Player Made Deals

[Kalista]

I do expect staff to be consistent in their punishments having decided to now involve themselves in player made deal cases and punish players. If this does not happen, I will be deeply concerned with them choosing to pick and choose when they want to punish players in player made deal situations. I also find it disturbing the amount of gglsp members are on this thread giving biased input that may have encouraged a punishment be made.

This situation should be taken to a more private area where staff, Tayron, and Arrsenic can lay out the facts and proof of what happened and give their side. Then from there a decision can be made. How this was handled is concerning to me.

The reason gglsp members are on this thread is because the fight and scam itself was streamed to 15-20 gglsp members who were there to witness it. As many staff members have said, public opinion does not influence their punishments, there was a more private report thread on this person.

[Jayden]

This situation should be taken to a more private area where staff, Tayron, and Arrsenic can lay out the facts and proof of what happened and give their side. Then from there a decision can be made. How this was handled is concerning to me.

I just want to make it clear that who is involved in a public forum or which group of people hate the others involved DOES NOT matter(if it did it wouldn't of even made it this far).

Once we had gotten the official report there was an extensive chat between all staff members which led to the eventual final decision by Mike.

[The underdog]

Can we revisit all the scam reports of the past year and enforce the overdue bans?

Would be nice to see a change that fixes the root of the this specific scam problem, add ::risk command displaying wealth and items instantly showing in wild. Dropped cash going to refund box ez even in wild.

[Jumping bug]

This situation should be taken to a more private area where staff, Tayron, and Arrsenic can lay out the facts and proof of what happened and give their side. Then from there a decision can be made. How this was handled is concerning to me.

I just want to make it clear that who is involved in a public forum or which group of people hate the others involved DOES NOT matter(if it did it wouldn't of even made it this far).

Once we had gotten the official report there was an extensive chat between all staff members which led to the eventual final decision by Mike.

Fair enough but my concern is still with the system currently in place. Are all player made deal situations going to have the same attention this one has gotten? Because from what I've seen, staff has chosen to be involved with some and not others. The question remains, is staff deciding to involve themselves in player made deals now or just when they feel like it?

If Arrsenic is going to be punished for a player made deal, I think it's only fair for others (with proof showing their scam) to be punished the same way. Which means staff would have to change their stance on being involved in player made deals.

[The underdog]

Just say Mike made a dictator decision and we leave it at that, then inconsistency doesn't matter for past and future cases. That's his right to do anyway.

[Fe nis]

We'll be involved as far as you being capable of providing sufficient evidence goes, as stated in Ryan's thread updating everyone on the PMD rule situation going forward, you're all still perfectly capable of and encouraged to take the appropriate measures to secure those deals, but in the event something goes wrong then yes, we will be involved, but like I stated earlier, only as far as your ability to provide sufficient evidence goes.

Nobody chose to handle or not handle this particular situation, and it shouldn't be the focus of the PMD rule changes going forward either, but just to clarify: it's actually surprisingly hard to just ignore an issue when all I see when I log on is baiting and flaming about it, a majority of us would've loved to have been more involved in both this situation and the whole PMD concept from the beginning, the only issue was unclear and undefined guidelines as to how and when we should be doing so, with further clarification from higher ups it should no longer be an issue in the future.

[Kalista]

This situation should be taken to a more private area where staff, Tayron, and Arrsenic can lay out the facts and proof of what happened and give their side. Then from there a decision can be made. How this was handled is concerning to me.

I just want to make it clear that who is involved in a public forum or which group of people hate the others involved DOES NOT matter(if it did it wouldn't of even made it this far).

Once we had gotten the official report there was an extensive chat between all staff members which led to the eventual final decision by Mike.

Fair enough but my concern is still with the system currently in place. Are all player made deal situations going to have the same attention this one has gotten? Because from what I've seen, staff has chosen to be involved with some and not others. The question remains, is staff deciding to involve themselves in player made deals now or just when they feel like it?

If Arrsenic is going to be punished for a player made deal, I think it's only fair for others (with proof showing their scam) to be punished the same way. Which means staff would have to change their stance on being involved in player made deals.

Ryan and mike put out a thread specifying what the new rules are for PMD.

[The underdog]

What if you rally your clan saying Roddycc is down bad let's hit them after Arrsenic ban easy victory and then get clappered around. Does that mean you're scamming your clan members for making them believe they had a chance?

[Wir3d]

What if you rally your clan saying Roddycc is down bad let's hit them after Arrsenic ban easy victory and then get clappered around. Does that mean you're scamming your clan members for making them believe they had a chance?

Sounds about right, let me make a report real quick.

[Jumping bug]

We'll be involved as far as you being capable of providing sufficient evidence goes, as stated in Ryan's thread updating everyone on the PMD rule situation going forward, you're all still perfectly capable of and encouraged to take the appropriate measures to secure those deals, but in the event something goes wrong then yes, we will be involved, but like I stated earlier, only as far as your ability to provide sufficient evidence goes.

Nobody chose to handle or not handle this particular situation, and it shouldn't be the focus of the PMD rule changes going forward either, but just to clarify: it's actually surprisingly hard to just ignore an issue when all I see when I log on is baiting and flaming about it, a majority of us would've loved to have been more involved in both this situation and the whole PMD concept from the beginning, the only issue was unclear and undefined guidelines as to how and when we should be doing so, with further clarification from higher ups it should no longer be an issue in the future.

Thanks for the update I'm curious how this will go going forward.