"Admins"

[scythe111]

I just got done playing the "deathmatch" server. The admin in there, I think his name was pawn cakes, made up a host of rules. Break any of these rules, you get banned.

1. No cav.
2. No projectiles.
3. No more than 1 shield.
4. No attacking peoples' backs.
5. No telling the admin this server is lame due to the slew of rules.

I have never run into a server full of more whiny little kids. Servers run by admins like this are a scourge on M&B. It was embarrassing. Everyone other message in there was "pawncakes ban xxxxx plzkthx."

 

[sadnhappy]

This was already mentioned here on the other thread:

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,78867.0.html

And Yes, this kind of behaviour is NOT what admins should be doing, at all. I'm sure that someone is looking at the problem as we speak.

 

[Styo]

I just got done playing the "deathmatch" server. The admin in there, I think his name was pawn cakes, made up a host of rules. Break any of these rules, you get banned.

1. No cav.
2. No projectiles.
3. No more than 1 shield.
4. No attacking peoples' backs.
5. No telling the admin this server is lame due to the slew of rules.

I have never run into a server full of more whiny little kids. Servers run by admins like this are a scourge on M&B. It was embarrassing. Everyone other message in there was "pawncakes ban xxxxx plzkthx."

Thanks for the info.

 

[MaHuD]

What region was this? EU, USA or Oceanic?
And yes as the others said, this is abusing powers. (I think)

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

In his defense, he was trying to cater to the interests of the majority of those playing on the server.  Also, he did not hand out any bans that I recall, people were only kicked by votes from other players.

I'm not taking either side as to whether he was at fault or not.  I just played by the rules/wishes of those in the server, and had a good time.

 

[Rujasu]

Is the server renamed or a completely new one?

 

[TheMageLord]

Since there are two threads on the subject, I'll just link to my other post instead of copypasta.

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,78867.msg2044346.html#msg2044346

 

[Setton]

He wasn't banning people and just wanted to cater for those who wanted to duel. He explained the rules to everyone joining and no-one bothered to say they didn't like the rules.

If it was a problem you should have said.

 

[Gabeed]

In his defense, he was trying to cater to the interests of the majority of those playing on the server.  Also, he did not hand out any bans that I recall, people were only kicked by votes from other players.

I'm not taking either side as to whether he was at fault or not.  I just played by the rules/wishes of those in the server, and had a good time.

This.  I'm not sure to what extant Pawncakes' admin powers go, but this isn't the same situation as what happened to WilliamBerne a couple weeks ago.

 

[Apthorpe]

For clarification, "5. No telling the admin this server is lame due to the slew of rules." was not a stated rule. If someone was spamming chat they were told to stop.

And for further clarification, I did hand out bans (which I believe are 30 min. bans from the one server) to certain players.

 

[scythe111]

In his defense, he was trying to cater to the interests of the majority of those playing on the server.  Also, he did not hand out any bans that I recall, people were only kicked by votes from other players.

I'm not taking either side as to whether he was at fault or not.  I just played by the rules/wishes of those in the server, and had a good time.

That's not an admin's job. Their job is to enforce the rules, not make new ones. The servers already have rules.

Likewise, he can't go into a siege server and say "This is now a horse-killing server. If you don't buy a horse- ban. If you kill other players- ban." It sounds ridiculous, but that's the kind of thing that was happening.

 

[Rujasu]

There was no-one who disagreed with the rules.

 

[scythe111]

There was no-one who disagreed with the rules.

Not true! I disagreed! And so did at least 2 other I know I was on vent with.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

In his defense, he was trying to cater to the interests of the majority of those playing on the server.  Also, he did not hand out any bans that I recall, people were only kicked by votes from other players.

I'm not taking either side as to whether he was at fault or not.  I just played by the rules/wishes of those in the server, and had a good time.

That's not an admin's job. Their job is to enforce the rules, not make new ones. The servers already have rules.

Likewise, he can't go into a siege server and say "This is now a horse-killing server. If you don't buy a horse- ban. If you kill other players- ban." It sounds ridiculous, but that's the kind of thing that was happening.

I understand where you're coming from, bud, but he didn't just come into a server and coerce the players into following his house rules.  It was empty before we duelers got there, and we set up our own house rules beforehand.  A lot of us, not two or three players. If it had been the only deathmatch server available then I'd have a problem too.  It wasn't, so I don't see why it's a big deal.

 

[scythe111]

In his defense, he was trying to cater to the interests of the majority of those playing on the server.  Also, he did not hand out any bans that I recall, people were only kicked by votes from other players.

I'm not taking either side as to whether he was at fault or not.  I just played by the rules/wishes of those in the server, and had a good time.

That's not an admin's job. Their job is to enforce the rules, not make new ones. The servers already have rules.

Likewise, he can't go into a siege server and say "This is now a horse-killing server. If you don't buy a horse- ban. If you kill other players- ban." It sounds ridiculous, but that's the kind of thing that was happening.

I understand where you're coming from, bud, but he didn't just come into a server and coerce the players into following his house rules.  It was empty before we duelers got there, and we set up our own house rules beforehand.  A lot of us, not two or three players. If it had been the only deathmatch server available then I'd have a problem too.  It wasn't, so I don't see why it's a big deal.

I don't think "we got here first." Matters in this scenario. If there was an empty battle server, and people decide it's a boxing ring, then someone with a sword can join and kill them all. You can't ban him for that.

 

[SCGavin]

I don't think "we got here first." Matters in this scenario. If there was an empty battle server, and people decide it's a boxing ring, then someone with a sword can join and kill them all. You can't ban him for that.

Why not? If he joins a server where several people decided to do fisticuffs and slays them with his sword, he is a spoilsport. If there are other servers with the same game-mode, he can go there, ie. leave the fisticuffs server. If he wants to stay but ignores the wishes of the other players and the opinion of the majority on the server, he can and should be banned.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

Battle is one thing.  Battle servers are more highly populated, and they have more reasons for people to want multiple servers to choose from.  Usually, though, only one deathmatch server has any people in it, making it an ideal choice for people who want to duel without bothering other players, since others can go to the empty ones to play normal deathmatch.  I don't think you were one of the ones purposely griefing the duelers, but you could've easily started a game elsewhere, too.

 

[sadnhappy]

I don't think "we got here first." Matters in this scenario. If there was an empty battle server, and people decide it's a boxing ring, then someone with a sword can join and kill them all. You can't ban him for that.

Why not? If he joins a server where several people decided to do fisticuffs and slays them with his sword, he is a spoilsport. If there are other servers with the same game-mode, he can go there, ie. leave the fisticuffs server. If he wants to stay but ignores the wishes of the other players and the opinion of the majority on the server, he can and should be banned.

I'm going to have to disagree. The server was a public server, for everyone to use. The admin in question changed the server name and game style which can be justified to some degree, if there are no servers that are running the specified game mode. But making such rules of your own, making it a 'duel' server if you will, without even adding into the server name which would implicate it being a 'duel' server is just not going to fly in my opinion, even if you do spam out the 'rules' whilst playing.

We are still on a beta phase and we only have three EU servers and possible 2-4 active US servers running, so that's five to seven active servers, remember that. While sure the server was empty until the guys joined it, it was still a public server and 1/6 or 1/7 of the potential servers running at the time and for everyone to use. With so few servers right now active, creating these small 'our rules' servers is not okay as it eliminates a lot of pot

EDIT: Making a public server on your own is of course fine when the game is released, then you can do anything you want, of course. But even then, adding the 'duel' into the name and possible forum announcement would be plenty. But right now, like I said, we only have a limited amount of servers, which are all for public use.

 

[Thornton]

my my what a palaver.

I kinda sympathise with both groups here. The server was empty and they decided to set their own rules. Sounds fair.

Other people joined and were kicked for not obeying these rules - also sucks.

Here's my take on it. We are testing. Not playing. Sure we can have fun and enjoy it as much as we can. If servers are empty then whatever everyone agrees to is fine - until someone else joins.

The devs or whoever have made server rules and unless they say otherwise then these should be the ONLY rules that apply to EVERYONE. None of the rules applied in this case seem to be valid under 'testing conditions'.

When the game is released then people can set up their own servers, put passwords to stop unwanted players and then kick/ban whoever they feel like for whatever reason they feel like. It is a free world (I wish). Don't like the rules - set up your own server or join a public one. But for now these servers are all 'public' - at least for those of us in the beta. And they are severely limited in number.

So if it was my call I would just say if everyone is happy then fine. But if someone doesn't want to play by YOUR rules, but abides by the SERVER rules then on no account should they be kicked. Remember at all times that this is for the DEVS benefit not ours. This a privilege that can be taken away at anytime with no recourse of action.

The only solution I can see is if there are dedicated duelling servers with their own rules that have been set up for that purpose, but as their are bugs to be fixed, physics to be implemented and all that we should just be thankful that we have such an enjoyable and mostly bug free game to play with. Seriously I get far more grief on every other MP game I have than with Warband. I feel lucky just to be playing.

 

[ScientiaExcelsa]

Again, because there were other US servers running the same game mode at the same time(at least I think so), I don't feel that we were hampering anybody's opportunity to have fun or test the beta effectively.