There has been some confusion regarding a rule we had in the past that forbid players from “ruining rounds” of other players. This included things like excessive use of hard ops, killing new players off, and leaders using the rogue tag on family members they disagreed with (its namesake, I believe).
To be absolutely clear: this rule doesn’t exist anymore. Everything listed above is fair game. This is per the new version of the rules that went out in November 2016.
The reasoning for this is simple: diplomacy is part of the game and this rule, while well intended, teaches players that they can forego difficult discussions and instead use the staff as a shield when something happens to them that they don’t like. It’s staff-sponsored handholding, and I have no interest in encouraging that kind of dependency.
I have no plans to re-introduce this rule, but for the sake of discussion I would like to hear your guys’ opinions on this.
@Darrk tbh, if you need to set so many rogue tags in different fams, to me that’s a sign of disrespecting other playing styles.
I am not buying that 25% of your current fam started out with the intention to kill your fam. Seeing the names I get the feeling you just don’t like their playing style.
Suggestion to you fam. Vote for a different leader, loose 1 player, gain 5 actives
This is really disheartening to hear, especially since players aren’t able to delete. So in theory, if a player randoms into a galaxy with the intention of going resourcer and the leader says that if they don’t go banker they’re going to get rogued and deleted, this is ok? We’re promoting a “fall in line or you can’t play” mentality?
I would say promoting more of a “don’t elect leaders who play like that if you don’t like it” policy… it’s the way he likes to play. If you don’t like losing 20% of your fam because of it, vote for someone else.
That was my issue and why i took a stand… I also asked pie if he would place me somehwere else since i couldnt be just killed off and rejoin but pie said he wasnt able to and agreed id just end up back with darrk and probably killed off again…
I found it troubling and i agree i took it to far but im glad i kept the opp and being killed off rather then falling to his demands.
Sucks i cant play but i only has 5 weeks left of being somewhat active anyways
And all others gave up and gave into his do or die demands so im last one left haha
That’s a better way to put it, yes. It allows leaders and their families more freedom, and that won’t always be a pleasant thing but it gives players the opportunity to solve this problem for themselves.
I personally do not like the “change race or you’re out” leadership style but I think we should respect the players enough to let them decide for themselves if they are ok with it. Relying on a rule is forcing a play style down everybody’s throat.
This was surely a painful experience but it is not without lessons learned. I for one have more respect for @Malin for having stood his ground and will remember this if/when I have an opportunity in the future to play on his team.
On the flipside, @Darrk has earned some criticism from fellow team members for how he’s approached this scenario.
These lessons have long term value and affect player reputation in a way that wouldn’t be possible if we forced everybody to play nice. The Bara Rule kills the game’s depth.
So no, we’re not promoting a "fall in line or you can’t play” mentality, we’re promoting a “intra-fam diplomacy is an integral part of the game experience, and it isn’t always easy” mentality. It gives more weight to the relationships we build and therefore more meaning to the game experience.
