Fort Balancing Overzealousness

foscock

Legend of The West ⭐
Ex-Team Member
On 13th of September, there was a battle at Fluffys Garage, on Colorado. It was owned by a small town/alliance, so most of the main alliance players could join either side. For some reason, somebody in the Inno mod team decided to move players to a different side, no matter where the town members where originally signed up. Players were wondering if their accounts got hacked, or if they were being targetted by the mod team. Some haven't signed up for a battle since then.

My question is, who did it? And will this be a recurring thing, and if not, what action was taken against the support member that did it? When a player does something wrong we get banned, we get a big (banned) thing on our profile. Will the mod team member that did this have something similar?
 
@foscock I think your question is reasonable for public view. It is true given that the support member responsible if they come forward should not be ridiculed for their decision providing that the rest of the moderation team supports that decision. If the team doesn't support moving players around battles then answering your question on what might be recurring could be helpful.

Moderation itself can be tricky. Understanding what is happening in the game is helpful to players but not so great if posts become too inflamed and something like banning takes place. In short, if everyone can show each other some consideration then questions can be cheerfully answered. Am I having a pipe dream?
 
Yes, it is true that there have been issues of this nature in a recent Fort battle.
We have investigated the matter and it has started with a human error that has triggered an old bug in the system that we thought was fixed a long time ago, but are now working on again as it clearly turns out not to be the case.
We are in the process of revising our training protocols and retraining the relevant staff to ensure this error doesn't happen again.
 
mnnielsen said:
Yes, it is true that there have been issues of this nature in a recent Fort battle.
We have investigated the matter and it has started with a human error that has triggered an old bug in the system that we thought was fixed a long time ago, but are now working on again as it clearly turns out not to be the case.
We are in the process of revising our training protocols and retraining the relevant staff to ensure this error doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you are doing something for a change. However, would have been nice if you were aware of this, that you have made a post about the error before it was brought up by players. A bit more transparency would go a long way.
 
I disagree - there are a few support tickets in progress, and this is a case that is being kept to those. Those who have created the tickets are welcome to ask questions in these, but I see no need for this to be something everyone should be involved in here on the forum, as it is an incident that has happened once in the last many years :-)
 
mnnielsen said:
I disagree - there are a few support tickets in progress, and this is a case that is being kept to those. Those who have created the tickets are welcome to ask questions in these, but I see no need for this to be something everyone should be involved in here on the forum, as it is an incident that has happened once in the last many years :)
Click to expand...
I´d say that there was more than one incident recently regarding the moderation of fort fights, as you are well aware from other forum topics and posts made by several players:

https://forum.the-west.net/index.ph...g-strategist-mods-why-do-we-have-5-now.61460/
https://forum.the-west.net/index.php?threads/stop-the-over-moderation.61467/
 
They are a completely different case than the one this thread was created around, and investigations are still ongoing
 
mnnielsen said:
I disagree - there are a few support tickets in progress, and this is a case that is being kept to those. Those who have created the tickets are welcome to ask questions in these, but I see no need for this to be something everyone should be involved in here on the forum, as it is an incident that has happened once in the last many years :)
Click to expand...
I disagree, every player that fort fights has a concern in this. If there's a rogue "fort battle balancer" that wants to move players to his preferred side, then that's a big problem. And even more of a problem if your internal admin tools can't tell who did it. How much more of this can we expect?

The whole "retraining" thing is gobsmacking. How much training does a mod need to not move players to a different side?

If i asked this in a support ticket, you'd tell me you can't talk about issues that affected other players, so I'm asking here.
 
foscock said:
I disagree, every player that fort fights has a concern in this. If there's a rogue "fort battle balancer" that wants to move players to his preferred side, then that's a big problem. And even more of a problem if your internal admin tools can't tell who did it. How much more of this can we expect?

The whole "retraining" thing is gobsmacking. How much training does a mod need to not move players to a different side?

If i asked this in a support ticket, you'd tell me you can't talk about issues that affected other players, so I'm asking here.
Click to expand...
I know who did it :-) and things have been taken care of.
Respectfully, you are not entitled to the details on our procedures. Your participation is in the game, as a player, not as a staff member participating in the administration of accounts, enforcement of rules, or provision of technical assistance. As a player, you may play the game and abide by the rules set forth.
In relation to the support system, you may provide ideas on gameplay, ask questions, and request assistance but, you may not dictate policy, nor intervene in administrative affairs. How we manage tickets is simply not your purview, you are not entitled, you do not have the authorization, nor will this be provided.
 
Some players here have at some point been on "the team" at various times, paid & not so at least have a clue of what was. I'm not aware of any rule that says the past re procedures cant be discussed so im going to a bit re V1 ... if im wrong, my bad & just delete this post mnnielsen.

Once upon a time there was only 1 FF Event Marshall for 16 worlds. Thats all it ever needed and FF were much busier than today.. if you played a world you couldnt moderate it too.. simple as & ergo accountability was simple & crossover/ bias occurrences were far less than they seem to be today.. back then though staff were paid for their valuable time & for good reason, unlike now..

Volunteers for anything always need more oversight and checking on, are often sub standard and don't have as much reason to do the job properly because they are not invested nor care like paid staff, sad but true. Any boss or manager who has had them knows this. Like anyone new, staff need proper training and constant oversight with rules & solid lines drawn in the sand re consequences should they mess about, Before being let loose with tools that can disrupt ... not after.

Should be impossible with sufficient guidelines, training and oversight to have a "rouge" for long & sure its already been addressed.

If long time players/ ex team members, already well aware of the reporting rules etc feel they have to repeatedly come to the main forum to discuss that which cannot be discussed .... that should i hope be seen as something unusual, taken a bit more seriously than the normal moans and perhaps cause to reflect.

Oh yer and to the player base here..Reminder. An operation concern dosnt have to be made public There is a PM function for every one of the team, which personally ive found to be very productive on those rare occasions communication required it. .. and welcome. Respectfully of course.
 
Victor Kruger said:
Some players here have at some point been on "the team" at various times, paid & not so at least have a clue of what was. I'm not aware of any rule that says the past re procedures cant be discussed so im going to a bit re V1 ... if im wrong, my bad & just delete this post mnnielsen.

Once upon a time there was only 1 FF Event Marshall for 16 worlds. Thats all it ever needed and FF were much busier than today.. if you played a world you couldnt moderate it too.. simple as & ergo accountability was simple & crossover/ bias occurrences were far less than they seem to be today.. back then though staff were paid for their valuable time & for good reason, unlike now..

Volunteers for anything always need more oversight and checking on, are often sub standard and don't have as much reason to do the job properly because they are not invested nor care like paid staff, sad but true. Any boss or manager who has had them knows this. Like anyone new, staff need proper training and constant oversight with rules & solid lines drawn in the sand re consequences should they mess about, Before being let loose with tools that can disrupt ... not after.

Should be impossible with sufficient guidelines, training and oversight to have a "rouge" for long & sure its already been addressed.

If long time players/ ex team members, already well aware of the reporting rules etc feel they have to repeatedly come to the main forum to discuss that which cannot be discussed .... that should i hope be seen as something unusual, taken a bit more seriously than the normal moans and perhaps cause to reflect.

Oh yer and to the player base here..Reminder. An operation concern dosnt have to be made public There is a PM function for every one of the team, which personally ive found to be very productive on those rare occasions communication required it. .. and welcome. Respectfully of course.
Click to expand...
Vic, difference is that FF event marshal for 16 worlds back then didn´t mess up with support tools and had a sole responsibility to arrange and dig Awesomia fights during the events. They also didn´t part take in writing of the guidelines and rule books to micromanage FFs on the worlds were they actively play. Something that also still doesn´t happen on any other national The West server managed by other CMs so definitely not a global Innogames policy, rather "improvement" brought up by the latest batch of CMs on .Net.
 
Clever Hans said:
Vic, difference is that FF event marshal for 16 worlds back then didn´t mess up with support tools and had a sole responsibility to arrange and dig Awesomia fights during the events. They also didn´t part take in writing of the guidelines and rule books to micromanage FFs on the worlds were they actively play. Something that also still doesn´t happen on any other national The West server managed by other CMs so definitely not a global Innogames policy, rather "improvement" brought up by the latest batch of CMs on .Net.
Click to expand...
I find them trying things is better than waiting for inno to do something about it, if they screw up, its not the end of the world. Trial, error, until success happens with a lot of experiments.

Yet I find some people haven't suggested(other than closing down old worlds) a better way to try and help out.

Also, why are you guys insanely focused on one world(colorado) while neglecting other potential worlds?
 
Clever Hans said:
Vic, difference is that FF event marshal for 16 worlds back then didn´t mess up with support tools and had a sole responsibility to arrange and dig Awesomia fights during the events. They also didn´t part take in writing of the guidelines and rule books to micromanage FFs on the worlds were they actively play. Something that also still doesn´t happen on any other national The West server managed by other CMs so definitely not a global Innogames policy, rather "improvement" brought up by the latest batch of CMs on .Net.
Click to expand...

To be fair, done properly is/was no small effort and hugely time consuming on occasion. Those events & ideas didnt come from inno but internally from the teams and player bases all across the world then adapted on each international server, or not. Some payment for all the time invested & responsibility team was & I still think appropriate. Adapting or adjusting FF without micro managing isn't hard and smart for good reason, that used to be understood . Hands off approach often achieves more when players know they wont be indulged just because they put in a ticket, they just get on with the game and adapt. Mass tickets could easily be seen if there was a genuine problem or just an alliance making a play for advantage or a nothing burger as so often the case... its not rocket science.

Cant keep all the people happy all the time so never tried to, just the majority & being consistent/professional like any paid position would expect seemed to work for years just fine.. mostly. :'P

The method was good for all worlds asdf and ofc should be still, not just Colorado .. Except Colorado is still the main FF world as intended so understandable the focus and comments about FF is usually there.. if that goes bottom up what hope for the others ? you only get so many bites at the cherry and trying lots of things just because can often be counter productive. Less do and more thought first goes a long way...

Not right or fair nor allowed for me to comment on any CM, so not going to other than to say... actively playing & enjoying the game, being privy to the dramas n politics of both FF & general game play brings with it a deeper understanding, warts and all.. and helps an awful lot.

That was when the game wasnt scratching for players ofc and the team paid regular fair recompense for their time not free, which I think is a gross abuse of people in general when it wouldnt cost inno a bean in real $... you pay for what you get i guess. Or don't get who you might have :roll:
 
foscock said:
On 13th of September, there was a battle at Fluffys Garage, on Colorado. It was owned by a small town/alliance, so most of the main alliance players could join either side. For some reason, somebody in the Inno mod team decided to move players to a different side, no matter where the town members where originally signed up. Players were wondering if their accounts got hacked,
Click to expand...
glad to hear rectified, but thinking players whose toons altered should be contacted to assure them will not reoccur and things put in place (training or volunteer ? Understand impacted several unsuspecting playes, not players fault, nor gave permission who still feel uncertain of what happened.. and if people leave towns or stop going to ff's would be shame.
 
I will just leave this here:

§2) Account Usage​

Each player must only play one account per world. It is not allowed to disclose your password to other players. It is not allowed to knowingly use the same passwords used by other players.

You are not allowed to play or look after another player’s account. An account can only be played by one player.

As the game is localized in several versions, players shall always use the English language in this version, this applies, but is not limited to messages, player profiles and such. Foreign quotes and phrases may be used in contextually appropriate situations.

Advertising of any kind is not allowed, this includes using any means to mass deliver messages.

Examples:​

  • it is allowed for two players to use the same means of connection, provided each player only controls the actions of his/her assigned account.
  • every player sharing a means of connection must abide by rule §3.
  • it is forbidden to play for another player, even if he/she is temporarily unavailable.
  • it is forbidden to force or attempt entry into another player's account.
  • it is forbidden to log into the accounts of other players for any reason.
  • it is forbidden to extort or blackmail another player for login details.


This should include MODS too:up:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top