Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => Game News => Topic started by: a1b23 on April 14, 2008, 09:13:47 pm
-
When and Can we have friends in the world?
-
I assume you could make it password access only, and you can give the password to only the people you wanted in.
I too, would like to know when abouts this is expected to be implemented.
-
Is there an estimate for when this is going to happen?
And how many tokens to create one?
-
As far as I know, there is no estimate at all.
As far as I know, there is no estimate at all.
That answers your question right? :wink:
-
This is what i'm working on periodically around patching bugs and real life...
and as to the cost to create one, it will vary based on content, length, etc... password protection will be optional but will be some kind of nominal token fee.
Mostly trying to piece the formulas together to come up with the charges to create each world, but also trying to piece together the interface.
-
Does the creator get to choose stuff like starting plane, cash, etc?
-
that's the plan, yes.
-
are we able to choose the people allowed in?
-
are we able to choose the people allowed in?
I suppose, since you can set a password, only people you give the password to will be able to join.
-
password will be optional, that will be the only "real" control as to who joins or not. there will be a weak admin toolset for game admins allowing some limited functions. (banning players from a specific world, couple other things maybe).
-gets back to tinkering-
-
Do creators get to throw existing players out i.e. expel them from their world?
-
password will be optional, that will be the only "real" control as to who joins or not. there will be a weak admin toolset for game admins allowing some limited functions. (banning players from a specific world, couple other things maybe).
-gets back to tinkering-
-
There's an ever so slight a difference between expelling a player who is already in the world vs. banning a player from ever entering a world.
Ideally, I'd like to do both.
-
There's an ever so slight a difference between expelling a player who is already in the world vs. banning a player from ever entering a world.
Hopefully you've made the careful decision on who to let into your private world. If you've let someone in, and they go 10-frequency on all their routes, you should have no right to boot them out. First, it's legal; and second, you could too easily boot anyone for any reason (i.e., player is at the same base at your's and you don't want any competition).
I honestly hope that there is a player minimum when PW comes on-line. Otherwise, there will be a lot of private worlds with just 1 player.
-
Technically, in AM, we treat kicking player and banning player as the same thing...
... and the issue Will really has to look at is spelt out by pseudoswede; players use tokens to join a private world, and how would the host players kicking other players affect that. The issue is we don't refund those tokens the players use to join a private world (or any worlds for that matter) if they are banned. If this is not treated carefully, the membership admins (ie. the innocent party) would get a lot of complaints about hosts kicking users.... :roll:
-
First, if it's a private world, that means I can impose any rules I want above and beyond the airline mogul rules, just like private, restricted membership alliances impose rules above and beyond the rules already set forth in AM, and just like any private organization can impose rules above and beyond the law to its members. Secondly, joining a private world is not a right. It's a privilege. Privileges can be revoked at the world creator's discretion. Not only that if you entered my private world illegitimately, or are using means that are illegitimate under the rules set forth in my world, I have the right to expel you and I SHOULD expel you, with or without notice. However, in the interest of fairness I plan to give notice before expulsion and give you a choice to either comply with the rules or face expulsion.
Joining a public world is a right for anyone who has an airline mogul account and has the requisite tokens to join; joining a private world, however, is not. Private worlds are exclusionary by nature. World creators, by nature of the fact that their world is private, and as long as they have made reasonable precautions that their world is private and any uninvited users will be expelled/banned, should have the right to control the membership of their private world. They also have the right to set forth any restrictions they see fit above and beyond what is legal in AM, just like anything else that is private has the right to do so, no matter how arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. What is legal in a public world doesn't necessarily have to be legal in a private world. If you suspect abuse of discretion, investigate.
It's like university; we have to choose to admit you, and if you don't follow the rules, we will expel you.
Yes, I understand that the backlash may be directed towards the membership officers, but people need to understand that they have no god-given right to enter a private world without an invitation. If you want a god-given right, then join a public world.
First, it's legal; and second, you could too easily boot anyone for any reason (i.e., player is at the same base at your's and you don't want any competition).
In a public world, it's legal. In a private world, created by me, it's illegal if I say so. Secondly, by the nature of the fact that I have created a private world, I have the RIGHT to throw people out or deny people entry for any reason, in good or bad faith, or no reason at all. However in the interest of fairness, my rules and all its amendments will be clearly spelled out and I will give notice if there are any violations before I expel. The purpose of creating a private game is to exclude anyone we don't like from playing. Having the right to expel someone is the only way we can exclude people we don't like from playing with us.
And yes, absolutely, if you created a private world, you would have the right to expel people or deny them entry or reentry for any reason, in good or bad faith, or no reason at all.
-
You know....
1. you are not amongst the group that is running this game
2. it is not a "right" to join a public world, it is a priviledge
3. there will be a password protected function for private world for the hosts to limit access
4. if we allow host to kick people without explanation / reason, flame wars will occur; if we suspress the flame wars, we would be flamed
5. you are not the only one in this game; other people will expel players without notice / explanation / clear rules
All I am saying here is there will be potential issues if we allow hosts to kick players (especially seeing how childish some players are here :roll: ). I am not saying hosts should not be able to ban players from the private worlds they create, but rather I am saying that there should be some mechanism in place to prevent abuses of authority.
-
Well at least we agree on one thing: private world creators should get to control who gets to play in their world.
-
and if the owner is losing to someone then they might throw them out for being more advanced thean them
and that wouldnt be allowed.
i think the admin should get a say before someone gets thrown out.
they would be like a judge in court.
all the evidence before them then they can overrule the decision.
-
In another game that I play we have a system that deals with idiots, game ruiners and AWOLs
We start off with a driver "sacking" (This is a racing game I'm talking about) his teammate. He states his reason and his teammate has 36 hours to object.
If he objects within the 36 hours then a vote begins with other drivers, the sacker and the sackee voting in a poll. After the poll is finished (24-36 hours) the majority rules.
The sacking can be abandoned by the sacker before the sackee objects but if you do you can't sack him again
This will be a great system to use because in that game it's been used for well over a year with only 1 or 2 complaints
-
In another game that I play we have a system that deals with idiots, game ruiners and AWOLs
We start off with a driver "sacking" (This is a racing game I'm talking about) his teammate. He states his reason and his teammate has 36 hours to object.
If he objects within the 36 hours then a vote begins with other drivers, the sacker and the sackee voting in a poll. After the poll is finished (24-36 hours) the majority rules.
The sacking can be abandoned by the sacker before the sackee objects but if you do you can't sack him again
This will be a great system to use because in that game it's been used for well over a year with only 1 or 2 complaints
I like it, except you should be able to 'sack' people as many times as you want. If they do something stupid once, they'll do it again..
-
and if the owner is losing to someone then they might throw them out for being more advanced thean them
and that wouldnt be allowed.
Why shouldn't that be allowed? It's a private world. Private worlds get to pick and choose their members, and who is allowed to stay as members. If you bought a private home, you're allowed to throw people out for any reason, in good or bad faith, or no reason at all, aren't you? I haven't seen a strong argument for placing any check on a creator's discretion to throw people out, other than that people will act in bad faith, and that people will direct their anger at the membership admins. Like I said. People need to want to join private worlds in order for private games to happen and people aren't going to join worlds where the creator kicks them out for being better than them. That falls under bad sportsmanship. If Private World A has a reputation for its creator being fair and appropriate, more people are going to want to join it vs. Private World B where the creator is a sore loser and throws out anyone who does better than them.
Like I said, they're exclusionary by nature. The owner, who made the requisite token investment, gets to decide what criteria to condition the continued membership of other members on. Like I said, if hosts behave arbitrarily or capriciously (treat members like crap), most likely people will leave or never want to join their world, so that should be a reason for hosts to act reasonably. I frankly intend to come down very harshly on game ruiners and idiots, because that isn't the spirit of my private world. My private world is for people who want to have fun. Having game ruiners go 10x all over the place is NOT fun and will be strictly and explicitly prohibited and consequences for violators will be dire (warning then explusion, permanent ban from any future worlds created by me). Besides, I figure the game ruiners are going to bitch and moan no matter what you do so I'm gonna act in accordance with the purpose for which I created a private game (to exclude idiots, game ruiners and steamrollers).
-
The argument is that the host need to pay a significant amount of tokens to create a world but the players joining need to pay a certain amount of token as well. If you kick them, they lose their tokens.
Let's said, if someone creates a unprotected private world inviting a lot of players in (practically opening the private world to anyone and everyone). The condition of the world is attractive (80's/90's, 10 fc with unlimited foreign, start with a concorde... etc.), and a lot of people joined. Then, 6 game months into the game, the host kick everyone out.... the harm is already done, as in those players have lost their tokens. The "reputation" is a social reaction, not a preventive measure. And then... who gets the heat? The admin team because players would complain and demand their tokens back. Simple. I don't know why you don't see the possibility of issues here, seeing that you are a smart potential lawyer.
-
I understand that, but I think people need to understand that risks of joining a private world, that something like that could happen.
I could see the admin team not wanting to take on the liability of admins having unchecked power, but reputation is supposed to serve as a deterrent as well as a social reaction. And you shouldn't take on that liability. Of course. But if you apply to a university and are denied admission, you eat the application fee too. And if you're admitted and are expelled, you eat whatever you paid in tuition too (on top of the application fee), unless you got tuition insurance. If they expel you unfairly, you can sue the university and get some restitution. Perhaps offer token "insurance"? You pay 40 tokens instead of 30 or something like that and then you're eligible for reimbursement (if you were expelled for reasons other than rule violation or unfairly expelled). Or create some sort of dispute system (if you go this route, I'll be more than happy to adjudicate).
And you're absolutely right, there needs to be a system to check the abuse of discretion, but wholesale denial of discretion isn't the solution here.
-
And you're absolutely right, there needs to be a system to check the abuse of discretion, but wholesale denial of discretion isn't the solution here.
I am not saying hosts should not be able to ban players from the private worlds they create, but rather I am saying that there should be some mechanism in place to prevent abuses of authority.
My point :roll:
And again, the reputation issue does not deter people from doing so. If they want to screw the game and some players up, they do so. Deterrance is only 1 theory in deviant behavior under the ration choice category, stating that the subject would choose to perform the deviant act or not by weighing the costs and the benefits. If you look at other famlies of theories, such as conflict theories, which says that people are naturally anti-social, and strait theories, which says that people perform deviant acts when they experience negative emotions due to (perceived/expected) negative treatments by others, deterrance may not even work. If we follow labeling theories, when we label someone a cheater / abuser, they would perform more severe deviant acts eventually. That said, you should not get trapped in normative thinking, and believe that deterrance would work for everyone.
-
If you'd allow me to interrupt your dialog...
I have to agree with yourefired this time. Because the private worlds is an ideal place to have our set of things, which AM doesn't regulate as of now. If I had my own world there would be no 1$ routes, Frequencies should be no more than 4, no more than 3 players in airport and etc. Now if we want the players to stick to our imposed rules we must have some levers as well. Password is the one thing. With password we'll be able to allow only the people we want to (but if the password is the same, there's a risk of illegal access, so we should approve members, before allowing them to play), but with sacking abilities, we'll, obviously, be able to kick players which do not follow our rules. Of course it would be great if we would be able to impose some fines or something.
Now talking about sacking abuse... Once again, I think it's my choice who I want to kick and for what reason. I paid for the private world, so I should have the power to do anything I want. If I'm creator of a world, it doesn't necessarily mean that I have to adjust to users. It's them who have to agree to my command. AM admins should have some levers as well, such as some rules. Something like - no kicking without reason, but that's foolish and childish. It's the users fault for joining the wrong world and the forum would be a great place to find which world will suit them best. Furthermore, if you don't want to loose credits, stay in public worlds. There will always be some room in public worlds due to the nature of multiworlds system.
-
hmm.... let's stand back and think for a minute. So far, everyone are saying that they would be the one kicking people. Of course the host should have certain power, I am not objecting to that (as stated numerous times). The issue is someone has to be the player who joins, ie. not the host. If not, we would have hundreds of private worlds each with one player in it.
What I am asking out of you all is to switch your point of view to a player joining a non-protected private world using tokens that you have purchased with real money. Do you want to be kicked by some kids (like say... Jps :P :wink: ) without reason other than they want to? It is simple as that.
-
Well, would you think before investing your money? :)
I see it this way. I buy tokens, I choose. If I do some research, I'll be able to choose world suited for me. Of course simple user needs some guarantees as well. But I can't think of a way to protect them. In a matter of fact I don't think that we need to protect them from their stupid decisions.
Like we say in Lithuania "Bijai vilko, neik į mišką" adapted it to this situation would mean, if you're afraid to loose your tokens or smthg, stay in public world.
-
If I had my own world there would be no 1$ routes, Frequencies should be no more than 4, no more than 3 players in airport and etc.
Fine. I would just take 747's and do 3 frequencies at €2. Technically, that's legal in your world, but I'd bet you'd kick me out. :roll: I love how people talk about their "own worlds" and setting ridiculous rules like this. It will certainly be your "own world" ... because you'd be the only one playing in it. Honestly, who would want to play in your sand box when most everyone will have enough tokens to build their own and have their own set of rules?
To me, private worlds is about a group of people wanting to play the AM game without outsiders. For example, the FT Alliance would consider moving into our own private world so that we would only be competing against each other and not worrying about stepping on everyone else's toes. We are all pretty savvy on this game, but if someone wants to drop a 10-freq 777 on JFK-LGA, go for it. So long as no one is cheating and is following the basic AM rules, anything goes.
(but if the password is the same, there's a risk of illegal access, so we should approve members, before allowing them to play)
IMO, by approving someone into your world, you've basically said they can play in your sandbox. Hopefully you've done your own due diligence (i.e., researching) in making sure this player doesn't drop ridiculous frequencies on routes or loves to set fares at €1 before you let that person in.
Of course, I could also see a situation where (and I hope) there is minimum player quota for PW, and playings starting post on the forums stuff like "WE'LL ACCEPT ANYONE! JUST JOIN OUR WORLD!". Within a few game months, those suckers that join get booted for very random reasons. They lose out on tokens, and the creator of the PW can enjoy less competition.
-
If I had my own world there would be no 1$ routes, Frequencies should be no more than 4, no more than 3 players in airport and etc.
Fine. I would just take 747's and do 3 frequencies at €2. Technically, that's legal in your world, but I'd bet you'd kick me out. :roll: I love how people talk about their "own worlds" and setting ridiculous rules like this. It will certainly be your "own world" ... because you'd be the only one playing in it. Honestly, who would want to play in your sand box when most everyone will have enough tokens to build their own and have their own set of rules?
To me, private worlds is about a group of people wanting to play the AM game without outsiders. For example, the FT Alliance would consider moving into our own private world so that we would only be competing against each other and not worrying about stepping on everyone else's toes. We are all pretty savvy on this game, but if someone wants to drop a 10-freq 777 on JFK-LGA, go for it. So long as no one is cheating and is following the basic AM rules, anything goes.
(but if the password is the same, there's a risk of illegal access, so we should approve members, before allowing them to play)
IMO, by approving someone into your world, you've basically said they can play in your sandbox. Hopefully you've done your own due diligence (i.e., researching) in making sure this player doesn't drop ridiculous frequencies on routes or loves to set fares at €1 before you let that person in.
Of course, I could also see a situation where (and I hope) there is minimum player quota for PW, and playings starting post on the forums stuff like "WE'LL ACCEPT ANYONE! JUST JOIN OUR WORLD!". Within a few game months, those suckers that join get booted for very random reasons. They lose out on tokens, and the creator of the PW can enjoy less competition.
Feel free to create your world with your 'smart' rules, and I'll be in mine with ridiculous rules. That's fine with me.
-
Fine. I would just take 747's and do 3 frequencies at €2. Technically, that's legal in your world, but I'd bet you'd kick me out. Rolling Eyes I love how people talk about their "own worlds" and setting ridiculous rules like this. It will certainly be your "own world" ... because you'd be the only one playing in it. Honestly, who would want to play in your sand box when most everyone will have enough tokens to build their own and have their own set of rules?
The rules would be much more open to interpretation than that. It would be phrased like "No player shall take any action that is not in accordance with the spirit of the game (referring to THIS SPECIFIC GAME, not airline mogul in general), considered to be reflective of bad sportsmanship or considered to be in bad taste. All players shall be respectful of each other, act in a gentlemanly/gentlewomanly fashion, and be dignified and reasonable. Steamrolling, stupid behavior, and generally making the game not fun for everyone else in the game shall never be allowed or tolerated. Violation of this rule is punishable by expulsion." The above is DEFINITELY considered to be in bad taste. Of course "bad taste and bad sportsmanship" are up to interpretation. I consider steamrolling when not necessary to be in bad sportsmanship and in bad taste. I also consider your action to be unreasonable except in very narrow circumstances. And the spirit of "this game" of course shall be defined somewhere else in the rulebook, which is NOT open to interpretation. The rules are there to foster general respect, dignity and reasonable behavior, as well as good sportsmanship (and to prevent streamrolling, game-ruining, and general stupidity), not to regulate what people can and can't do. It may be in accordance with the word of the law to have what you described, but that's still against the spirit of the law.
I frankly treat everyone with dignity and respect until they prove themselves unworthy of it. Violating rules that they agreed to follow falls in that category. And if you, after having agreed to follow the rules I have clearly set forth before joining my world, and that you've electronically signed that you understand all the rules and agree to follow them, breach that agreement between you and me, then that's a material breach of my trust and you will immediately be escorted out the nearest exit.
Any rule that is so specifically phrased is so open to abuse it may as well not exist at all. You don't see the law books saying "Anyone who gets angry, loses control of their brain functions, and in the heat of the rage (internal temperature shall be 100F or more to be considered heat of rage) bashes another human being in the head with a red cuisinart mixer made between 1990 and 2005, causing the victim's death, shall be guilty of involuntary manslaughter and be sentenced to a prison term of no more than 10 years." So if you bash someone in the head with a yellow cuisinart mixer, you're NOT guilty of involuntary manslaughter? :roll:
Be in your own world. I'll be in mine. That's totally fine with me.
If anyone wants, I'd be more than happy to write you a rulebook.
-
yourefired, I am really really really worried for your future clients. -shakes head-
For every "non-specific" rule, people will start engaging in deviant behavior. Deviant behavior is in fact an essential societal development process in which the norms, values, and rules are defined, by either categorizing the deviant behavior as acceptable or inacceptable. That being said, your rules, however unclear they are written, will be defined to a fine point eventually. In legal contexts, those are your case examples. If you don't define them to a fine point, or if you don't do the same thing for every similar situations, you would be "unfair", which is your bad.
As for the "making the game not fun", some people consider editing routes no fun. Are you going to kick anyone who edit routes, or join into a route that have competition?
pseudoswede, I agree with your vision of private worlds. I don't really like the idea of a privately ran public world, but then again, they pay, they choose. Please mind your language though. People hate it when someone points out they aren't smart.
Tropico, your last comment is not productive. If you have ideas, throw them out. If all you are saying is, fine, I will create a world for myself and dominate the world, please keep that to yourself.
Again, hosts of private worlds should have the ability to ban a player, but... there should be a limit for that.
evo300's and Wizzie's are some good ideas.
For admins to be the judge, it would require the host of the private world to submit to us a clearly defined set of rules before the start of the game, and, quite frankly, that is a challenge. It could also add to the burden to the admins as in we can't please both parties with contradicting interests. We would be stucked and cursed at either ways...
As for voting, it is generally a workable idea, except when the host threaten to close the private world if anyone vote against his decision. (But then, that would be a very bad situation...)
-
My job as a lawyer will be to apply the law to a client's specific situation, not to write it.:roll: Judges and lawyers don't make laws (except for common law-always derived from statutory law-which is the interpretation part). They just apply and interpret what's already written.
What is acceptable and unacceptable has to be defined to a fine point by adjudication, not legislation. Because if congress were to write in the statute every scenario that could result in the ending of another human's life as murder, half the staff would quit citing back problems. Contracts don't cite every scenario either. They cite almost every TYPE of contingency that can REASONABLY occur (there's that word reasonable again), not every little contingency that could possibly happen. If they did, your EULA would be 5 million pages long.
As for fairness, that's where precedents come in.
-
The issue is your understanding of society and your view of it is a bit... lacking? constrainted? (whatever the politically correct term is :roll: )
What is acceptable and unacceptable has to be defined to a fine point by adjudication, not legislation.
Again... exactly what I said with the "case example" point. Precedents are the defining points of a rule, making it clear. And to be fair, one should follow the precendents (at least int eh ideal case... but as my law lecturer has pointed out, judges could be very very very dumb and ignorant in US :roll: ).
The issue is; we are not even talking about legislation here. We are talking about implementation / criminal justice here. Do we care how you set up your rules? No. Do we care if you let your private world run in deja vu? No. Do we care when you have no clear guidelines to base on when you use your (unrestrainted) authority on other players who are paying us? Yes. That is what we are talking about.
If you have to understand things in legal standpoints, the above example of your rule would be "Respect other citizens in this country and not to make anyone unhappy." See any problems with that if that is the only law in US? (or any country with more than 3 people for that matter... :roll: ) Then the same person who wrote that law is going to prosecute anyone who (allegedly) "violates" the law. The legislator and the prosecutor (who is the same person), will then be the judge and decide to whether or not to execute the offender. See any problem with that system?
Or... back to my initial point, if tomorrow, Bush declares US as a monarchy and he has the power to execute anyone in this country as he would like to, see any problem with that? Of course, immigrants would stop immigrating to US (your point of reputation), but what about the people who have lived there all their lives with all their assets in US? Would they lose anything? If so, would there be any problem concerning that?
Mr Big Shot to-be-Lawyer, please, please, please humble yourself. No one is perfect and you are no exception. If you don't listen, you would not learn and you would not grow intellectually. Boarden your horizon and you might actually go far.
-
So what do we get here? It's hardly possible to write strict rules which would take all scenarios into consideration, but if you make general rules, there will be a lot room for interpretation. Is that what you say? Because, i get lost in all those smart terms you're using *shy*
Voting, as mentioned, would be a solution to this. Or the world staff could make decisions... And I think you'll need some staff, because if you're playing in full world with a bunch of users, you'll be hardly able to track all of them. But these are general thoughts which mean almost nothing.
So does anyone have the idea, how to protect users investment into your private world, huh?
-
So what do we get here? It's hardly possible to write strict rules which would take all scenarios into consideration, but if you make general rules, there will be a lot room for interpretation. Is that what you say? Because, i get lost in all those smart terms you're using *shy*
Voting, as mentioned, would be a solution to this. Or the world staff could make decisions... And I think you'll need some staff, because if you're playing in full world with a bunch of users, you'll be hardly able to track all of them. But these are general thoughts which mean almost nothing.
Basically, one has to make rules that cover all bases, but at the same time clearly define those bases. I still remember in secondary school, we have a rule that says no seating on tables. The issue is, how do you define a chair? I could point at a desk and say it is a chair (furniture for someone to sit on). It may be a smartass response to our prefects (and to think we later became prefects... :roll: ), but seriously, people could make chairs in the shape of a desk, but only lower it a bit and maybe shrink the size in general (and that would be called "art" :roll: ).
The issue here is you have to have something to base on when you make a decision to kick someone. That something that you base your decision on is to be made known to the players in the first place so they know what is / is not acceptable. Seriously, how many scenerios could you get in AM? You just need to set some fine lines to define some of those issues that you face. If you use undefined, controvesial, or intangible aspects as guidelines, that would create conflicts. That is what we are going at with this discussion.
The issue with private world hosts having staff is that they still need a clear defined set of rules / guidelines to base their decisions on.
Sorry for those big words. It is hard to communicate with someone concerning "law things" without using some harder words and concepts :wink:
-
First of all, it's not a country. It's a game. NCAA and other sports game regulators have been known to ban players from playing or sanction them for unsportsmanlike behavior (i.e. steroid use, whatever). Expelling a player from a private game would be the equivalent of the NCAA banning a player from playing in a sports game (put sport of choice here).
I never said that I was perfect. I said I'm going to have general guidelines which would serve as some sort of "constitution" and then refine that by adjudication. By the way, the constitution expressly forbids Bush from declaring himself a monarch. Somewhere in Article II I think it says something like "no person shall be given royal titles of any kind" or something along those lines.
What I'm saying is that I'm not going to name a number in my rules because if I do (say no more than 2 frequencies, no less than 50 euros), then someone's going to do 2 frequencies in an A380 and set the fare at 51 euros, ruining the game for everyone else, and the we're back to square one. That's precisely the people I didn't want playing in my world in the first place. It would be unfair for me to require people to understand the letter of the rule as well as the intent of the rule (which is to prevent dumping). I can say "Capacity dumping shall be strictly and explicitly forbidden and shall be punishable by expulsion." Then you come out and say "what is dumping?" Then I'll say I'll have to review that on a case by case basis. I'll add something like (In general, you should add no more than X number of seats to a route, but each complaint will be reviewed on a case by case basis).
-
Basically, one has to make rules that cover all bases, but at the same time clearly define those bases. I still remember in secondary school, we have a rule that says no seating on tables. The issue is, how do you define a chair? I could point at a desk and say it is a chair (furniture for someone to sit on). It may be a smartass response to our prefects (and to think we later became prefects... :roll: ), but seriously, people could make chairs in the shape of a desk, but only lower it a bit and maybe shrink the size in general (and that would be called "art" :roll: ).
Ah, that's where words like "reasonable" come into play. Would a "reasonable person" point to a table and call it a chair? What's a "table" to a reasonable person? From what I've seen here it doesn't say you're ONLY allowed to sit in chairs, only that you're NOT allowed to sit on tables.
What's important isn't the technical meaning, but rather the substantive meaning and purpose of the regulation. In that case, the substantive meaning and purpose was that you're not allowed to sit on a table.
The question will always be would a "reasonable person" consider this unsportsmanly, or dumping, or undignified, or whatever nonspecific word I chose to use? And substantial evidence.
Generally I'll make it a rule that one carrier should carry no more than X% of the potential passengers (meaning if it's 1000-2500 then X% of 2500) in any given route and set some price floor. Unfortunately with single class seating it's really hard to go longhaul. (because no carrier I know of actually carries 440 seats on an A330, for example-the standard Airbus configuration is like 310, and most carriers carry around 250)
I don't oppose price wars: I'd just like them to be civil. I'm going to try to set up some sort of sliding scale based on market share but it's going to have to be adjusted quite a few times before I get it just right.
-
The issue with reasonable is that it diverse depending on culture. AM is in a virtual environment with players from different countries all across the globe. How would you define reasonable?
Let not even look at the cultural difference. Let's take a look at the difference between sub-culture. Is it acceptable for skaters to skate on an academic campus during weekends when there is no class? Often times, to skaters, that is perfectly acceptable because they are just having fun without disturbing others. They are not damaging anything or causing any disturbance. However, if you ask the officials of the university, that would be a totally different picture. Conflicts would then arise.
Seeing that, how do you expect every player on this game to have the same values and same defining lines of reasonableness?
Let's take a look at another issue. Is it reasonable for African Americans to be able to vote? Not so long ago, the answer would have been no. Is it reasonable for them to be free human beings? A little longer ago, the answer would have been no as well. The question is then, are the decisions made by the power that be always reasonable? If not, could we expect that the decisions made by the host of the private worlds to be reasonable, as in objectively reasonable, if there is such as thing as "objectively reasonable"?
Next, if you do consider every case on a case by case basis, would there be different results for very similar situations? If so, wouldn't it be unfair and would players complain about that? On the other hand, if you follow precedents for your judgement, would it be that the precendents are the fine lines? If so, you would have to define that line sooner or later, instead of not having to define it.
Steroid usage is a clear defined line. If you have use steroid without any doctor instruction, you are out. Simple as that. I agree that expelling a player would be very similar in AM private world and in NCAA, especially that you need a guideline for what to base your decisions on.
I am not saying Bush would declare US a monarchy :roll: . It is just an example :roll: .
If you don't name the line, you yourself will progress through time when you carry out the disciplinary actions. People are going to price lower and lower with more and more frequency. Complains would also involve cases of higher prices and lower frequency. These are inevitable because people are basically self-serving and want to get rid of competitors. So at some point, you would have to draw a line. (or does this logic escapes you?)
>>>I have to stress that "reasonableness" is a result of socialization (ie. learning and conditioning). These are done by the power that be to "teach" you the "correct" ways and values. We all know that those "correct" values and ways may not be that "correct" after all, and discriminations based on a variety of basis are great examples to that. The very best example would be that the earth is flat :roll: . (Don't even say the world is round. All reasonable people knew that the world is flat. It is not a rotating globe. Are you crazy?) That said, should we base some decision on some intangible, unwritten normative thoughts that may or may not be true, and of which we may or may not be agreeing with one another?
-
If, in any given route with more than 6 other competitors, a player has more than 35% market share in terms of seats, the player shall be investigated for anticompetitive behavior. If there shall be found a pattern of anticompetitive behavior across the board, the player shall be confronted by an administrator, who will demand an explanation. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the player shall be expelled. If there is not a pattern of anticompetitive behavior across the board, or a satisfactory explanation can be given, the player shall be issued a stern warning about such practices. At this point, the player shall be on probation for a period of no less than 1 game month to no more than 18 game months. If within the probation period a second complaint of such practice arises, the player shall be expelled with notice unless a reasonably satisfactory explanation for such behavior can be given.
A reasonably satisfactory explanation shall include, but not be limited to, filling up hours on an aircraft and inadvertent happenstance by a competitor exiting a route. Explanations including but not limited to revenge, spite and "for the hell of it" are NOT acceptable explanations. However, this determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis.
In the interest of protecting complainants, all complaints shall be confidential unless the complainant chooses to surrender that protection.
Better? Specific enough for you?
Bringing in that antitrust regulation that I've been calling for. As I said, the goal is to encourage friendly competition, not to restrict the business practices of members.
Basically in a little blip of text like that, I have to a) make sure I cover most bases, b) afford the rights of due process to alleged violators, c) provide for penalties for violators, d) protect complainants and e) provide for a method of enforcement. For that, I think I've done pretty well here.
-
Then I'm gonna flat out come out and say in a route with more than i.e. 6 competitors, anyone with 40% or more market share will be investigated for anticompetitive practices. If there is a pattern of anticompetitive practices/bad sportsmanship (i.e. pricing at 10 or some absurd amount), the player will be expelled.
Bringing in that antitrust regulation that I've been calling for. As I said, the goal is to encourage friendly competition, not to restrict the business practices of members.
Will having a larger plane than anyone else on that route count as well (If it is a route that really doesn't warrant a plane that big- just people trying to use hours)?
-
Then I'm gonna flat out come out and say in a route with more than i.e. 6 competitors, anyone with 40% or more market share will be investigated for anticompetitive practices. If there is a pattern of anticompetitive practices/bad sportsmanship (i.e. pricing at 10 or some absurd amount), the player will be expelled.
Bringing in that antitrust regulation that I've been calling for. As I said, the goal is to encourage friendly competition, not to restrict the business practices of members.
Will having a larger plane than anyone else on that route count as well (If it is a route that really doesn't warrant a plane that big- just people trying to use hours)?
That would fall under "reasonably satisfactory explanation". I'm saying let's act reasonable here. Putting a 747 on an average demand route is unreasonable and will probably lose money after you've paid gate costs, fuel, staff, etc. and will likely leave a foul taste in my mouth (I might be harsher on you later on in disciplinary cases). again, if you do it just to use hours, I'll see that you've only done it for one or two routes, which doesn't count as a "pattern". Now if I find out that you've been doing it on say 25 different routes all over the world, then you might be in deep doodoo. I thought about imposing a minimum fare floor at 100, still thinking about it. (I have to set it at some rate where you'd lose money or barely break if you placed a 747 on a route like LAX-Catalina Island.
Maybe I should just outright ban the use of 747s. There are much better planes out there with fewer seats that wouldn't kill off anything the thing flies. (esp in the 2000-2008 era) Not to mentions those things are fuel hogs.
I have the sliding scale now:
3 competitors=60%
4 competitors=50%
5 competitors=45%
6 competitors=35%
7-10 competitors=30%
10 or more=25%
15 or more=20%
This is the percentage that would trigger an investigation, not the percentage that would result in expulsion. The scale's pretty liberal here, so it should exclude most cases of people using big planes on short routes to fill up hours. Again, I plan to have an audit of people's routes every two game months to make sure I catch violations, and surprise audits may happen as well.
Short of being able to issue fines, the best I can do is put people on probation and kick them out.
-
Frankly, I just see people screaming bloody murder (eh.... I mean unfair) for your "consideration by board". :roll:
-
I can't satisfy everyone.
Or I could just be an absolutist dictator and have total and absolute rule of law for everthing. Would you prefer that, rather than affording rights of due process to alleged violators, giving them a chance to explain what they did or confront the charges against them? The law isn't absolute, and the law should NEVER be absolute. Because life is various shades of gray, not black or white.
Only the above scenario doesn't afford any due process and is much more open to abuse on both ends.
-
Why is everyone (almost) ignoring my idea about "unlawful bannings and kickings"?
Most people will also take into consideration the amount of tokens a private game costs. The more a world costs the better the better the people would behave(in a perfect world).
But seeing this is not a perfect world there will always be idiots who ruin it for people and other idiots who get away with "murder in the dark" by banning ang kicking innocent players in private games. It's a fact of life so get over it. I wish you can get your tokens back though...
-
In another game that I play we have a system that deals with idiots, game ruiners and AWOLs
We start off with a driver "sacking" (This is a racing game I'm talking about) his teammate. He states his reason and his teammate has 36 hours to object.
If he objects within the 36 hours then a vote begins with other drivers, the sacker and the sackee voting in a poll. After the poll is finished (24-36 hours) the majority rules.
The sacking can be abandoned by the sacker before the sackee objects but if you do you can't sack him again
This will be a great system to use because in that game it's been used for well over a year with only 1 or 2 complaints
BATracer, yeah? I used to play that.
I like the idea, it's a fair system that should hopefully stop any unfair bannings and it will save the admins having to give up their valuable time to sort through banning applications.
-
Problem is, if you're only allowed to attempt to expel someone once, and it fails, the person's going to act even more stupidly because they now know that their place will NEVER be in jeopardy any longer. The only thing keeping people from pissing other people off badly is the threat of getting kicked out and losing their tokens. Without that threat, nobody would follow the world rules.
I'm still for giving world creators the discretion to throw people out. Yes, there will be unfair expulsions, yes, people will be expelled out of spite, but the vote thing requires you to play politics, not to mention the conflict of interest issues (i.e. they're in your base and you don't want them there anymore). With a set of rules, you can hopefully eliminate most of the conflict of interest issues and people getting kicked out unfairly. And if you treat people unfairly nobody's going to join your world.
As far as the legal side of this goes, there can't be a tort action unless a tort has already been committed. You can't sue me under tort law for thinking about punching you in the face, that's protected free speech/thought.
But then, do you really want to be a part of a game that doesn't want to have you around?
-
I'm still for giving world creators the discretion to throw people out. Yes, there will be unfair expulsions, yes, people will be expelled out of spite, but the vote thing requires you to play politics, not to mention the conflict of interest issues (i.e. they're in your base and you don't want them there anymore). With a set of rules, you can hopefully eliminate most of the conflict of interest issues and people getting kicked out unfairly. And if you treat people unfairly nobody's going to join your world.
I'm a little confused. You're saying that a voting system would be unfair? As opposed to the host being allowed to kick out whoever he pleases?
-
I'm saying it's not a foolproof system, just like giving creators discretion within reason.
If you were to design a 100% foolproof system the process would be so bureaucratic it may as well not exist.
-
But the other option is basically a dictatorship. Granting complete power to one person.
-
Not necessarily. Depends on the way it's run. If you have multiple people running the world then no it's not a dictatorship.
No matter what system you set up people are still going to abuse it, like wizzie said.
I think there should be a system to fine people too. Otherwise the only power I have to keep people from acting stupid is to either a)throw them out, or b) threaten to throw them out (place them on probation).
-
can some body answer the question i asked at the beginning when will there be private worlds?
-
Nobody knows, really. I suspect it'll be ready by the middle of summer.
-
I'm about 60% confident with the formula at the moment for how much each world will cost; i need to smooth some of the optional settings variance out a bit.
then i need to make a decent GUI, beyond that it's simple (the automatic script just needs a few mods here and there to make it private). I hope, I hope it won't take too long.
-
Will you take American Express for coupon purchases? (I suspect this would require getting a merchant account with AmEx so maybe Paypal?)
-
then i need to make a decent GUI
I know my record is bad, but that is the funniest thing I've read all week. :lol:
With regard to payments. We will be planning to offer both Google Checkout and Paypal.
-
Sorry to ask but what's GUI?
-
then i need to make a decent GUI
I know my record is bad, but that is the funniest thing I've read all week. :lol:
With regard to payments. We will be planning to offer both Google Checkout and Paypal.
Excellent.... ***gets out AmEx card***
-
Sorry to ask but what's GUI?
graphic user interface.
most of it is straightforward... working together the airport selection page without listing each of the (presently) 490 possible combinations. that's the tricky part.