Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

UniDyne
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 19 Apr, 2013 04:49
Reputation: 0

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby UniDyne » Fri 03 May, 2013 06:24

Blob was clearly marked as the astro contained "BLOB". Player fleet was incoming, but had not landed. The 4M lost was the fleet already landed. Certainly we aren't suggesting that BLOBs only exist once fleet has LANDED. We only just started blobbing because of the pact and we aren't even given a chance to put it into practice? It was not DMTNT's policy to blob before this. Perhaps it was best.

Reliance
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu 25 Aug, 2011 17:58
Reputation: 0

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Reliance » Fri 03 May, 2013 13:10

UniDyne wrote:Blob was clearly marked as the astro contained "BLOB". Player fleet was incoming, but had not landed. The 4M lost was the fleet already landed. Certainly we aren't suggesting that BLOBs only exist once fleet has LANDED. We only just started blobbing because of the pact and we aren't even given a chance to put it into practice? It was not DMTNT's policy to blob before this. Perhaps it was best.


As far as I know, there were only 9 DMTNT players there when it was hit. Had I known about the hit ahead of time, I probably would have suggested it not be made, out of prudence. However, the pact defines a blob as a significant percentage of 10 or more players' fleets at one location. Given there were only 9 fleets there, the hit on that grouping of players was not a violation of the pact. I'm also not sure that it was a significant percentage of even those 9 players' fleets, but it was only 9 regardless.

I know nothing about what was or wasn't inbound, since all I've seen are the BRs from the attack. Unidyne, you may be right that this is a problem in the definition of "blob" in the pact and that it needs to be amended, assuming this pact is renewed, in the next version to make clear it also includes inbound fleet. But I can see how that could be easily abused. And I don't know what Fate or any other guild would make of such a change -- I'm just saying, it is an ambiguity that may need to be addressed.

Regarding kakarot's earlier post re: seeing Fate v. DMTNT hits on the ticker, right now there is no war between DOA and DMTNT. It begins May 6, per Kragen's war declaration, so both guilds are fair game for all other guilds until then.

After May 6, as far as I can tell, the only legal targets for Fate (and TE, for that matter) will be ~UD~, any guild that hasn't signed the global pact, and possibly whatever bases we already are holding as perma-occs in the galaxy we are blobbing in (though we couldn't take new bases that would otherwise be off limits, at least in my reading of the pact -- again, an ambiguity). Which points up another serious problem with the pact that Sorrow alluded to in an earlier post.

Reliance
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu 25 Aug, 2011 17:58
Reputation: 0

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Reliance » Fri 03 May, 2013 15:17

Let me say one more thing, which I should have included in the first post --

I can see how, from a certain perspective, this might look like a letter of the law vs spirit of the law issue. So, I apologize to DMTNT for what appears to violate the spirit of the new server pact. As I said in my first post, had I known about the attack before hand, I would have told pennywise not to make it. Now that it's done, after the fact, the truth is it did not violate the letter of the pact. But I know that is cold comfort for DMTNT.

At the risk of actually using this forum for its intended purpose (i.e., politics), I guess I'd ask what DMTNT would like beyond an apology? I'm not sure there is much we can do within the rules of the game, and since I don't actually think this is a violation of the letter of the pact, I'm not sure we should have to do more, but I'm willing to listen.

But -- and let me be clear on this point (are you listening, Noise and SL?) -- the pact assumes and requires that the guilds involved will try to play under its new rules in good faith without exploiting loopholes or abusing bugs. While Fate as a guild didn't do that (because we didn't as a guild do anything -- this was an attack by an individual player without leadership's knowledge), good faith requires that guilds try to adhere to the spirit of the pact as well. So, hopefully DMTNT will take this as the apology that it is and we can move on.

User avatar
Kakarot
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: Thu 16 Dec, 2010 22:36
Reputation: 39
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Kakarot » Fri 03 May, 2013 18:11

Well can I just add, get better people to write up the pact. Either get a person from each of the guilds, nominated by their appropriate leadership, to be part of the discussions and their job will be scrutinise the pact for any loopholes or flaws thus making it better. Or, just send them an overview of what should be in there and they will send a final edition to leaders of the guilds in the pact.

Give me a minute, I'm good. Give me an hour, I'm great. Give me six months, I'm unbeatable.
UniDyne
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 19 Apr, 2013 04:49
Reputation: 0

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby UniDyne » Fri 03 May, 2013 22:01

Reliance wrote:I can see how, from a certain perspective, this might look like a letter of the law vs spirit of the law issue. So, I apologize to DMTNT for what appears to violate the spirit of the new server pact. [.....]
At the risk of actually using this forum for its intended purpose (i.e., politics), I guess I'd ask what DMTNT would like beyond an apology? I'm not sure there is much we can do within the rules of the game, and since I don't actually think this is a violation of the letter of the pact, I'm not sure we should have to do more, but I'm willing to listen.
[....] So, hopefully DMTNT will take this as the apology that it is and we can move on.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the issue. That said, it is the opinion of DMTNT leadership that the serverpact as written provides only minimal protections (if that) if it is to be interpreted in letter rather than spirit. It is also our opinion that the pact should be revised such that less is open to interpretation, the intended spirit is preserved, and measures for recourse/remediation/penalty are put in place. Without the latter, the pact is merely words. I would encourage the other signatories to provide suggestions. Not to disrespect you, Reliance, but the pact is entirely the creation of Fate. It's understandable that many do not think it is worth the bytes it was written with.

Reliance
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu 25 Aug, 2011 17:58
Reputation: 0

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Reliance » Sat 04 May, 2013 18:59

UniDyne wrote:
Reliance wrote:I can see how, from a certain perspective, this might look like a letter of the law vs spirit of the law issue. So, I apologize to DMTNT for what appears to violate the spirit of the new server pact. [.....]
At the risk of actually using this forum for its intended purpose (i.e., politics), I guess I'd ask what DMTNT would like beyond an apology? I'm not sure there is much we can do within the rules of the game, and since I don't actually think this is a violation of the letter of the pact, I'm not sure we should have to do more, but I'm willing to listen.
[....] So, hopefully DMTNT will take this as the apology that it is and we can move on.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the issue. That said, it is the opinion of DMTNT leadership that the serverpact as written provides only minimal protections (if that) if it is to be interpreted in letter rather than spirit. It is also our opinion that the pact should be revised such that less is open to interpretation, the intended spirit is preserved, and measures for recourse/remediation/penalty are put in place. Without the latter, the pact is merely words. I would encourage the other signatories to provide suggestions. Not to disrespect you, Reliance, but the pact is entirely the creation of Fate. It's understandable that many do not think it is worth the bytes it was written with.


Just to be clear, this pact was not "entirely the creation of Fate". It's not even mostly the creation of Fate. It is a heavily negotiated document reflecting the input and agreement of the top five guilds. Heck, most of the language was consensus drafted more than a year ago in negotiations then, bu started from an xi draft.

Not sure it matters, but nobody should think this is Fate's alone.

User avatar
Kakarot
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: Thu 16 Dec, 2010 22:36
Reputation: 39
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Kakarot » Sat 04 May, 2013 23:25

Reliance wrote:
UniDyne wrote:
Reliance wrote:I can see how, from a certain perspective, this might look like a letter of the law vs spirit of the law issue. So, I apologize to DMTNT for what appears to violate the spirit of the new server pact. [.....]
At the risk of actually using this forum for its intended purpose (i.e., politics), I guess I'd ask what DMTNT would like beyond an apology? I'm not sure there is much we can do within the rules of the game, and since I don't actually think this is a violation of the letter of the pact, I'm not sure we should have to do more, but I'm willing to listen.
[....] So, hopefully DMTNT will take this as the apology that it is and we can move on.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the issue. That said, it is the opinion of DMTNT leadership that the serverpact as written provides only minimal protections (if that) if it is to be interpreted in letter rather than spirit. It is also our opinion that the pact should be revised such that less is open to interpretation, the intended spirit is preserved, and measures for recourse/remediation/penalty are put in place. Without the latter, the pact is merely words. I would encourage the other signatories to provide suggestions. Not to disrespect you, Reliance, but the pact is entirely the creation of Fate. It's understandable that many do not think it is worth the bytes it was written with.


Just to be clear, this pact was not "entirely the creation of Fate". It's not even mostly the creation of Fate. It is a heavily negotiated document reflecting the input and agreement of the top five guilds. Heck, most of the language was consensus drafted more than a year ago in negotiations then, bu started from an xi draft.

Not sure it matters, but nobody should think this is Fate's alone.


What about my suggestion in getting other people to write the pact? A volunteer, who wants to do it and has experience in writing or analysing documents like this, from each guild that has signed it, or if that's too many, the top 5 guilds to write it. That way, it gets scrutinised and developed into what we are attempting to do and make it a more accurate representation to the spirit of the pact. Leadership will still lead the discussion over the pact and any agreements will be placed into it but it removes any potential loopholes and perhaps with addition of hypothetical situations it could prevent conflict of interests.

Let's learn from this and develop it.

Give me a minute, I'm good. Give me an hour, I'm great. Give me six months, I'm unbeatable.
Vladimirov
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri 07 Aug, 2009 14:13
Reputation: 3
Guild: [XI]
[SOUP]
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Vladimirov » Sun 05 May, 2013 01:04

Reliance wrote:
UniDyne wrote:
Reliance wrote:I can see how, from a certain perspective, this might look like a letter of the law vs spirit of the law issue. So, I apologize to DMTNT for what appears to violate the spirit of the new server pact. [.....]
At the risk of actually using this forum for its intended purpose (i.e., politics), I guess I'd ask what DMTNT would like beyond an apology? I'm not sure there is much we can do within the rules of the game, and since I don't actually think this is a violation of the letter of the pact, I'm not sure we should have to do more, but I'm willing to listen.
[....] So, hopefully DMTNT will take this as the apology that it is and we can move on.

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the issue. That said, it is the opinion of DMTNT leadership that the serverpact as written provides only minimal protections (if that) if it is to be interpreted in letter rather than spirit. It is also our opinion that the pact should be revised such that less is open to interpretation, the intended spirit is preserved, and measures for recourse/remediation/penalty are put in place. Without the latter, the pact is merely words. I would encourage the other signatories to provide suggestions. Not to disrespect you, Reliance, but the pact is entirely the creation of Fate. It's understandable that many do not think it is worth the bytes it was written with.


Just to be clear, this pact was not "entirely the creation of Fate". It's not even mostly the creation of Fate. It is a heavily negotiated document reflecting the input and agreement of the top five guilds. Heck, most of the language was consensus drafted more than a year ago in negotiations then, bu started from an xi draft.

the xi draft started from a draft written by noise. that one came to life after a xi draft. that came to life after a idea sl made. that came to life after talks between fate/noise and xi

so yea i think we can conclude that every major guild had its input

btw for those who missed it TE had input trough XI and later trough FATE, and SGC had input trough XI

Vladimirov
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri 07 Aug, 2009 14:13
Reputation: 3
Guild: [XI]
[SOUP]
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Vladimirov » Sun 05 May, 2013 01:25

if this crap towards fate keeps going i will start posting up the old version so ppl can see fate talked alot about it with others

[2/13/2012 12:35:39 AM] is when the talks for it started

UniDyne
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri 19 Apr, 2013 04:49
Reputation: 0

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby UniDyne » Tue 07 May, 2013 02:23

Vladimirov wrote:the xi draft started from a draft written by noise. that one came to life after a xi draft. that came to life after a idea sl made. that came to life after talks between fate/noise and xi

so yea i think we can conclude that every major guild had its input

btw for those who missed it TE had input trough XI and later trough FATE, and SGC had input trough XI

So, wait... all that discussion and this is what came of it? Really? This is the culmination of 14 months of discussion?

Vladimirov
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri 07 Aug, 2009 14:13
Reputation: 3
Guild: [XI]
[SOUP]
Galaxy: Fenix

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Vladimirov » Tue 07 May, 2013 03:52

UniDyne wrote:
Vladimirov wrote:the xi draft started from a draft written by noise. that one came to life after a xi draft. that came to life after a idea sl made. that came to life after talks between fate/noise and xi

so yea i think we can conclude that every major guild had its input

btw for those who missed it TE had input trough XI and later trough FATE, and SGC had input trough XI

So, wait... all that discussion and this is what came of it? Really? This is the culmination of 14 months of discussion?


you have to calc out the XD -XI war

during that time the talks layed still

mr deejay
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue 06 Dec, 2011 05:49
Reputation: 8

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby mr deejay » Wed 08 May, 2013 09:28

So based on Reliance's double post, we can translate that he is exploiting the server-pact by telling people that the explanation for his player is technically "loopholed." Then he warns no one else to do the same. In other words, the right-hand doesn't know what the left-hand is doing. Is that really an excuse you are going to stick to?

And I paraphrase Reliance, "well technically it wasn't a blob because 9 people were there and not 10....I don't see how this is my problem?" My response: I don't know, ENFORCE THE RULES ON YOUR GUILD???? Take some personal accountability for your players you apparently lead?

@Unidyne: yes 14 months of deliberation got the server this stinking piece of server-pact garbage. No one remotely with the ability to write up agreements was consulted during this time. I can shoot holes through this agreement all day. It was written by a bunch of fifth graders on the playground.

@everyone else: Kakarot brings up a point. Why don't you include people from your guilds that actually do this for a living and draft something better for the "proposed 2nd version." Being leader of a guild doesn't make you adept at diplomacy and negotiation, it just means most of the people in your guild like you.

Alot of the people at the top can barely write English. I doubt you can churn out a good document that people will follow.


Although I want to point out that I endorse a server pact idea, I think most of the ill-will towards it comes from the fact that Fate and XI co-signed it. Of course people are going to have disdain for anything from two largely inept guild leaders. I think it would be better to endorse a document that everyone had input on.

I would also like to point out that America went through a similar process when adopting their style of government. However, every state was represented. You can't call it a server pact if guilds are left out of the process. Everyone needs input. Then, and only then, should it be put up to a vote by the guild members of each representing guild. SL was not shown this draft until after our diplomat signed it. Sure we got drafts and updates from Tank, but not the final outcome. After all, the members are the ones adhering to a list of rules voluntarily. It makes no sense to arbitrarily stick a guild member with a set of rules they weren't allowed to debate.

Kostchtchie
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon 18 Jan, 2010 22:45
Reputation: 4

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Kostchtchie » Fri 10 May, 2013 19:34

Vladimirov wrote:the xi draft started from a draft written by noise. that one came to life after a xi draft. that came to life after a idea sl made. that came to life after talks between fate/noise and xi

so yea i think we can conclude that every major guild had its input

btw for those who missed it TE had input trough XI and later trough FATE, and SGC had input trough XI


Sort of but not entirely. The Noise draft was mostly shredded as XI removed everything they didn't like out of it and added some of their own things as talks continued and then it happened again when FATE tried to take over the talks that they removed stuff they disliked and added in stuff they wanted. Its a bit different than the initial drafts of Noise and XI.

As far as input goes I tried to offer some and it ended with FATE berating other guilds in the chat. Instead of taking further input he decided it was better to make ad hominem type attacks on others in the chat. At least when XI led the talks they were able to discuss the matter without resulting in personal attacks :P.

The early draft we did had a bit of research behind it and was worked on a good bit by one of our other members. She looked at where some other server pacts went and what worked and didn't work. Took out a lot of stuff that was unenforceable or took excessive work to enforce. Some things I disliked and some things I liked about it but overall I felt it was more or less done pretty well. Many of the other rules can't really be enforced or the wording is so broad its hard to interpret it.

So its mostly a FATE agreement and I hardly consider it to be quite the same as either of the 2 previous drafts.

The problem about the current agreement is that its mostly a cobbled together agreement that heavily rests on the back of 2 rules (don't try to find loopholes in the agreement and everyone will act in good faith). The two rules are all about perspective however

NøiSe - Kostchtchie
Drekoffs
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu 27 Dec, 2012 21:37
Reputation: 1

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby Drekoffs » Mon 13 May, 2013 05:27

mr deejay, you need to go outside and experience real life some time.

User avatar
AggressiveTurtle
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun 12 Dec, 2010 22:23
Reputation: 94
Guild: 1st
SoT
USSV
AYAYA
BDSM
Location: Where the hood at
Contact:

Re: Fenix Serverpact (discussion (For general Questions))

Postby AggressiveTurtle » Tue 20 Dec, 2016 10:59

Server pacts in 2016 LUL

[02:34:48] Chrkolby: masa is a *beep*
[02:34:58] slayerr: he's like the indian version of jay z
[02:35:24] Minesh: oh god lol
AggressiveTurtle » Thu 26 May, 2011 17:45 wrote:Return of the King?? pfft i was always here >.>

Return to “Fenix”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests