Can we please cut the "inno surely is.." or "inno can't do.." stuff from this discussion? It is completely irrelevant.
This is me, as a Community Manager, asking the community for input on how
they would like Pushing defined and enforced. This has absolutely nothing to do with HR, nor is it a request from the company themselves to get done; This is
me asking you.
Once that rule & policy is clear we will see how doable it is regarding staff , which again is my problem. Not yours, not the mod's.
So far, however, almost all of the arguments came with giant loopholes and easy ways to circumvent (which our senior staff has been actively trying to point out in your argumentations). So instead of coming up with arguments about whether or not the team is big enough, has enough resources, ... whatever... get those loopholes closed, and then we will look into staffing consequences.
The reality is that the way it is currently investigated, one single reported pushing case takes hours and sometimes even days to investigate. This makes it undoable in every format, regardless of how many people you throw at it. People expect immediate actions on a report, which we simply can not provide in the current state (on en125 alone there were days we got a hundred in a single day, and then people send us angry bias accusations if we didn't ban someone within 2 hours... ).
So instead of "throw more people at it", your answers should include a way that we can define pushing more strictly, which results in the investigations taking less time. We can then handle more cases with more people, and get more immediate results of those reports.
Focus on the questions I posed in the OP.
What is pushing? What rule or policy do you suggest? Are there any loopholes in that rule you are suggesting? Can it easily be circumvented? If so, it's not a good rule/policy.
Stay on track, please. This is not an easy subject, so don't get frustrated at the team for pointing out the flaws in your suggestions. It literally is their job to figure out the holes in the net so we can avoid them. Instead, work with them to get them closed.
There are game markets out there that are not even enforcing a pushing rule due to the complexity - they just let it happen. There are game markets out there that don't even allow simply village gifting (not even to get a spot closer to the frontline), to make sure it can't be turned into a pushing framework.
This is absolutely not an easy subject and Tribal Wars, community
and staff, has been struggling with it since the game started out in 2006. The rules are simply too hard to define regarding them and there will always be ways to push due to how a game event is interpreted, or someone accusing another of pushing because he or she got lucky. That doesn't mean however we can't have a constructive discussion and try once more. Again and again, until we find a framework that works for us!
What I furthermore don't appreciate is people accusing my staff of bias, because they're able to poke holes in your argumentation. Maybe consider viewing your arguments from a moderation point of view
with respect to the law. We can't change the law and some people here stating that we "conveniently use the law to avoid enforcement" has to be the biggest pile of shit there is to read on this forum. You don't "conveniently use the law". You abide by the law or pay million dollar fines. My god, it is not that difficult. That post earned a facepalm right there.
So again - keep in mind the restrictions we are under. Keep in mind the potential loopholes, help each other close them; Only when staff and community works together on this we can
maybe come to a solution to the pushing rules that have been a problem since 2006. This is a two-way street however. We listen to your argumentation, but you also need to accept that we're pointing out the problems in them, without you slamming us with a hateful post or accusing us of a personal vendetta.
Moving on to my personal opinion -
I feel that we would be better off by just allowing pushing to happen (on a village gifting level). We can efficiently monitor and enforce resource pushing, but too many ingame situations make it way too hard to enforce any kind of rule regarding villages switching owners.
Our problem in this is that we have access to what a player did/hasn't done on his/her account the hours/days before, leading up to that point, while the outside player (who just monitors the TWStats pages) does not have this information.
This just leads to incorrect assumptions that we are not allowed to correct (because yes, what you did on your account is considered private and we can't tell anyone besides yourself), and eventually results in people not understanding this to accuse the team of bias (which is strengthened with every damn report that player makes about another, because we can't tell him/her why it wasn't).
This is frustrating for us too, you know. We sometimes spend days on a single pushing case (including having it reviewed by three-four members of staff) and then still get flamed with bias accusations, which are completely out of place.
I feel like it would be easier for player, community and team, if we allow village gifting (in every form) to happen, unrestricted so that everyone has access to do the same (evening the playing field). Keep in mind, other rules would still need to be respected (eg. multi accounting).
Village gifting should be allowed, as long as a player has sufficient reason to do so. If I quit, I should be allowed to gift my villages to my tribemates. I should also be allowed to gift villages to tribemates to free up noble limit.
I should also be allowed to gift to allies. And that's where the grey area joins us - because what are allies? To me, gifting villages to the opponent of my enemy, is a valid war strategy. If I lose, I'd rather get the enemy of my enemy to get my villages than the enemy themselves.
I found this part interesting. What would be your opinion on just allowed village gifts to happen within the tribe, and consider everything else pushing? This wouldn't work however if you would also be allowed to gift towards allied tribes (you just mark a pushing tribe as an ally).
- No I also don't believe that PP farming and then gifting is pushing. That's a fair deal: someone gets protection and then gifts later in return.
If someone "farmed" one PP and according to his own words "failed", then gifts the village: pushing or not? The team would need to make an assumption here to get to a conclusion on either side, which is kind of what we would like to avoid.
The "one" PP is an exaggeration of course, but where is the limit? Is it 50PP? 100PP? 1000PP? What is "failure" in pp farming where it becomes reasonable to accept a village to be gifted?
Righty, I've kinda thought a little on this as a result of a few examples spotted along the journey of 125.
What is pushing? What is it to you?
- Giving players advantages that are unfair to nearby rule respective players.
How would you define pushing?
- Pushing is when an account is used for the growth of another.
How can the team enforce a rule on pushing?
Since quite a few things is classed as "Pushing" in my opinion (and likely that of the community, I've tried to cover all angles.
Rule 1: Accounts that share the same connection or previously have cannot cooperate against the same target for the sole purpose of a single account gaining an advantage.
Rule 2: A player cannot move their troops outside of the village prior to an incoming noble so that the nobling player gains a "free village" i.e. no ODA gain.
- If the player is sat the same rule is applied.
- The player's account that is being nobled should be observed to monitor patterns i.e. is this the first time they've scavenged or attacked X? (This will help rule out accidental situations where someone's been "lucky" with their attacks).
Rule 3: A player cannot suicide troops prior to an incoming noble (The attack was sent after the noble has been sent) so that the nobling player gains a "free village"
- If the player is sat the same rule is applied.
- Likewise to Rule 2, the player's account that is being nobled should be observed to monitor patterns i.e. is this the first time they've done this? (A player suiciding full def stacks for example is an uncommon behaviour).
- Possible issue, "What if the player knows they are doomed and sends a retaliation attack against an enemy player?"
Rule 4: A player cannot offer their village to another player for "free" no matter how long the world/player has been running/playing.
- A village must always be fought over with the use of troops.
- Possible issue, Player in-game mails cannot be accessed unless reported (Players conducting in Pushing are very likely not going to report themselves).
Rule 5: A player cannot just purely build up their village with the intention of it being nobled by another player with minimal resistance.
- Activity must show that the player nobled had intentions to recruit troops on a regular basis.
- A player actively restarting and then being nobled by either the same player or same tribe/tribe family) should constitute as pushing.
Rule 6: Accounts that are active (i.e. green of colour in a tribe) cannot be nobled within 36 hours of removal (i.e. being kicked) by the same tribe or by a member of the same tribal "family" i.e. an "academy/sister" tribe.
- Reasons why someone is likely kicked at this point that supports Pushing:
- A desire to gain an advantage by an easy village:
- A tribemate is less likely to have stacked vs their own tribe
- Tribal bureaucracy is likely to know the "offline" periods of a particular player.
Rule 7: Accounts that are inactive (i.e. yellow of colour in a tribe) cannot be nobled within 24 hours of removal (i.e. being kicked) by the same tribe or by a member of the same tribal "family" i.e. an "academy/sister" tribe.
Rule 8: Accounts that are completely inactive (i.e. red of colour in a tribe) cannot be nobled within 12 hours of removal (i.e. being kicked) by the same tribe or by a member of the same tribal "family".
- Whilst the above may be "unfair", integrity of the game needs to be held at a higher position and whilst yes people do go inactive, a potential loophole where a tribe allows for a particular player to go "inactive" to hide pushing needs to be addressed and a fair comprise needs to be inserted.
Rule 9: A player with less points cannot transfer more than 1 million in resources to a player with higher points within a period of 30 days or less.
Rule 10: If a player has a desire to play alongside another player on the same account, the account they join the world first (keyword = first, accidentally joining with another account counts as the first account still) with is the account they must stick to for the first 40 days of the account having joined the world.
- A player cannot swap to another account within the first 40 days of the account having joined the world.
- This will provide a fair anti-pushing desire to provide easy villages to accounts no matter how long the world has been running for.
Durations:
- Rules 1, 5, 9: Entire world
- Rules 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10: For the first 40 days of a player having joined the world.
Should the team intervene at all or should pushing just be an allowed thing (for everyone equally) as long as the other rules are respected.
- If the moderation don't then this is a blatant disrespect for integrity and there should be no rules at all (and no support team).
How should pushers be punished? What is the punishment?
- Assuming you have suffcient evidence:
- Pusher: 24h attackable ban
- Pushee: 48h attackable ban
- If a tribe is caught kicking players to then noble them and this results in a repetitive pattern, kicker (In addition to the pushee): 48h attackable ban
I really appreciate this post, bobertini! A lot of suggested rules, while also taking into account potential loopholes. I'm going to keep this one in mind for more in-depth review later today. Thanks!