User talk:Shadowstar

"I've been mad for fucking years, absolutely years, been over the edge for yonks, been working me buns off for bands..." "I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us have...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Speak to me

I don't like your sass boy, this my house. - MachinaeSupr3macy 20:15, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

GIRL!!!!! Shadowstar 20:19, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

no u - MachinaeSupr3macy 00:55, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)

erm..yeah, last week you borrowed my power sander, I need it back dude - Prophet

ooh, sorry, I'll just-- hey, wait, that was my power sander you borrowed from me three years ago!!! --Shadowstar 01:46, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Ummm... but that was MY racer you borrowed 4 years ago... [1]--Dougalo7 06:47, 11 August 2006 (BST)

You, uhm... uh... Okay, here. You take it. I think you need it more than I do. --Shadowstar 19:19, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Draft :: The Good Faith Accords

The Good Faith Accords are being created as an alternative to the CFT. Where the CFT is the UN, the Good Faith Accords attempt to be closer to the rules of the WTO. Rules here are meant to be open, yet binding, thus an attempt has been made to be inclusive to all groups within the realm of UD.

Agreements

Signatories of the Good Faith Accords agree to the following basic terms.

Bots

Definition: A bot is any player character that is controlled programatically.

Users will not use bots, nor condone the running of bots. Any botters uncovered by a group must be destroyed as soon as is possible. Relations with proven botters should be terminated, and signatories should do their best to uncover bots.

Multiple Characters

Definition: Multiple characters are characters that are controlled by a single user.

Signatories shall not condone multi-abuse. Two characters created and run by the same user should never be in the same place at the same time. Further, this treaty bans the following tactics.

User U has characters A and B. A attacks another character, C, then runs away. B appears later to attack and kill character C.

User U has characters A and B. A arrives in a location and destroys a radio, then leaves. Later, B arrives and destroys a generator.

User U has characters A and B. A is a zombie, but has not been revived for a while. B revives A.

Signatories agree that multi-abuse is banned for members, without regard to the group affiliations of the individual characters. All users must be held to strict standards with regards to multi-abuse.

Where a user is in multiple groups, the tenets of this accord must still be met. There seem to be several scenarios in which this might occur. These can be simplified into two categories relevant to the accords.

Each character that has joined a member group must follow the codes of conduct and the rules from the Accords, as applicable. If a secondary character joins a group that is not a signatory of the Accords, the user's obligations are to continue to follow the basic tenets of the Accord (those against zerging, multi-abuse, botting, griefing, and sportsmanship). If the user feels these obligations are too difficult to comply with while in the other group, they should leave one of the groups.

Zerging

Definition: One user creates a large numer of throwaway characters. This is differentiated from multi-abuse in that the characters do not need to attack or destroy anything. Such characters are not intended to gain exp or level up, but may be placed at revive points, amongst zombie hordes, or within buildings as distractions.

Zerging is strictly prohibited for users in groups that have signed the Treaty of Good Faith. If a zerger is found in a group, regardless of the group affiliation of the zerged characters, the group must take action until the situation is corrected.

Griefing

Definition: This needs a better definition. Griefing occurs when, for out of character reasons, one user attacks another user in hopes of destroying that player's fun, and ultimately in hopes of causing the other user to leave the game. This is separate from multi-abuse and zerging because a griefer may enlist the help of other players to accomplish his/her objective, and because it is accross all characters with the users.

Griefing is prohibited by member groups and users once they have ratified this treaty, however it is important to note that if in-character reasons can be given for a griefing-style attack, it will not be considered griefing. As a secondary note, it will not be considered griefing if the user under attack has been proven to be zerging or multi-abusing as per earlier sections.

Sportsmanship

Signatories will not accuse other players of Zerging, Multi-Abuse, Bot use, Griefing or other cheating tactics after a battle/siege on a public forum without explicit proof. Signatories agree to take our lumps while keeping an eye open for any and all cheating.

Signatories to this agreement will also never initiate out of game hostilities. The lives of the people out-of-game will be ignored for the purposes of in-game communications unless initiated by the other party. Groups that sign the treaty will always attempt to keep sportsmanship in mind.

Signatories will not tolerate threats of any kind (death threats, threats of physical violence, etc.) in out of character associations, though in-game character threats are tolerated within reason. Signatories will try not to become too worked up over out-of-character insults while meta-gaming.

Code of Conduct

It is not intended that this treaty governs all aspects of a group's membership or policies. This said, it is the intention of this treaty that each member group's policies are clearly and effectively communicated to other groups, and are followed within the group.

With this in mind, groups that sign this treaty shall have a code of conduct that is visible to other users of UD. This code of conduct, while being necessarily non-universal throughout treaty members, shall be followed by each member within the signatory group. It should be, or attempt to be, clear and comprehensive. Punishments should be detailed, including:

1. What is the punishment for zerging, multi-abuse and bots, or other cheating tactics not covered by this treaty?
2. What is the criterion for kicking a user out of the signatory group?

Further, policies on the following major issues should be defined and explained as necessary:

1. Intelligence Gathering (tools, spying, etc)
2. Use of Multiple Characters (minimum distance, number of characters allowed)
3. Stance on PKing, GKing, RKing (probably "not applicable" for zombie groups, PKer/non-PKer group status, etc)
4. ... other stuff should be put here when I think a bit more...

While this treaty deals mainly with issues surrounding outright cheating, it is important to note that it is a treaty. Groups which do not sign it are neither hampered nor protected by the Accords.

Comments Related to the Accord

Black Mask 01:27, 11 Aug 2006 (GMT)

Just some thoughts, in no particular order I'm afraid.

1. I think a definate defination of zerging is needed. And one that stops people going "I'm not zerging because my characters are in different suburbs. 3 blocks away." My personal preference (and the policy for my group) is a strict "one character per player" rule. But I do accept that's possibly more of a hardline stance than you may be looking for.

Some groups go for this, some don't. I've always thought that 8-10 spaces away at all times was sufficient to avoid zerging concerns, but that's just me. Our treaty with the RRF on this issue may be useful on this point, since it addresses full theater zerging concerns. Wait a second. What am I still doing posting on the wiki? *leaves* Enoch the Watcher 02:00, 11 August 2006 (BST)

The DEMs Policy on Zerging requires at least one complete suburb between any two alts. This could reasonably be considered as 10 blocks. I also believe a statement on meta-zerging is very desirable and goes a long way toward encouraging fair play. It also sort of addresses the core concern that leads some people to argue for just one character per player. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 18:05, 11 August 2006 (BST)

What do you mean by "meta-zerging?" (Sorry, I haven't heard the term before.)

It came up with the RRF many months ago, particularly as a concern with the CDF and the DEM who are very large organizations in which a player might have multiple characters (wich the RRF does, or at least did, not allow). The idea is that you could have two of your alts working against a specific group or purpose, such as the RRF, while not breaking the direct zerging rules of being in close proximity. We thought this was a very reasonable concern and is the purpose of point 4 in the DEM zerging policy to address. I also believed that the CDF leadership agreed with this policy at the time, so I'm a bit surprised you haven't heard the term. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 23:50, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I wasn't around when RRF was discussing things with CDF... I believe that RRF's been pretty quiet towards us since they changed leadership. That's hard to make a concrete definition for... hm. --Shadowstar 15:54, 16 August 2006 (BST)

2. Make it clear that threats of violence are only prohibited OOC.

3. OOC insults shouldn't be covered by this is people are posting in forums/subforums where flaming is expected. Anyone who comes and joins the rest of us degenegrates in DMES deserves everything they get.  ;-)

4. In addition to not accusing people of cheating without evidence, I also think that it should be against the treaty to accuse people of "griefing", unless there is actual evidence that they are targetting someone repeatedly for OOC reasons.

5. Recent events show that you need to look at what is and isn't acceptable in terms of in game propaganda. I'll certainly defend my right to put out the kind of counterpropaganda and false intelligence that I've been doing to the CDF. But I think we both agree the recent stuff was way out of order, even if the offenders attempt to claim it was IC.

6. A specific recognition that PKing is a valid form of gameplay would possibly get more PKer groups on board.

7. For some decent examinations of the spying issue I'd suggest starting with Siren's excellent article on the Red Rum site, if you haven't already.

Link please? --Gilant ^talk|DEM 00:01, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Red Rum's page uses frames I think... Go to Articles, then the one on Spying. --Shadowstar 15:54, 16 August 2006 (BST)

8. The tracking tool issue is a thorny one. I'd argue it imbalances the game too much to be sportsmanlike so I'd include it in the treaty. However, I don't think it's unfair for people to use a similar tool against people using one. And possibly their allies, though that's more controversial.

Obviously I'm a bit sensitive, and biased, on this issue. I'd first want to see a clear definition of what is intended by 'trackers', and what specific uses are considered potentially unsportsmanlike. For example, the various PK lists, including the Rogues Gallery have always included some sort of 'last seen at' functionality for people to report PKer sightings for bounty hunters to use. --Gilant ^talk|DEM 00:01, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Do you think that groups should define what they mean by tracker in codes of conduct, as there are different levels of what people might mean by tracker? I'm also rather biased and sensitive to the whole issue, and I will not ban them outright in these accords. I don't think they're cheating, so someone else can make a People Against Trackers or something like that. --Shadowstar 15:54, 16 August 2006 (BST)

9. A recognition that UD is an adult game, so some people will swear. As happens in genre. But that doesn't give people a carte blanche to say absolutely anything.

Here here! --Gilant ^talk|DEM 00:01, 16 August 2006 (BST)

10. Public code of conducts are a good thing. Some of the less wiki literate group leaders (by which I mean myself) may need some help with putting our groups on the wiki so we can do that.

Project Welcome is intended to provide volunteers for just that sort of help getting started. You can always (I'd assume) put the accords on your forum etc as well.

11. You also need to look at what happens if someone wants to sign up, but is a member of a group which can be shown not to follow these accords. Are they expected to leave? Do they argue from within to change it?

Wow, a lot of really good criticism, thanks. I'll definitely have to look into strengthening things there in certain areas. As far as trackers and spying go, I don't want to ban either of them-- what I want is for groups to say their policy on them. For example, CDF would probably say something along the lines of

• we like trackers
• we don't like spying, but if there is someone spying on us from another forum, we'll take defensive action

while someone from another group might say

• absolutely no trackers, and no spying
• we will work from within UD to ban trackers

Some of those points I have to give more careful consideration, especially point 11. I think I'm aiming this towards groups more than individuals, but it can still apply to groups with members in multiple organizations. 6 is a good idea, definitely... where to put it... 5 is also good, though I have no idea how to word that one. It should certainly allow you to put out counterintelligence and propaganda, while at the same time not allow crude, "FIRE" in a crowded theatre sort of stuff. Maybe if I write it along the lines of the US first amendment? 4 is excellent, as are 2 and 3. I think 1 is something that should probably be defined in the codes of conduct, because it is a grey area (the idea being, if it's in the code of conduct, other people can see it and argue, disassociate themselves from you, or agree with you). --Shadowstar 02:06, 11 August 2006 (BST) ++++++++++++++