandoned.
**#3 redacted, see below**
4) The initial petition would need to have all the evidence attached, and once that has been received, the responding guild / individual would have a certain time to respond, and then the case would be considered to be submitted. GM's (9/10 times it's both of us reviewing a dispute. rarely are they handled by just 1 GM.) would then give a ruling. However, just as in our current real life legal system, a precedent is not always binding. Often, an appellate court will note a similar case, and then come to a different conclusion. I see no reason why that couldn't happen here.

Replace #3 with specific rules on who can post in a given petition thread. This would be limited to one member of the petitioning guild, one member from (each of) the opposing guild(s), and Sirken/myself. Posts would go in a specific order:

1) Petition itself.
2) Defense from accused guild(s). If more than one guild is accused, each guild will now be able to defend itself, provide opposing evidence, etc.
3) Rebuttal from Petitioning guild (maybe put some kind of limit on this? could start with no limit and see what happens, placing a cap if needed)
4) Rebuttal from accused guild(s). Final post(s). The thread would be locked at this point so that only the staff could respond further.

Sirken and myself could post at any time. I feel like offering each side two posts total ensures we get it ALL on the table. There would definitely be times when we had other questions, but that's easy to fit in at the end. Something important to note is that in the end, we always reserve the right to make whatever call we feel is right and best for the server, so we're never going to agree to be bound by anything except server administration. Citing precedent is great, for example, but we could rule the complete opposite if we felt it was the right call (and this way, everyone would actually get to see why it wasn't being followed!).

This all boils down to one question (for me, at least): Is the hassle and inflexibility of an open system worth the reduction in misconceptions/tinfoilhats/false information? I say yes, but I also have a tendency to put too much stock in player perception. It's also important to note that most complaints come from a vocal minority that will never be happy with staff decisions no matter what. I've seen enough legitimate complaints lately, however, from people who were outright lied to or misled about a verdict, that i'd support a system like this if done properly.

I had already mentioned to Sirken and Rogean (and maybe nilbog too?) that I had a tentative +1 to a public raid dispute system done right. but it's not that big of a deal for me so it's not like I'm going to crusade for it. I wrote this just to show my support and outline what would, in my opinion, be a workable system. Good luck!

tl;dr? +1 from deru if done right because i care about each and every one of our players feelings. GL convincing other 3/4's of the senior staff.

[Ella`Ella]

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

I'm a big supporter of public raid petitions, so long as they are done correctly.

For a long time I had no interest in this kind of system. There's plenty of little issues that could pop up, and it just seemed like a hassle. My opinion has completely changed, however, after overseeing a long period of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and outright bullshit that makes Sirken and I - and, by extension, the rest of the staff/server - look like biased incompetent assholes. I was naive enough to think that if we were patient, informative, and honest about our decision making process to a few individuals involved in the dispute, that our reasoning could - at the bare minimum - be communicated clearly and in its entirety without being skewed, improperly summarized, or straight up lied about. Obviously this is a pipe dream, and even players with the best intentions and respect for the staff can make these mistakes, especially when tensions are high or decisions are seen as wrong/unfair. As a result, I'd have no problem with public raid petitions, so long as a few things were set in place.

Consistency would have abated all of this. There is also a stark difference between deception and perception.

[Alunova]

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

1) Petition itself.
2) Defense from accused guild(s). If more than one guild is accused, each guild will now be able to defend itself, provide opposing evidence, etc.
3) Rebuttal from Petitioning guild (maybe put some kind of limit on this? could start with no limit and see what happens, placing a cap if needed)
4) Rebuttal from accused guild(s). Final post(s). The thread would be locked at this point so that only the staff could respond further.

I was just thinking about this before I saw it was already posted. Limiting posts would consolidate the relevant information and could be used to negotiate a solution by admitting a mistake during rebuttal instead of hanging on to straws through 100 pages of "evidence".

Would be interesting to see if it improves things. I'll support anything that makes life easier on CS staff.

[Raev]

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

Remove respawns.

Full Repops only. People will spread out and less petitions over all since people aren't herpderping all over each other to get the one dragon that spawned early in his 16-hour non-classic window.

Yes. Lets work on making the raid scene FUN.

[Lictor]

Removing MQ solves the major of those problems listed without lawyer questing buzzwords

[Nuktari]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Juntsie]

Juntsie tink dis proposal incredibly unwise, not classic, and create burden on GM. It not classic cuz raid dispute on project 1999 taken too seriously by people wit big neckbeard, up to point where artificial procedure allegedly needed to control neckbeard population and keep peace.

Raider forget dat GM graciously volunteer time, and should not be expected to review voluminous materials to render perfect ruling. Raid not matter so much that dere should be petitions, briefing, public posting, and loads of other boring written crap to sift through in effort to render just ruling. Ruling should be made with minimal effort based on simple undisputed facts, preferably in-game, like on classic. If raider disagree over ruling, dey go farm more tings for 6th alt and cry river of eternal sorrow.

Juntsie always thought dat putting all mobs on equitable rotation with no class distinction best resolution to raid problems. If player want competition, go bash on red, where no silly rules exist, other than bash best, which is good, predictable rule. Dis not purely classic, but it much more classic than current raid drama. Juntsie tink it fitting dat he see beautiful raid screenshot of red playas actually bashing down to Trakanon. Cause single tear of joy.

Regardless, Juntsie advise OP to set boundaries between professional training and online bashing. It lead to more fruitful, enjoyable endeavors.