How something is worded can make all the difference between it being a positive and a negative. The proposal as a whole isn't a bad one, but I think the wording should be made both clearer and less wordy. Having slogged through the entire thread, I noticed a few key observations:
1. This proposal is mean primarily to clarify how moderators judge the validity of fort battles, NOT to set new rules on how players themselves can behave.
2. The proposal is worded in a way many - especially new players - may not understand.
3. There are always exceptions to the rule, but the "mitigating circumstances" section fails to give a means for players to be proactive in applying for said circumstances.
4. There's inadequate distinction given overall between a single player town setting up multiple digs and a larger alliance, even though the latter has more impact than the former.
5. The discussion of support tickets is worded in a way that can certain players have deemed "oppressive", even though it's meant to be a disclaimer regarding INACTION rather than a declaration of action.
6. The proposal addresses smaller issues as opposed to big issues, so those seeing this as a new ruleset as opposed to a clarification of existing policy fail to see the relevance - BECAUSE of how this is worded as a ruleset.
7. The term "Abusive Fort Battles" is not clearly defined in a way that aligns with the rest of the proposal, so one or both need to be changed to correlate.
8. It should be clearly stated in this proposal that this is part of a process, not the basis of an immediate ruling against a specific player or group. This omission of due process in the wording again makes the proposal seem like a new ruleset as opposed to a clarification of existing policy and can be seen as antagonistic to many players who don't know that due process in these cases WILL still exist.
With these things in mind, here is a suggested (but far from perfect) rewording of the draft that will hopefully address some or all of the aforementioned concerns. Be warned, I have quoted the original proposal and left the rewrite a bit wordy so that it's easier for player to give feedback on specific sections and furthe pin down the wording:
Complaints regarding Abusive Fort Battles have been an ongoing problem in The West, with some servers having more issues than others. The following is a rules clarification to show how staff and moderators determine what constitutes an Abusive Fort Battle (ABF) and how we respond to such complaints.
Note that this game is released in multiple regions around the world and what constitutes problems for one region may not be an issue in another. As such, we cannot at this time request changes to the game code regarding AFBs but must instead moderate each region separately. This is our attempt to make the process more transparent as it applies to a specific region (in this case, the .net servers).
Definition: "Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. This can include:
Howdy Cowboys and Cowgirls,
The declaration of Abusive Fort Battles is a recurring problem on The West and can result in community dissatisfaction for this game feature and the game as a whole. Therefor we have come up with a local community rule for this frustrating situation.
"Abusive Fort Battles" are those battle declarations, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. We GENERALLY consider a battle to be an AFB if:
- Intentionally interfering with other's scheduled or planned battles
- Declaring any battles within 3 hours after another battle by someone not within the same alliance, OR declaring any battles that interfere with a scheduled series (defined as a recurring series of battles within a 6 hour timeframe by an alliance representing the majority of regular fort fighters).
- Declaring any battles within 3 hours before or 2 hours after an Awesomia battle organized by The West Team. Battles that were declared outside of this timeframe and coincide with an Awesomia battle are not considered an AFB.
- Declaring excessive numbers of "strategic multi" battles within a 1 hour window
Generally >2 battles by the same player/town/alliance
- Declaring excessive numbers of battles in a 24 hours period
- Declaring any battles within 6 hours of the previous battle when 4 or more battles are already scheduled,
- OR, the same player declaring 3 or more battles in a 24 hours period,
- OR, the same town/alliance declaring 4 or more battles in a 24 hours period.
- Repeatedly declaring battles without the features necessary to have any chance of prevailing
- Generally a battle cannot succeed unless the declarer or his proxy:
- creates a topic directing offliners where to start and target (to help increase attendance)
- recruits online and/or players to attend (this may be in conjunction with an announcement topic or a separate effort)
- ranks players in some manner to beneficially control order of movement
- shows up to the battle themselves
- leads the attack
- Note that a battle may still succeed when one or more of these features are not followed, the chances of a successful battle are reduced. We will usually try to work with players to help them declare more successful battles prior to considering any disciplinary actions.
- If a player has repeatedly declared battles lacking these features, the community may report these battles as abusive regardless of whether they conflict with other battles. While we may not act on a particular battle, the ticket history will be considered in the event actions are taken against any given player.
There are always exceptions to rules, and we consider any mitigating factors prior to taking an official action.
Mitigating factors may include:
- Events that reward event currency, or quests that reward substantial awards for Fort Battle participation
During these circumstances, no battle dug when there are no other battles during the same "quarter day" shall be punished (00:00-06:00, 06:00-12:00, 12:00-18:00, and 18:00-00:00), though they may be rescheduled to create a 3h gap to an earlier battle.
- Repeated failed "strategic multi" battles
Each time an alliance attempts to employ the strategic multi tactic and fails to capture any fort while turning out >10 attackers on at least one of the battles, they shall be permitted an additional simultaneous attack in their next attempt.
- Compelling argument for the legitimate purpose, reasonable mistake, or exceptional circumstances for an otherwise abusive battle
- When one alliance/town controls all forts, that controlling party may declare a free-for-all so that fort ownership redistributes across the server.
- The declaring party is a single player town that is unlikely to cause any significant disruptions to scheduled battles by larger parties.
Note: Every situation is unique, and other mitigating circumstances will also be considered on a case-by-case basis before any judgement is made the The West Team.
If you intend to declare a battle under mitigating circumstances, you may contact The West Team proactively to propose the battle and your reasons before officially declaring it. This helps us address any concerns more quickly, including any support tickets we may receive once the battle is declared.
What can you do?
If you notice
Abusive Fort Battles taking place, please contact our support team
as soon as possible so we can address the situation. Always use the "
Contests & Fort Battles" category to report such an incident with the correct
World selection.
Please
do not flood us with report tickets on a single battle, as only one ticket is necessary. Any additional tickets for that battle will be deleted and spamming of tickets against a specific player or group may itself be treated as abusive behavior.
Remember, we can only act on an issue if we are aware of it, so AFBs that are not reported will not be addressed.
How will The West Team respond?
- We will analyze the situation, including discussions with the party being accused and take appropriate steps as required. Potential steps may include:
- Coaching the offending player or group on any rules violations and how to avoid them in future.
- Rescheduling of one or more battles to remedy conflicts.
- Mediate in the event the report was due to a misunderstanding between parties.
- Examine the ticket history regarding a player or group to determine whether or not a violation was intentional.
- Dismiss a ticket if mitigating circumstances are found.
- Suspend or ban an account if there is an ongoing history of malicious behavior and other efforts have failed.
- Usually when a world first faces such a problem we are going to consider increasing the declaration cost for battles within a certain time period; these changes will be always announced in the Saloon. For those that do not read the Saloon, we intend to also announce any changes during the daily login.
- In the case the world has already have such settings applied and the problem persists, we reserve the possibility to warn and punish the players who are involved in the abuse after following due process (see above).
- Also, The West Team may (at its sole discretion) cancel or reschedule Fort Battles which are considered Abusive Fort Battles.
Clarification on Rescheduling battles
- A battle may be rescheduled only if there are at least 6 hours before the start.
- When a battle was cancelled or rescheduled it is announced via official channels:
- in the world's saloon chat via Henry;
- in this thread: Cancelled and rescheduled Fort Battles
- Certain rescheduled battles may also be announced by The West Team during daily login.
- Please note that we are not a 24/7 support system, therefore it may happen that we will not be able to react in timely manner and reschedule battles. We are sorry for these situations in advance.
Remember, The West Team is a small group of people trying to address ongoing gameplay issues. We
are not the developers, so our ability to serve the community is limited. We also understand that it's best to have a few, easy-to-understand rules than to bog players down with too many vague rules or have no rules at all.
Because we are a small team, we try to keep our efforts transparent so the community is guaranteed a voice in any new rules, changes to rules, or clarifications of existing rules. Your feedback is important to cleaning up the rules and making the game fun for as many people as possible.