Fortress & Sumo United (FSU)

[Flex]

First of all, I wouldn't be representing SP in this committee. Insanity probably would or Aiphaton. Secondly, I don't "head butt" with sinewav.

Also this has nothing to do with how clans manage themselves. Let them handle who represents them in public. Seriously, bringing up who gets along with who is just silly.

As for other games and similar efforts; I've never experienced or even heard much about such committee's, but the difference is, clans/guilds were much more communicative with each other so the committee thing was pretty much in it's own unspoken way. All clans/guilds knew each other on an official line and each clan/guild had different level of friendship with others. Whether you were a leader or officer, you knew who to contact.

[Vogue]

Other games also have report functions. Global bans and bans from servers are much more frequent than in this game, although Z-Man has spoken against the use of global bans a lot of times.

[Acidico]

I really like this idea. Obviously, it will take a good deal of planning, but I think the end result would help a lot.


Maybe if someone transfers from one clan to another, they have to sit out the next ladle. That might discourage the immediate benefits of "stealing" members and clan-hopping. Maybe longer, but I think 1 ladle is sufficient. Should be neat to see what the product of this is.

[vov]

The problem with this is highlighted in your closing sentence. There is very little you can do to punish people in a game like this aside from "shunning" them (which naturally happens when people behave like dicks).

I totally agree with this. There is no better way of saying this and dealing with this. I do not respect certain players at all because they do behave like that. Everyone can decide for himself if, how, and with who he wants to play.
What would be the positive effect of an authority who tries to command players and subcommunities (clans, teams, etc.) around? I can't see one, maybe one of you people who want this can explain it to me. With this I mean the actually neutral players, not those who just want an easy way to command and harrass other players (the usual suspects; flex, liz, etc.). I do doubt this idea because these certain people are discussing this and they are known to have the intent to be "more equal than others" so to say.

No better example comes to mind than Baylife. Those players violated the trust of the community

Actually, what? People who decided to make a team and play a tourney. Equal to any clan's team, but outside of clans and the usual subcommunities. I do not understand how this whole big community was affected, only the small "clan" subcommunities were and every one of them dealt with it their way. That's how it works, and it works as well as the affected clan works. (if this sentence is not clear to readers, I mean that "bad clan = works badly", not "additionally the clan works")
P.S: This is a statement, I don't want to read your explanations and accusations on this. Just giving my opinion so that other people on this forum know there's not only your special view on stuff like this.

Other games also have report functions. Global bans and bans from servers are much more frequent than in this game, although Z-Man has spoken against the use of global bans a lot of times.

One of the games this is implemented in is League of Legends. The reported people usually do not change and come back (after the ban wears out or with aliases) with even more flaming. It doesn't work for that game, and I don't think it would work for this, especially since this is an open game.

Conclusion: I doubt this will work or is a good idea, for reasons stated in my 1st text block (the other blocks are answers to certain players). If there is the need for rules for tournaments (which some players here imply), make the rules for that specific tournament. And if so, ask all players, not only clans and their representatives. If players (or subcommunities) have problems with each other, they can fix that themselves. If need be, by ignoring each other, it works for me. If they flame, other people can tell them to stop or choose to ignore them as well if they don't. They don't need a committee for that. And, if players don't play in a team in which they want to play they're doing it wrong.

[sinewav]

Other games also have report functions. Global bans and bans from servers are much more frequent than in this game, although Z-Man has spoken against the use of global bans a lot of times.

The only way I could see it working is to make a closed system. The first step is the development of an organizational structure, the second step is the creation of a new authority. Teams and players must register with this new authority to play events, and this authority is the only one to be accepted. This makes it possible to blacklist people (literally) by denying their login (level 17 -- shunned!). Example: teams register and their captain gets voting rights, one of those rights is voting to accept new players (as a means to cut down on aliases, if we don't know you, you don't get a GiD). Of course, this would shrink event size and growth considerably. And that is the crux of the problem. This type of system is possible, but at a cost. Ultimately, we decide if it is worth it or not. This isn't too different than the Wild West "TR2n Origins" fork, which was not successful. However, it may be different enough that is serves the intended purpose, which is to dole out some sort of community admonishment.

[Vogue]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz vov, you're reaching.

Pr3 already explained how it would be positive, not sure how it's unclear at this point.

PS: Do we even need a system like this? Some of you should play LoL and see how bad their community is, and how cool this one is.

[Gonzap]

yeah we have little trolls compared to that. But also compare the number of players of each game, lulz.

Something has to be done, if it has to be a committee let it be. I'm up for it.

[Word]

Nothing against all the proposals here, but the question that is lurking in my head is if we really have to dignify every idiot with a new rule, or even a whole committee. Obviously we got so far that this has become a serious demand, but didn't we always get along without one? Maybe I didn't really follow recent events, so what exactly is the trigger for this topic?

I think most players that once did something stupid in tron still get mocked for it, and lowered their clan's reputation and that's punishment enough, especially if you're a clan/team representative and can't get anymore members because now you're the "hacker clan".

[Vogue]

The only thing that triggered this was some actions involving a certain clan, which made a few leaders speak out. If they deem it neccesary then it should be taken seriously, or perhaps what was said on SP forums, certain agreements can be made between clans as to not involve the community too much with this clan shit.

[Word]

Thanks Vogue.
So if this is about stealing members, I'll just copy and paste...(already added my 2 cents on phoenix forums), and link the thread.

Well, I generally agree with what Flex said, but to be fair SP (and CT, too) has always been in a comfortable position to be the moralizer when it comes things like that (until now, they didn't use that, thankfully), the players came to them automatically because they used to win. Now they have lost quite a few tournaments and it seems like they have to actually recruit players again like everyone else used to. For most other clans, pru included, it was daily business to deal with other clans which tried to get our players, or convince certain players of not joining our clan while they still were in another one, or convincing our own players to stay. Yeah, what Broken said is dumb, but Flex's reaction just makes me want to reply "welcome to my world".

Plus remember how ID and VcL kept blaming one another for stealing members and what the result was (deletion of ID's forums, VcL's popularity being sub-zero, even a fork game). Most of the fort clans didn't really seem to take that seriously (the conflict itself, not whether it's OK or not to steal members), but now we have the same problem anew. I really can't see any solution for things like this unless you eliminate the competitive aspect of your team, which is exactly what ID did (or claims to have done, as if it was a free decision by them). A committee would only lead to more problems since its members would be accused of being biased sooner or later, no matter if true or not. I'd rather leave it as it is.

[Flex]

I don't even really much like the idea, but if this is what it takes for clans to work together more, than I support this committee thing.

@sivewav you are taking this in a wrong direction. It shouldn't be closed nor regulated nor even an authority. Simply a committee for clans to directly work together in solving problems they all want to solve. This is all there is to it. There is no need for asking questions like how to handle a situation or what every detail should be. Let the committee handle it when they get there. The order of business is to first set up a line of contact between clans and teams to really address the issues everyone seems to be having. Fairness can be sorted when clans have sat down on the table.

Kyle can back me up on this, but a while ago; when I was the leader of SP (Yes I am not the leader any more, the chief officer is Aiphaton), I spoke to Kyle to confirm the unofficial alliance between SP and CT to always stay friendly and to come to SP in the event of a problem. This was meant to be expanded on, but it never reached. I've always thought the relationship between CT and SP have been strong and some sense I feel because of this.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz vov, you're reaching.

Reaching and very (wow we actually agree on something).

His whole post is biased. He is against this idea because of the people discussing this! Jee, how obvious can you be.

Seriously, you're always seemingly mentioning me looking for attention and you want to talk about harassment. Here you are actually trying to look down on me, as if you and I are comparable. As if you have made more or even the same amount of contributions to this game/community, as me. You're nothing but a troll and look what clan you're in; "Redemption", a reason why we're on this subject and look what stance you're in now, trying to make sure the community isn't in a dialogue between each other, oh and on the basis of what? Where does this stemp from? I have no bloody clue! Your hate for me come the same way you came from, out of the woodworks.

You even suggest that all it takes is to ask people to stop flaming and it doesn't require a community for that. Well here I am, asking you to get off my dick.

[Bytes]

Personally I'd prefer this to be some kind of mediatory committee as opposed to some kind of judging committee. I believe it would be more likely to be used and players would feel less like it was some kind of over reaching power trying to control them. Phoenix being a clan on neutral stance with most clans, I wouldn't really want us to get involved in judging other clans, but would be more than happy to be a neutral side in discussion.
This is of course my opinion and not a representation of the clan's.

[sinewav]

@sivewav you are taking this in a wrong direction.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I got caught up on the punitive aspect of it. So what is really needed is some sort of round table, a forum or some sort platform where each team/clan can have a representative. These representatives can work out their differences (which in some cases means airing out "dirty laundry") and work toward fostering cooperation. I guess the FSU should have a mission statement for all members to agree and adhere to.

When I think of it this way, I can see very interesting long-term benefits. So, am I correct to say first there must be a mission statement (or something like a treaty) and second, a place for members to meet? It could be like a mini-United Nations, haha. Tron Nation. Whatever forum there is, it should be public to view for the sake of transparency, but only members can post, one per team/clan.

[Word]

Anyone remember the round table 3d chat thing and tronkingdom? lol

[compguygene]

@sivewav you are taking this in a wrong direction.

Ah, I see what you mean now. I got caught up on the punitive aspect of it. So what is really needed is some sort of round table, a forum or some sort platform where each team/clan can have a representative. These representatives can work out their differences (which in some cases means airing out "dirty laundry") and work toward fostering cooperation. I guess the FSU should have a mission statement for all members to agree and adhere to.

When I think of it this way, I can see very interesting long-term benefits. So, am I correct to say first there must be a mission statement (or something like a treaty) and second, a place for members to meet? It could be like a mini-United Nations, haha. Tron Nation. Whatever forum there is, it should be public to view for the sake of transparency, but only members can post, one per team/clan.

To me, this is the only right concept. Punishment really should not be the issue. It should be more of an issue of communication. To have a formal roundtable for clan and team representatives to get together and air out any problems and differences would be of a positive value to the overall community. Had this been around during the ID/VcL disputes it may have been resolved a lot quicker without all the silly stuff that happened. To me this fits "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".