Administration problems in the URPG - Page 3

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 91

Thread: Administration problems in the URPG

  1. #31
    Lan
    Lan is offline
    I ain't no "User" Lan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    75

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    f da police

  2. #32
    The Hyacinth Girl Alaskapigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Santa Barbara, California
    Posts
    2,730

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    LOL you guys all know Near most likely did this to piss everyone off? And you all fell for it? If this is a serious issue (which I doubt), I agree with Problem #1. I think everyone should be kept up to date with URPG going ons, not just the higher ups. We don't want a virtual cold war. God forbid. :b
    I speak four languages, help me practice please
    Hablas conmigo en español, por favor
    Vous parlez avec moi en français, s'il vous plaît
    我正在学中文

  3. #33
    I will follow her Sota's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    145

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Alaskapigeon View Post
    LOL you guys all know Near most likely did this to piss everyone off? And you all fell for it? If this is a serious issue (which I doubt), I agree with Problem #1. I think everyone should be kept up to date with URPG going ons, not just the higher ups. We don't want a virtual cold war. God forbid. :b
    I don't think Near did this to piss everyone off. However, I DO think you are a idiot silly face for thinking that.

    URPG

    On her path.

  4. #34
    golden golfin goblin iReign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    golf range
    Posts
    307

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    I'm in agreement that there is a divide between URPG members and the staff boards, and a lot of the stuff we discuss there can really be made public. If that doesn't happen though, feel free to talk to me about what's going on if staff, and if you want I can post your suggestions or something.

  5. #35
    The Antithesis of Fun Feng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    Stanford 2015
    Posts
    1,602
    Blog Entries
    43

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    f my nemesis

    `_`




  6. #36
    He Sees You... Dog of Hellsing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    1,944
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    I don't have a lot of time for big dramatic posts cuz I g2g in like 2 mins, but I will say I have no problems letting people know what's going on in the Mod board as long as it's not something of a sensitive nature.

    That should make it obvious I agree a lot of what we Mods and Officials discuss could really be made public lol. I see no harm in making the majority of the Mod board visible to everyone, just make it so only Mods and Officials can post in it, and of course we still need a hidden board somewhere to discuss the more touchy topics.

  7. #37
    pikachu in a highchair Marshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    531

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    I'd actually really like to comment on Near's second comment, mostly because it's something I've been saying for years.

    The biggest issue I have with the URPG system is the lack of coherence between what's allowed and what is in the rules, and this ambiguous term "abuse."

    First situation, a while back a certain member was battling a lot with mons with the ability pickup in order to get the free item in mass quantity. No where in the rules is this said to be wrong, but he received a warning for being "abusive." Now instead of putting that anyone who abused pickup would get in trouble, the URPG staff just went on their jolly way. Honestly, anyone can see the ease with which some new member could walk into the URPG with a pickup mon and be "abusive." Another situation, I don't know how long ago, but in the URPG chat I posted a scenario where a person could make a lot of money really quickly with basic battles. It involved people buying geodudes at mass numbers and battling with them with a profit ensured. At the end of the discussion, Jr poked in to say anyone who did this would be banned. However, those less perceptive might not notice that the very maker of this thread has been doing just that. In the foreseeing of a gift station, he bought a large quantity of cheap basics, gaining the profit of evolving them, and then just dumping them on whoever would take them. This resulted in quite the profit. However, Near wasn't banned, and honestly the mods have no right to ban him. He could claim ignorance easily and get away with nothing more than warning.

    Anyway, on to my second point-

    I'll give you a situation of URPG "abuse." Everyone knows about the big Park scandal where several members were forced to give back their mons, "beacuse they abused the system." There was a lot of arguing and whatnot but the system was edited and eventually people just said, fuck it, it's pokemon. However, what people don't seem to notice is that several months ago another member's behavior was deemed so "abusive" that a new rule was put in place. This "abuse" was by none other than ST, who reffed an extreme amount of FFAs. I won't mention how hypocritical this is based on the hundreds of Pe2k Trainer Court threads where he bashed the current ffa system, oh wait I just did. Anyway back to my point, ST was not forced to return the massive sums of money he received from the FFAs, nor were any of the participants. Now this just doesn't make sense.

    This gray area of the URPG is has caused nearly every scandal, and I feel the blame should fall on the URPG moderating staff and their fear of limiting their own power.

    I'd be happy to argue with people over aim about this if this thread is closed, as these often are.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    528
    Trophies

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Marshy I actually lost ~60k from those basics. Did it for the record :X

  9. #39
    pikachu in a highchair Marshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    531

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by ~Near View Post
    Marshy I actually lost ~60k from those basics. Did it for the record :X
    Oh well then you were just ignorant about it :x, you could've easily made money if you had tactically bought your Pokemon

  10. #40
    Registered User Haze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    429

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshy View Post
    The biggest issue I have with the URPG system is the lack of coherence between what's allowed and what is in the rules, and this ambiguous term "abuse."
    Rules are meant to be interpreted with a certain discretion. Everything doesn't need to be spelled out for someone to not be "abusive." Obviously finding a flaw in the system and milking it to your advantage is possible, but doing it just has the flaw changed. For example, if you continually go to a charity and receive money and you're not in need, you're abusing the system. Is it stated exactly in the law that you can't do that? No, it's not. Will you be punished in some form? Probably.

    First situation, a while back a certain member was battling a lot with mons with the ability pickup in order to get the free item in mass quantity. No where in the rules is this said to be wrong, but he received a warning for being "abusive." Now instead of putting that anyone who abused pickup would get in trouble, the URPG staff just went on their jolly way. Honestly, anyone can see the ease with which some new member could walk into the URPG with a pickup mon and be "abusive." Another situation, I don't know how long ago, but in the URPG chat I posted a scenario where a person could make a lot of money really quickly with basic battles. It involved people buying geodudes at mass numbers and battling with them with a profit ensured. At the end of the discussion, Jr poked in to say anyone who did this would be banned. However, those less perceptive might not notice that the very maker of this thread has been doing just that. In the foreseeing of a gift station, he bought a large quantity of cheap basics, gaining the profit of evolving them, and then just dumping them on whoever would take them. This resulted in quite the profit. However, Near wasn't banned, and honestly the mods have no right to ban him. He could claim ignorance easily and get away with nothing more than warning.
    Length of time in URPG is considered when deciding punishments. If somebody like you or Near abused a loophole, you would get punished because you know that's wrong. I doubt a new member would be able to find such a loophole, and even if they did we would take that into consideration.


    I'll give you a situation of URPG "abuse." Everyone knows about the big Park scandal where several members were forced to give back their mons, "beacuse they abused the system." There was a lot of arguing and whatnot but the system was edited and eventually people just said, fuck it, it's pokemon. However, what people don't seem to notice is that several months ago another member's behavior was deemed so "abusive" that a new rule was put in place. This "abuse" was by none other than ST, who reffed an extreme amount of FFAs. I won't mention how hypocritical this is based on the hundreds of Pe2k Trainer Court threads where he bashed the current ffa system, oh wait I just did. Anyway back to my point, ST was not forced to return the massive sums of money he received from the FFAs, nor were any of the participants. Now this just doesn't make sense.
    The FFA rule was put in place because FFAs were almost the only battle occuring. It's not my fault some people are hypocritical. There's also a difference between actually reffing a battle and getting a complex/demanding mon with very little effort. People were submitting complete shit as their RP Posts and being rewarded with extreme prizes. The FFAs however, were legitimately reffed, therefore the money was paid. The following rule was put into effect to encourage people to do normal battles.

    This gray area of the URPG is has caused nearly every scandal, and I feel the blame should fall on the URPG moderating staff and their fear of limiting their own power.
    The scandals occurred because people tried to push the system too far. URPG relies on an honor code, which you're obviously not following by exploiting it.
    URPG Stats
    "whut" missingapparatus
    I am quite average actually, and I have no boobs. So no point in stripping ^_^

  11. #41
    :) Stinky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshy View Post
    This gray area of the URPG is has caused nearly every scandal, and I feel the blame should fall on the URPG moderating staff and their fear of limiting their own power.

    I'd be happy to argue with people over aim about this if this thread is closed, as these often are.
    brb closing thread

    I still fail to see how we fear limiting our power. Could you provide more examples of this?

  12. #42
    pikachu in a highchair Marshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    531

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Haze View Post
    Rules are meant to be interpreted with a certain discretion. Everything doesn't need to be spelled out for someone to not be "abusive." Obviously finding a flaw in the system and milking it to your advantage is possible, but doing it just has the flaw changed. For example, if you continually go to a charity and receive money and you're not in need, you're abusing the system. Is it stated exactly in the law that you can't do that? No, it's not. Will you be punished in some form? Probably.

    Well just something to point out, normally laws are discussed and interpreted by a large group of people, i.e. the supreme court, a jury, etc. In the situation of the URPG, it distresses me that I'm not even sure whether the administrative decisions are made as a group or not. Also I believe their is a form to fill out for the receiving of charity, which in order to get when you don't need would be lying and it's fraud to lie on an official document, so yea it is against the law.
    Length of time in URPG is considered when deciding punishments. If somebody like you or Near abused a loophole, you would get punished because you know that's wrong. I doubt a new member would be able to find such a loophole, and even if they did we would take that into consideration.

    Well I suppose that makes sense, but I honestly don't see why you wouldn't put specific scenarios, and their punishments, into the rules. The only thing that gets injured is the mod's ability to use it's discretion in such a situation. Unless you can give me another legitimate reason, I'll take that one to be true.
    The FFA rule was put in place because FFAs were almost the only battle occuring. It's not my fault some people are hypocritical. There's also a difference between actually reffing a battle and getting a complex/demanding mon with very little effort. People were submitting complete shit as their RP Posts and being rewarded with extreme prizes. The FFAs however, were legitimately reffed, therefore the money was paid. The following rule was put into effect to encourage people to do normal battles.

    The RP posts were legitimate based on the rules and yet they were taken away. Honestly FFAs are much easier to ref than an e4 battle, especially with the plethora of rules which make the process easier. Who's to say that when I ref an E4 battle I don't feel insulted that someone makes just as much money from reffing a much less tolling FFA? in that sense the reffing isn't legitimate, at least based on your usage of the word
    The scandals occurred because people tried to push the system too far. URPG relies on an honor code, which you're obviously not following by exploiting it.
    See I go to a school with an honor code and the rules are very clearly laid out, and when you are caught breaking one of these rules their is a punishment directly corresponding with that act, regardless of the situation. There actually isn't this area of "oh well you should know better," mostly because that is very weak logic. Part of joining the URPG is that you're read through the rules, but breaking the rules doesn't seem to have a large consequence, you just walk away from it, occasionally needing to revert what you did, but you don't lose anything, other than maybe your time. Although honestly, anyone willing to spend their time being a part of this system, let alone abusing it is well, wasting their time to begin with.

    I still fail to see how we fear limiting our power. Could you provide more examples of this?
    Can you give another reason why the mods/officials don't want to put specific punishments with crimes? And, it's a waste of time/unnecessary is a bullshit answer.

  13. #43
    a Pidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    babby's first
    Posts
    3,922
    Trophies
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    It's hard to outline everything that is considered abuse, because most of them are loopholes that we have never considered. I do think if you find a way to abuse something, within the rules, you shouldn't be punished too severely, but whatever you gained from the abuse should just be reversed, and maybe a little penalty. Anyway, I can try to define 'abuse':

    any action or set of actions that is repeatedly done in a span of time that allows a player to acquire a profit or equivalent materials (including, but not limited to: Pokemon, TMs, items) in a manner in which the effort involved is substantially unproportional to that profit or equivalent materials

    Yeah, it's pretty long-winded. I think the key points are 'repeatedly', 'profit', and 'effort'. Basically, if you do something over and over and get something out of it with ease, it is abuse. And yes, even terms like 'repeatedly' can be discretionary (how many times does it have to be done before it is abuse and in what span of time?), so can 'effort' and its relation to 'profit' (how can you quantify effort and check if it is proportional to the profit?). However, it should seem clear by that definition that buying 10 Geodude and getting a 25k profit from the basic battles involved seems kind of undeserved, and odd (why would you have 10 Geodude?). If I had it my way, every Pokemart Pokemon would cost 10k, and FFAs would pay less (and be once a week). But that's kind of off topic.

    In most rule systems, the higher ups have some kind of power in doing what is deemed necessary and proper, like the 'Elastic Clause' in the U.S. Constitution. I guess taking back the easy Park Pokemon was deemed necessary and proper because people were getting Pokemon way too easily. However, I don't think anyone was really punished (except Marth I think), they just had to return those Pokemon, and they got back whatever they spent on it. If it was punishment, they would have to give back the Pokemon and then pay a fine or something. It was more of a 'oh we made a shitty system, and now everyone has these cool Pokes without trying, we gotta fix this', rather than 'you guys messed everything up by getting these Pokemon easily, we're taking them back'.

    Also, ignore this paragraph if what I'm saying you're saying is wrong (strawman). If you're suggesting mods and officials are immune from rules, look at Marth. If you're suggesting ST is immune, a lot of us are saying he can't obtain a BW man as a prize (and we're still saying he can't). And you may have a point in him making too much money before the 2 FFAs a week rule was established, but nobody seemed to bring up the idea that those earnings should be reversed, as it could very well fit into the definition I created above.

    Also, isn't Pickup limited to 1 item per week?

    Also, specific punishments with crimes is fine.

  14. #44
    :) Stinky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshy View Post
    Can you give another reason why the mods/officials don't want to put specific punishments with crimes? And, it's a waste of time/unnecessary is a bullshit answer.
    Good job avoiding my question :3

    PS. Because we deal with these things on a case-by-base basis, making a broad rule would be pointless since the punishment is based on several factors (like what the abuse was, whether they knew it was abuse or not, how long they've been in URPG (aka should they have known better or not?), the degree of abuse, and some other stuff that I can't think of at the moment).

    PPS. Now that I've answered your question, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my question. Because really, your statement isn't very strong if you only have one example of it.
    Last edited by Stinky; 8th December 2010 at 08:21 PM.

  15. #45
    pikachu in a highchair Marshy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    531

    Default Re: Administration problems in the URPG

    Quote Originally Posted by Pidge View Post
    It's hard to outline everything that is considered abuse, because most of them are loopholes that we have never considered.
    Let me stop you right there. If a member finds something that is a loophole, why not make an amendment? Unless you guys are afraid of changing the rules, which after asking a mod why the Daycare thread's examples are terrible wrong got the response "they've always been that way," doesn't seem that strange, I can't think of any reason to not put "if you try to _______ and we catch you, you will lose your profit, the money you put it, and a penalty of ____." Done, fill in the blanks and you're good to go.
    Yeah, it's pretty long-winded. I think the key points are 'repeatedly', 'profit', and 'effort'. Basically, if you do something over and over and get something out of it with ease, it is abuse. And yes, even terms like 'repeatedly' can be discretionary (how many times does it have to be done before it is abuse and in what span of time?), so can 'effort' and its relation to 'profit' (how can you quantify effort and check if it is proportional to the profit?). However, it should seem clear by that definition that buying 10 Geodude and getting a 25k profit from the basic battles involved seems kind of undeserved, and odd (why would you have 10 Geodude?). If I had it my way, every Pokemart Pokemon would cost 10k, and FFAs would pay less (and be once a week). But that's kind of off topic.

    I actually agree with this, and another word you forgot to mention is "disproportional." It IS disproportional btw.
    In most rule systems, the higher ups have some kind of power in doing what is deemed necessary and proper, like the 'Elastic Clause' in the U.S. Constitution. I guess taking back the easy Park Pokemon was deemed necessary and proper because people were getting Pokemon way too easily. However, I don't think anyone was really punished (except Marth I think), they just had to return those Pokemon, and they got back whatever they spent on it. If it was punishment, they would have to give back the Pokemon and then pay a fine or something. It was more of a 'oh we made a shitty system, and now everyone has these cool Pokes without trying, we gotta fix this', rather than 'you guys messed everything up by getting these Pokemon easily, we're taking them back'.

    I understand this and while I personally think this is a dumb rule, for large abuses of the rules, this makes the most sense.
    Also, ignore this paragraph if what I'm saying you're saying is wrong (strawman). If you're suggesting mods and officials are immune from rules, look at Marth. If you're suggesting ST is immune, a lot of us are saying he can't obtain a BW man as a prize (and we're still saying he can't). And you may have a point in him making too much money before the 2 FFAs a week rule was established, but nobody seemed to bring up the idea that those earnings should be reversed, as it could very well fit into the definition I created above.

    So do it, dock his ref wages until he makes back the money he gained, you could even extend that to the people in the ffas if you wanted.
    Also, isn't Pickup limited to 1 item per week?

    I'd be more than happy with an almost guaranteed free item a week =x
    Also, specific punishments with crimes is fine.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •