when is Private worlds?

[yourefired]

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?

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.

[dktc]

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...)

[yourefired]

My job as a lawyer will be to apply the law to a client's specific situation, not to write it. 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.

[dktc]

The issue is your understanding of society and your view of it is a bit... lacking? constrainted? (whatever the politically correct term is )

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 ).

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... ) 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.

[tropico]

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?

[dktc]

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... ), 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" ).

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:

[yourefired]

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).

[yourefired]

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... ), 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" ).

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.

[dktc]

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 . It is just an example .

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 . (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?

[yourefired]

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.

[zkvac]

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)?

[yourefired]

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.

[dktc]

Frankly, I just see people screaming bloody murder (eh.... I mean unfair) for your "consideration by board".

[yourefired]

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.

[Wizzie]

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...