0ZZZ
Phrourach
Serious dude your bias is showing but your substantive argument is not. Why dont you go back to that
"in crowd snow flake" echo chamber you call an alliance chat where like you they believe any tactic beyond zerge should be banned.
Your views may sit well with the quite vocal minority snowflakes here but it in no way do they reflect the opinions of the majority of players that have never even logged in here. Im not actually accusing her of bringing about this change. How could I possibly know for sure?
I am accusing her of playing in the same community she functions as a judge in which shows a lack of ethics in it self. Beyond that she could be mother Teresa herself and she would still APPEAR guilty. That is why most reputable gaming companies would never allow this.
Adjudication violating industry standard gives the appearance of corruption.
Moderators and community managers Function as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.
Hell they execute punishment before giving you an opportunity to even provide a defense.
They literally execute rules with ZERO transparency.
"Sorry we can't tell you the rules because then you might be able to know before hand what they are and avoid breaking them."
"Sorry we cant tell you what the punishment for breaking the rules are because you might know what the appropriate punishment is."
All of those choices above invite the suspicion of corruption.
There are no reasonable checks and balances.
There is no transparency.
You could be a perfect saint and those choices will still call into question your integrity.
That is why first world governments do not function this way and neither do most respectable games.
Now add the fact the person in this GOD role was playing with or against you last server and will likely be playing with or against you next server that is over the top, and grossly violates industry standards in game moderation.
I have friends and relatives that work in this industry and they wont even try the game based on this blatant disrespect for proper player adjudication.
----
Immutable advantages.
Immutable advantages.
Community managers/moderators have game knowledge that is intentionally denied players. they make choices with this knowledge.
Other players will assume they will share this knowledge directly with their team.
Even if not directly they will share some of this knowledge simply by their observable actions.
In recruitment the perceived advantage of having a moderator in an alliance is a draw for recruitment.
In diplomacy other alliances are more likely to behave favorable in order to gain the mods good side or avoid their bad.
All of these factors effect a competitive games outcome.
All of these advantages would be present if the mod was as pure as the driven snow. No actual malicious intent required.
Now if they actively chose to use this power in the manner expected, the advantage rates off the scale.
Are you going to try to shovel us the manure that there is no potential that some one is not going to treat a known moderator differently when they expect that person will be their judge in the next server they play?
Did you fail both Ethics, and psychology 101
?
Do you even proof read what you write for content of logic before you hit send?
Do you realize the fact you raced to defend a community manager you have influence with betrays the value you have placed on this unfair edge you seek to preserve.
You are literally proving several of my assertions for me.
Community managers/moderators have game knowledge that is intentionally denied players. they make choices with this knowledge.
Other players will assume they will share this knowledge directly with their team.
Even if not directly they will share some of this knowledge simply by their observable actions.
In recruitment the perceived advantage of having a moderator in an alliance is a draw for recruitment.
In diplomacy other alliances are more likely to behave favorable in order to gain the mods good side or avoid their bad.
All of these factors effect a competitive games outcome.
All of these advantages would be present if the mod was as pure as the driven snow. No actual malicious intent required.
Now if they actively chose to use this power in the manner expected, the advantage rates off the scale.
Are you going to try to shovel us the manure that there is no potential that some one is not going to treat a known moderator differently when they expect that person will be their judge in the next server they play?
Did you fail both Ethics, and psychology 101
?Do you even proof read what you write for content of logic before you hit send?
Do you realize the fact you raced to defend a community manager you have influence with betrays the value you have placed on this unfair edge you seek to preserve.
You are literally proving several of my assertions for me.
The current choice to allow JUDGES to play the same server sets they function as judges are literally the text book example of conflict of interest.
People literally get fired from their jobs in the gaming industry for just divulging they are an employee for the game company they are playing in let alone being a judge. Even making the claim "my dad works for SONY so...." will get you banned and if true your father disciplined.
Seeing as you appear to lack a basic grasp of logic I will boil the argument down to some thing my 4 year old brother could comprehend.
Perhaps you would enjoy me moderating your entire teams ticket load next server?
You think that might effect your gaming experience much?
I do not think you understand the definition of conflict of interest?
1) not an employee.
2) Not on either team involved.
3) Made the same argument several years ago before Olympus was even a concept.
I have one interest a fare judging system from the perspective of a paying customer.
I would require at least one more interest in order for their to be a conflict.
That is unless you are going to claim that my knowledge of this person as a player might influence my ability to judge them.
If that is so you can stop reading here as you just made my argument for me.
SPAM! explain how you can accuse some one of an action that has yet to have an agreed upon definition?
I hear there is one written down some where but it is super secret. Did your mod friend share that secret with you?
Toxic behavior?
You mean like game killing behavior?
You mean like bullying players a tenth your size instead of fighting an appropriate sized opponent that would be a challenge?
How bout insisting any tactic that gives them a counter to your size advantage be cause for being banned from the game?
How about focusing on one enemy player at a time purposefully trying to get them to quit or ghost so you can weaken the other team?
Here is a good one for you.
How about waging MODfare against an opponent you cant beat in battle. How dare they challenge your hegemony with superior skill?
How about treating all of your alliance that are not in the "in crowd" like surfs?
How about "recruiting" 80% of your team from the top 100 players creating a "super group" before the server is even half way through?
Because no one will declare it a dead server and quit? Because no one in that "super group" will quit because there is no challenge left?
Dont tell me you have never done any of the above i have watched you and your "in crowd" burn this game down with said "toxic" behavior.
Its not rocket science people. If a moderator plays on the en server they mod the US server.
If they play the US server then they mod the EN server. They function as judges for people they do not know.
Most Europeans speak multiple languages should be no shortage there.
This is no difference in scope than not allowing your uncle to function as your judge in a murder trial.
I can't believe I'm even having to explain this. It is basic wrong and right.
Last edited:
