The pampered experience group (deferential players and forward GMs)

[cd288]

I'm still somewhat confused about what you're saying should be done here. A lot of the examples you cite are from the very early days when the PnP was still being fleshed out. As someone who was part of the CSR team back in the day, I can tell you two things.

1. Prior to the PnP being put in place, the CSR rulings varied depending on the server (and at times depending on the specific individual handling the petition). So there were certainly plenty of instances where CSR members would intervene in situations.

2. Post-PnP I think you might be mis-remembering a bit. CSR members frequently intervened in camp/kill-stealing situations and adjudicated a solution. Telling the players to "figure it out themselves" wasn't the response because if they had been able to figure it out themselves there wouldn't be a petition. They needed a CSR member to step in and enforce how things should be done, whether that be to expel someone from the camp for being a jerk and KSing, split the camp between the two people, etc. And we had some flexibility as well. I.e. if they hadn't been able to solve the issue prior to petitioning because one party was simply being a total jerk unwilling to compromise at all and being like "lol ok petition me then" I would often just tell that person to get lost and award the camp to the people they were being a jerk to.

[Llandris]

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

[cd288]

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

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

There ya go. Thanks Llandris.

Side note, how old is that book? lol

[Baler]

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

http://i.imgur.com/YExuN4l.jpg

lol that's great

[ELance]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm still somewhat confused about what you're saying should be done here. A lot of the examples you cite are from the very early days when the PnP was still being fleshed out. As someone who was part of the CSR team back in the day, I can tell you two things.

1. Prior to the PnP being put in place, the CSR rulings varied depending on the server (and at times depending on the specific individual handling the petition). So there were certainly plenty of instances where CSR members would intervene in situations.

2. Post-PnP I think you might be mis-remembering a bit. CSR members frequently intervened in camp/kill-stealing situations and adjudicated a solution. Telling the players to "figure it out themselves" wasn't the response because if they had been able to figure it out themselves there wouldn't be a petition. They needed a CSR member to step in and enforce how things should be done, whether that be to expel someone from the camp for being a jerk and KSing, split the camp between the two people, etc. And we had some flexibility as well. I.e. if they hadn't been able to solve the issue prior to petitioning because one party was simply being a total jerk unwilling to compromise at all and being like "lol ok petition me then" I would often just tell that person to get lost and award the camp to the people they were being a jerk to.

It would be nice if you drew some relationship between this and the point of my thread. You seem to be trying to undermine what I am saying though, so I will spare a few lines. My knowledge isn't first-hand, it's from continual examination of Usenet. I did great research for this when I argued the point a while ago, but I don't have the sources any more. Yet I will find a few more, since you are questioning the wholesomeness of my assertion.

"A group of us were working a spawn site.
Another group shows up and they take the next kill while we were medding.
An arguement then ensues about what the rules are about sharing
spawn sites. First group says that whoever gets there first OWNS the site
and does NOT have to share with people who arrive later. Second group says
first group must SHARE with those who arrive later.
A HUGE competitive kill stealing contest then erupts
One person calls a GM. The GM arrives and just says that everyone has to
work it out themselves and he then proceeds to force every mob that
spawns to commit suicide. Both groups continue to argue for 30 minutes
while every mob spawns and instantly commits suicide. GM finally calls the
HEAD GM for the server who arrives. HEAD GM talks to certain
people for 30 more minutes telling them they must come to some argreement
but
REFUSES to say what that agreement should be. Meanwhile everyone else is
standing
or sitting around for an hour watching the mobs commit hari kari.
Finally everyone agrees to share the site and GMs leave." 11/12/99

Actually this one example should be enough. The GM and head GM waited an hour for players to work things out themselves. They did nothing in the dispute, and it is likely (from other evidence) they were there because of the kill stealing, not the petty argument about who owned what. I have not seen much evidence in '99 that Sony acknowledged camps.

As to the play nice policy, since we are being so factual, rather than speaking of general truths, that was about a month before Ruins of Kunark, a year after release of Everquest. The pertinent part of that, as someone wrote, is "anyone needs to share a camp with anyone who comes along wanting to hunt there too." Your comments show again as I wrote before the erratic behavior of various such enforcers, and testify to the advantage of their absence. Your arguments about jerks and people getting lost show your emotional attachment. I wouldn't let you on a jury, or be a judge. Maybe a traffic cop. Something simple.

[M.J.]

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

Your arguments about jerks and people getting lost show your emotional attachment. I wouldn't let you on a jury, or be a judge. Maybe a traffic cop. Something simple.

LETS BE CONSTRUCTIVE GUYS, ALSO YOU'RE ALL FAGGOTS.

But seriously, without shrink in for a spell (heh), the talk about rooms being the "camp" is bunk. Go claim a room as a group of fatties in SolA, that shit is like the clown car olympics.

[ELance]

It is sad how many disrespectful or off topic replies are in this thread. Even a GM answered my post with a picture, with no comment. Yes it does appear Project '99 uses the Play Nice Policy as its model, but it does not. Camps are enforced on Project '99, they were not in Everquest, from March 2000 (the month of the Play Nice Policy, about) and later. GMs do not make people share camps on Project '99, they define them. For instance the pond in Mistmoore is a camp. There is no sharing of that (How do I know? Don't ask. I do). But you know when I made this post, it didn't depend on any certain evidence to support it. The attitude of some people on this message board is hideous, they have no respect for their fellow man. How can you call yourself civilized when you answer five paragraphs with one sentence, or a picture, for heavens sakes? This person is a GM? It is hard to understand how some of these people think, or if they do.

I will resist all attempts to make me into a pedant by disrespectful people. If this means I need to killfile them then I will.

And where is that report button? The FAQ says there is a red report button on the message boards somewhere for objectionable content, but I don't see it. At least two pages of irrelevant posts can be cleared out of here.

[Cuktus]

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

"A group of us were working a spawn site.

Another group shows up and they take the next kill while we were medding.

HEAD GM talks to certain people for 30 more minutes telling them they must come to some argreement
but
REFUSES to say what that agreement should be.

"I want to be able to steal a camp and that be okay" is what you are trying to say. No.

[workbench]

I think its reasonable, given the differences of classic and p99 (e.g. no subscription) that the Policy be different. We are talking about people here, not a game mechanic. I'm sure at the time, verant wanted to enforce their policy a certain way because thats how they wanted to build their community. Same thing for the P99 staff now, and because we have years of knowledge to update a Policy with.

On another note, seems like the GM responded quickly but what I don't see in your post is the outcome. Not trying to be combative here, but I also don't see examples of P99 GMs besides your own (which would help if you provided those.) If volunteer GMs are responding quickly to disputes thats awesome. If the outcome is not consistent with the Policy, then that's another problem.

[kotton05]

In the Sirken era you could just doctor some recordings essentially framing people into being suspended.

Depends if you get a GM or the elf police.