Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boondocksaint

SOP Change: TS Names (26 Feb 2012 15:16 UOT)

Change in TS SOP 12   

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you approve the SOP change.

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      13


Recommended Posts

This SOP was poorly written and needs clarity as well as defined punishments. 15 min bans for having a different name on TS disrupts game play more than someone having a different name. We just traded one minor disruption for a bigger one.

 

I DID NOT MAKE THIS ORIGINAL SOP. THIS IS A CHANGE.

 

Original TS SOP

 

12.In-game name and Teamspeak name must be similar enough to be immediately identifiable as the same user.

 

New TS SOP

 

12. When in United Operations Arma 2 Servers, your in game name and TS name must be similar enough to be identified by an in game admin, officer or GM .

12A. Failure to comply with SOP 12 will result in a verbal warning for first offence, a kick with a detailed "kick reason" for a 2nd offence, and bans for further violations in accordance with UO's ban procedures. Discipline will be administered according to this SOP by the ingame admin, GM and officers. This SOP only applies to the UO Arma 2 Servers.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. I saw this problem coming, but before I could mention it in the other poll it was too late. People not on the servers, and not in the server channels, should not be affected.

Share this post


Link to post

Other than Events or large (>20) games on the Primary Server do we really care? The GM or admin should have the right to suspend this rule for specail Events.

Share this post


Link to post

A 15 minute ban wakes the person up and makes it so they won't break the SOP again. I think Impulse said last night that he wasn't planning on going past the 15 minute ban punishment unless the person breaks the SOP more than a few times.

 

The SOP clearly states that it is for "in-game". Don't see a reason to change this unless people are upset with the punishment part of it. This shouldn't be the case though, because punishment for breaking an SOP is outlined in them.

Share this post


Link to post

This SOP doesn't change anything except clears up what should happen if you do not follow to the SOP. As it is now, member can be banned by how ever long the person banning them wants because there is no such rule governing it. Isn't banning an active player in the server from TS for 15 minutes more of a disruption than him not having his name match? I thought this would be common sense.

 

@ Huska, it also takes just a minute for the in game admin to say "Hey who ever Blah Blah is on TS, make you name match or be kicked". If they don't respond kick them. The excuse that it "wakes them up" is lame, a simple kick would do the same thing and not inhibit the player from playing on the server for the next mission. You just kick em and put the reason as "Failure to follow SOPs or some shit. Banning someone is retarded as a simple kick would do the same thing. If they are "not awake" they they might not come back from the kick anyways.

Share this post


Link to post

It's breaking an SOP. Punishment for breaking it is outline in the SOPs. I still don't see a reason to change it. I see what you mean by the disruption, but I don't see any other way the SOP will be enforced as people's names have been all over the place for a while.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with a warning system, but how would it be implemented? If someone is warned by someone, that person goes offline, then gets warned again, does he really learn anything? Unless the work is put in place to set up a system where we record warnings (which would never happen, and would be absurdly impractical), I vote no.

Share this post


Link to post

How hard is it to keep a name on TS the same as the one you use in-game?...

 

x2

 

Then again this SOP does not leave enough room to be vague...someone changing his name to "JIPS GO OPFOR" or "KEEP 1:1" is violating the SOP.

Share this post


Link to post

Unnecessary.

 

If impulse did not warn those he banned he should have, but that is not a problem with the SOP but enforcement and a request undersigned or a discussion thread would be better suited.

 

The wording of the original SOP already defines the locality of the offense to the realm of the game, so the 1st amendment is moot. IT also adds a interpretative problem with "name must be similar enough to be identified by an in game admin, officer or GM ."

 

The 2nd amendment is redundant as all SOP enforcement goes on such a scale.

 

Again I don't think Impulse should be banning people without a warning. Immediate bans should be reserved for those who are clearly making disruptive behavior and have no means to correct themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

This is retarded, I have had a seperate in game name since TG.

 

EDIT: And it has never caused any issues.

 

Yeah but we also know who you are and it's consistently soupy_norman, not a random string of gibberish.

Share this post


Link to post

This is better then abruptly banning somebody. How many *irregular* players even bother reading these updates in SOP.

Share this post


Link to post

This is retarded, I have had a seperate in game name since TG.

 

EDIT: And it has never caused any issues.

x2

 

Then again this SOP does not leave enough room to be vague...someone changing his name to "JIPS GO OPFOR" or "KEEP 1:1" is violating the SOP.

How hard is it to keep a name on TS the same as the one you use in-game?...

 

I didn't invent this SOP FYI. Its already in place. Just wanted to clarify it.

Share this post


Link to post

Justice

  • Those in violation of the SOPs and charter rules will be warned and may be kicked by regulars. The Game Server Officer and Web Services Officer may issue a ban within their respective domains in order to neutralize a misbehaving player until further adjudication is possible.

This addition may not be necessary based on the above. If you're going to specifically designate punishments for Teamspeak #12 you would have to specifically designate punishments for at least ten other SOP items and probably several charter items as well.

 

So it sounds like the real problem is that some Regulars may be inflicting harsher punishments than what fits the crime.

 

I would suggest modifying the Justice SOP and/or correcting the actions of regulars via discussion. Or even going as far as to remove/replace regulars.

Share this post


Link to post

First run was done to make a statement.

 

Two candidates were selected for having different names than their ingame names for a period of over 10 minutes.

No formal warning was done. Massive number of players with extra content attached to their name and general retardation was occurring within the waiting channels affecting new players exposed to the community. First run "wakeup to the sop change" was performed, one non regular and one regular was affected. Regular claimed not to be aware the SOP was in effect, it had been active for 4 days, and winning a vote with more than 12days at a 95%+ ratio.

 

Second Run

User was Poked, and given 10 minutes notice.

User did not notice poke, and had changed name within seconds before kick and temporary suspension from Teamspeak. User in this case was a GM and Regular, whom should have been aware and enforcing the same standards.

 

All further action on this SOP will be done with a Poke first, as I have already been doing, and then the kick/temp suspension from teamspeak. 15Minute bans must be recorded and are the only applicable and publicly noticeable punishment that others can observe to be aware of this SOP infraction.

 

Adding additional text to the SOP may not be required, unless people perceive the above actions as abuse. Personally I am tired of people filling a waiting room or general discussion distracting from the active game sessions with the retarded names that have been occurring for the last week.

 

If a true SOP needs to be written on top of the existing, this pattern will not stop and soon our Charter and SOP will grow out of control turning into an unsustainable work. Personal judgement was used in this case to make more people aware of this SOP, with no lasting effect on those involved. Suitable attention to the new "Forced/Voted" SOP was brought to light with this, poll. I think I need to rereview the part in the charter to clarify if similar polls are not allowed in votes that pass, as opposed to votes that fail within a set time of the prior action.

 

---edit Clarification

Only failed votes are subject to the two week non revote clause under Operations.

 

---edit Opinion

In cases such as this where a new SOP is to be proposed, Discussion should be introduced first, and temporary SOP's after suitable discussion may be most beneficial to be proposed enacted by Officers. And if the SOP changes enacted by Officers are non suitable or addressing the community's viewed desire or needs from the SOP in question. Then votes should be taken to make a Permanent SOP change.

 

---edit Statement

Immediate bans were not processed, only those in direct violation of the SOP were selected after an extended playtime.

No proper ban was processed on a server or gameside basis. Game process was handled by Kick. Teamspeak was handled by a temporary suspension ban, which was manually revoked in less than 15 minutes in all three cases. The static amount of time under 15 minutes was not confirmed. ... Technically all bans less than 15minutes require no administrative/documented logging.

 

In the future everyone should now be aware of this SOP, Regulars and Regular/GM's alike. This thread has served a good point in making people aware that SOP's will be enforced. And those without well defined text are "open" to interpretation and best judgement.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm voting no, this rule is perfectly written, vague enough to not be abused stupidly (being named "|UO|azzwort" in game but "azzwort" on ts isn't libel for a ban due to the genious use of the term "similer"), but specific enough to be enforced effectivly. If you don't have the same name as in-game in TS then being insta-banned for 15 minutes is totally a just punishment, and now that it's a rule, totally allowed to be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post

But I was on a test server, and all the people in that channel KNEW that my name in TS3 was Cherry NoDebate at the time. Wasn't primary, or even secondary. Also, The reason I "claimed" that I didn't know the SOP was in effect was because the "Poll Passes" post wasn't put up the day it actually passed, but actually 4 days later. I pay attention, but I cba to actively search everyday to see if a new rule has been put in place before I jump on TS and go to the test server.

 

To clarify, I didn't think the 15 min ban was necessary. However, that was Saturday, which means it no longer matters.

 

Yesterday on Wookie School, I noticed a player by the name of toy-something in TS, while there was no matching name in server. I put over global that he needs to change his name, which he did 2 minutes later. If people are in-game, and like me, have TS sound notifications off, they aren't going to notice a poke. Someone IN the game with them can notify them over chat, or you can choose the direct route and jump in the channel and yell at them.

IMO, this SOP doesn't need to be enforced by anyone other than the admin on the server at the time. If he/she can't relate the two names, then he/she needs or can take care of it.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't invent this SOP FYI. Its already in place. Just wanted to clarify it.

 

I'm not blaming you at all or pointing fingers, I agree that the meat of the SOP is clear but the enforcement is vague, technically you can ban someone for a month for breaking this SOP.....

Share this post


Link to post

Which is why I added the punishment part. Also azz you post makes no fucking sense. " Vague enough to not be abused" are you kidding, the more vague something is the more it can be abused. Anyways it's clear we are ok with players getting banned for 15 min for something so minor.

Share this post


Link to post

Notice how I gave an example of what I meant by " Vague enough to not be abused" (read inside perenthesis plz). Adding on to this rule just seems unnessary to me, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...