Cultural Lotting Changes, now with no risk of being closed

[Korpg]

Started in this thread

Original Post, as edited today, June 28th, 2011:

The BG "Warning" Section is really little more than a place where people who have done shameful, shady, or cruel things repeatedly are shown to warn others of their misdeeds. Its not meant to be a halt to their progress, It simply stands as a warning to be cautious with said people as in the past they've done bad things.

When I saw this quote, it made me think why some cultures believe they need to be judge and jury over other people. What is shameful, shady or cruel to some, might just be a cultural difference to others. "People Stole my item", is often quoted as a reason to name and shame. But isnt it just that person played by the FFXI rules and used the FFXI lotting system to get what they wanted. Nothing shameful there. It would seem some people believe they can make up rules that are not enforceable by GM, SE or anyone else and if other people break these rules, it is their given right to name and shame people so other are warned about them. But what did they actually do that was wrong? Play by SE rules. Is it the fault of the leaders by introducing none game rules? Maybe those leaders should go on a name and shame board for not sticking to SE rules.

Is it that people believe the lotting system need to be overhauled so that Leaders have to right to assign "winnings" to people? If you could change the lotting rules how would you do it?

As this was a good topic until katz closed it to save face, I'll start a new one to open arguments to it.

My opinion on the matter:

Linkshells have rules for a reason. It is to encourage cooperation among like-minded people into doing a series of battles to split the rewards as evenly as possible based on the degree of participation of the individual members. It is based on both group-oriented thinking and individualistic qualities to create a harmony among different cultures and ways of thinking.

People who break those rules are the ones who have a reputation among the servers as one who would "steal" items for their own personal amusement. Since they are not limited to one "world" there are message boards across a separate forum to pronounce such acts of "thievery" to warn other players to be cautious of such people. One such player who is notorious of such acts has gone by the name of "Futchy/Deemos/Pewpew (current to date)" among the servers. Such a person needs to be shown among peers to steer clear of such a person, but regrettably, this method would only work if everyone looks at such information the same.

I think that katz wanted there to be understanding of the word "shame" among different cultures, but I could be mistaken.

Any thoughts?

[Valaris]

awsome that you made a thread where people can continue this discussion. but no the lotting system does not need to be over hauled simply because it was put into place for the community to create their own system of lotting. proof of this is when you agree to lotting terms and then you break that agreement if you did win the lot and got the item the person you stole it from can call a gm and if the gm does find that you agreed to those terms before the run then he will take the item from you, and if its a tradeable item he will make you give it back or suffer disciplinary action such as temporary suspension of your account. seen this happen alot in dynamis shells when people try to ninja gear and 100 peices.

[Korpg]

I'm interested in having katz reply to this thread too.

I want to debate on the concept of the need of law (a fancy set of social rules if you wish) with him/her/it.

[Bagel]

If you agree to a set of rules, then break those rules, you are either stupid or selfish. In either case, I want nothing to do with you as I'm sure most folks wouldn't.

I will say that lotting out of turn was praised once way back when RMT were gearing up on Leviathan. They were doing an ohat run, because in 2005 if your nin didn't have an ohat and SH, they were gimp. Somehow a player got in with their group and proceeded to deny them their ohat by lotting it at the last second. Much lulz were had, because they were RMT.

[Korpg]

Please read the previous forum question and answers and add any additional debates to the frame

I did. You stated that there is no such thing as Ninja Lotting or Stealing because SE didn't have a rule in place stating so. You also stated that Linkshell rules are not enforceable because SE didn't make a rule stating that LS rules are enforceable. That you can find starting in the middle of the first page and continues onward until you closed your thread.

So, reply to that please.

[Kimble]

Linkshells are a social network. Social networks have their own rules. If said person does not wish to agree to that social networks set of rules, they arent forced to be in that social network. The end.

[Korpg]

As you read in the previous comments, it was refering to people who make up rules that are not enforceable and a reply to why they didnt want SE to make it more allowable for linkshells to change the linkshell menu to display their rules.

Make up rules to join my club. If you don't like the rules, don't join my club. Simple as that.

Some rules that linkshells use are too big for there to be a menu included too. Also, by having SE impose a set of rules limits the types of linkshells that can be used, which also limits the creativity of said linkshells and their members. What happens if a linkshell that was social for a few years decides to become an abyssea shell? That is a huge change, and usually happens based on the linkshell's website, but having it enforced in a menu is too much.

Also, how is SE going to determine who gets what based on programming? You are asking each linkshell to have their own "judge" from SE, and considering there are thousands of linkshells out there, that is a lot of judges to hire from SE. Not a good way to cut costs, isn't it?

There seemed to be no support for system changes to lotting to allow linkshell leaders or alliance leaders or party leaders to have the right to be able to allocate drops to people using the existing p0-9 etc to allocate treasure drops.

Because there doesn't need to be a support system? If somebody steals an item from the linkshell, the leader and/or sackholders have an automatic "kick" function to remove said player from the linkshell. Simple as that.

Instead it became a debate about rules and rule breaking instead of looking at what I was trying to achieve, mechanisms for leaders to stop this happening in the future.

Again, don't like the rules of the shell? Don't join it. I would be more worried about a linkshell that doesn't have a set of rules to go by than one that has a strict set of rules. Too much butthurt going on in that first linkshell if you ask me.

What you are asking is something that doesn't need to be fixed, like SMN spirits.

[Greatguardian]

All I saw was complaining about BG having a warning section.

Is it judgmental for people to deny you access to their linkshell after you've Quartermastered a Riddil from someone else? Possibly.

Is it somehow unethical to inform people about it when you Quartermaster someone's Riddil? Hell no. No one is serving as Judge or Jury in BG player warnings. The primary reason for the entire subsection is to keep people informed about what legitimately bad things people have done.

I absolutely do not see how anyone can have a problem with the populace (or a percentage of it) being informed when people ninja lot or steal unless it is negatively impacting their own reputation. Is it really so outlandish to think that people should be forced to stop and think about the consequences of their actions before stealing from people? Or that said consequences should be enforced when people are guilty of stealing from others? In this case, the consequence being that everyone knows you're a thief.

Warning threads have gone away, too. When there is a legitimate misunderstanding, or a legitimate mistake, and the player being warned about makes amends with the group that was slighted and pays them back such that both parties are mutually satisfied, then warnings get closed.

I've seen threads about players who jumped servers forgetting that they had a friend's Kraken Club on their mule. Of course they were warned about as KC thieves. But when they realized their mistake, they got in contact with the owner of the KC and paid the server transfer fee to have them make a mule on his server and transfer it back to theirs with the KC in tow. The KC was returned, both parties were civil, the warning went away.

You don't get a warning stuck on you unless you find a way to earn it. And even then, it's up to the individual judgment of whoever you're dealing with what sort of stock they want to place in said warning.

In the end, that's all they are. Warnings. They spread information. They don't stop anyone from inviting you to anything. They just let them know that you've been a thief before so that they can use their own judgment in dealing with you.

[Tamoa]

In real life, if you cut in line ahead of 10 (or however many) other people, you aren't breaking the law. You will not go to jail for it. But you are breaking a social rule and you will upset people.

In FFXI, if you ninjalot an item in the loot pool, you aren't breaking the game's ToS. You will not get banned for it. But you are breaking a social rule and you will upset people.

If you keep breaking social rules, you will end up an outcast with a horrible reputation. Both in real life and in FFXI.

[Greatguardian]

See this is why I closed the other thread its not about what rules you write its about how they can be applied better. Sadly no one wants to apply them better they would rather just complain about it.

The rules now are player-made, player-enforced, and player-driven. Anyone can make any rules they want. As long as people are informed and consent to those rules, they become legitimate.

Does this mean people can get ripped off by really crappy rules? Yes. Simple solution? Don't consent to really crappy rules and find someone else to work with.

Any rule set people make, be it DKP or leader assignment or whatever the heck else, is going to be far more complicated than the FFXI client can hope to handle. Keeping them separate from the game has always allowed more freedom in concept, and in implementation. I have no problem with the way things are now.