Don't change a thing. People really need to start taking responsibility for their actions. Don't invest so much into a fleet with people you don't really know or trust. Pretty simple.
The ultimate problem with this perspective is that, well, this is the internet. If you limited people to only interacting with people they actually know and trust, that kind of defeats the purpose.
There are plenty of reasons to suggest that fleet restrictions shouldn't be changed, but this isn't a good one. It's like saying "We don't need police, just use better locks on your doors"- it ignores the fact that the purpose of having a society is to create rules to manage social behavior.
It's like saying "We don't need police, just use better locks on your doors"- it ignores the fact that the purpose of having a society is to create rules to manage social behavior.
No, it's like saying "Don't call police because someone is in your house, you self gave him/her keys." or "Someone has stolen all my money from my bank account. It's not my fault that I gave him credit card and PIN.".
No, it's like saying "Don't call police because someone is in your house, you self gave him/her keys." or "Someone has stolen all my money from my bank account. It's not my fault that I gave him credit card and PIN.".
So if you leave your doors unlocked, it's okay for people to steal from you?
The truth is, of course, it's not. Society does not accept that premise. Just because someone is trustworthy does not mean that they are somehow bereft of protection, or that they should be bereft of protection. After all, we as a society generally try to encourage altruism and trust.
I don't understand this "well if you trusted someone then it's totally your fault and we shouldn't do anything about this!" That seems to defeat the purpose of having a society with rules and structures.
Why do people take the idea of "personal responsibility"- being responsible for your actions- and twist it into the idea that "personal responsibility" makes you responsible for the actions of other bad people?
So if you leave your doors unlocked, it's okay for people to steal from you?
Leaving door unlocked and giving some one keys to them are two completely different situations. It's not that someone has TRIBBLE your account, promote himself to Fleet Leader and than kick you out from fleet. It's similar to situation when you own a company, sell 50% + 1 stock to other person and then cry that this person can overrule all your decisions or even fired you.
Something clearly needs to be done, any system that can be abused, will be and in fact, is being abused, saying otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand and selfishly saying "well it hasn't affected me personally so why change it?". These same people are usually the first to come crying in shock and horror when the bottom drops out.
We either need direct access to a system of human arbitration and I pity the poor souls with that job or some mechanism built into the system that minimizes the potential for damage.
Call it a nanny state mentality if you will but that is far better than one where anarchy prevails.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Given the large rash of fleet thefts recently I would like to propose a system that offers some level of protection in the event that an account is TRIBBLE or a fleet master goes 'rogue'.
1: The first level of protection would be this: an officer of the highest rank cannot be kicked without the consent of 2 other ranking officers.
This would apply to higher up ranks only, and would be bypassed in the event of an account being inactive for more than 3 months.
2: If more than 10 people are kicked in a 24 hour period by a single person a fail safe will kick in blocking all further kicks until 4 senior officers vote to allow its bypass.
3: The Fleet master/founder can be fore ably removed by a vote of no confidence if more than 70% of members vote to do so.
I am not a coder so I do not know how difficult such things would be to implement. I would also suggest the system doesn't kick in until a fleet is of a certain size.
At the moment things are arranged heavily in favor of the founder(s) of a fleet and does little to acknowledge the contributions of its members (the very people who build it) which can be wiped out if an account is TRIBBLE or a founder simply decides they want all the resources for themselves.
Its time to even things up a bit. My solution may not be the best I'm willing to admit, so lets open the floor and hear some more idea's, perhaps the best ones will be picked up and implemented by cryptic
Given the large rash of fleet thefts recently I would like to propose a system that offers some level of protection in the event that an account is TRIBBLE or a fleet master goes 'rogue'.
1: The first level of protection would be this: an officer of the highest rank cannot be kicked without the consent of 2 other ranking officers.
This would apply to higher up ranks only, and would be bypassed in the event of an account being inactive for more than 3 months.
2: If more than 10 people are kicked in a 24 hour period by a single person a fail safe will kick in blocking all further kicks until 4 senior officers vote to allow its bypass.
3: The Fleet master/founder can be fore ably removed by a vote of no confidence if more than 70% of members vote to do so.
I am not a coder so I do not know how difficult such things would be to implement. I would also suggest the system doesn't kick in until a fleet is of a certain size.
At the moment things are arranged heavily in favor of the founder(s) of a fleet and does little to acknowledge the contributions of its members (the very people who build it) which can be wiped out if an account is TRIBBLE or a founder simply decides they want all the resources for themselves.
Its time to even things up a bit. My solution may not be the best I'm willing to admit, so lets open the floor and hear some more idea's, perhaps the best ones will be picked up and implemented by cryptic
I don't like it number 3 more so I am fleet master and if you don't like my rule your welcome to leave
make sure your leadership protects their passwords and it isnt a problem. Your solutions come with their own problems
1: The first level of protection would be this: an officer of the highest rank cannot be kicked without the consent of 2 other ranking officers.
This would apply to higher up ranks only, and would be bypassed in the event of an account being inactive for more than 3 months.
TRIBBLE leader promotes two other officers up in rank, those three kick the old leadership.
2: If more than 10 people are kicked in a 24 hour period by a single person a fail safe will kick in blocking all further kicks until 4 senior officers vote to allow its bypass.
First person kicks 10, invites another account, they kick 10, invites another account, they kick 10
3: The Fleet master/founder can be fore ably removed by a vote of no confidence if more than 70% of members vote to do so.
Someone with invite permissions can either flood the roster with the numbers to have the no confidence vote or kick members to get the no-confidence percentage up
Your suggestions and most suggestions I see on this topic give 'hackers' and thieves more methods to choose from. If these suggestions were implemented I would be forced to take away invite and kicking permissions from my officers and regular members
There was an existing thread on the topic of Fleet Protections, so the new thread was merged into this one.
Please try to post in existing threads when the topic is the same. Granted, sometimes easier said than done as in this case.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I don't like it number 3 more so I am fleet master and if you don't like my rule your welcome to leave
and again with kick system trolls ppl trolls
You may have founded your fleet but other peoples contributions 'made' it.
If your worried 70% of your members want you gone... then its clear there is a good reason for it.
The point of this 'rule' would be to stop rogue fleet masters deciding to pretend their accounts have been TRIBBLE and stealing all the fleets resources after a certain ammount of time.
There needs to be a shift from 'my fleet' to 'our' fleet, and whether or not you founded it, if 70% want you gone, you should be gone.
You may have founded your fleet but other peoples contributions 'made' it.
If your worried 70% of your members want you gone... then its clear there is a good reason for it.
The point of this 'rule' would be to stop rogue fleet masters deciding to pretend their accounts have been TRIBBLE and stealing all the fleets resources after a certain ammount of time.
There needs to be a shift from 'my fleet' to 'our' fleet, and whether or not you founded it or not of 70% want you gone, you should be gone.
and look here if I get wind of something like this being put on trib I will kick all but who I think I may trust sorry guild/fleet are only a democracy if said leader wants it that way and im the praetor and I don't want my fleet to be a democracy my fleet only a democracy up till its something I don't like
ive never played a mmos that don't work they same way as sto
Then likely your kind of fleet will die and go away and people will flock the those that offer democracy and accountability.
Like I said if your afraid of 70% of your fleet then something is seriously wrong to begin with.
you do not take this in to account this is a free mmos I can make 50 account if I wanted ppl do forget the trolls but seeing this fleet system is the same as most mmos it not going to change to suit your whims
and my fleet doing good for a small fleet I don't need 400+ ppl
and also don't forget there may be ppl who talk nicely to you be friendly with you but could be hateing your rule the hole time
you do not take this in to account this is a free mmos I can make 50 account if I wanted ppl do forget the trolls but seeing this fleet system is the same as most mmos it not going to change to suit your whims
A good point and something to keep in mind if/when a fleet protection system is implemented. Perhaps limit voting rights based on time played, ect.
and my fleet doing good for a small fleet I don't need 400+ ppl
My suggestion that this 'system' only kicks in when a fleet reaches a certain size, for small fleets I agree it would be an unwelcome and cumbersome system, however once you start talking 200, 300, 400, and all those people have contributed to the creation and maintenance of the fleet it is not only only unfair to allow a single person to hold absolute control, it is also tempting fate.
What I am suggesting is a similar system we have for launching nuclear weapons (an extreme example I know!) in that it does not allow drastic sweeping changes without accountability and fail safes in place, surely this is a good thing?
Fleets are a group activity. I get that few people solo a fleet holding and that everyone who contributes has invested in those facilities. I even respect fleets that want to operate as a democracy.
But democracies have checks and balances. Neither the President nor the majority are able to do whatever they please.
STO doesn't have any mechanism whereby those checks and balances can be quantified as a game mechanic.
There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority and it can be just as destructive as the jerk who tries to own everything and everyone in the fleet. In some cases, the Commander in Chief model is simply better, depending on who the CiC is.
I try very hard to be the very model of a benevolent dictatorial, despite my limitations which are simply quite lamentable.
I want our fleet to be successful, and I want to do what's best for the members of the fleet that I lead.
At the same time, I have a vision for our fleet. There are principles that I expect our fleet to live up to. If there ever came a time when the majority conflicted with that vision, I would have two choices... leave or command. Some people would probably say that I should be the one to leave. Well... maybe. I have my own investment in the fleet too.
Fortunately for me, I don't think I'd ever be put in that position. But I can see a case for the "My Way" highway.
I think that Cryptic will eventually try to put in some of the checks and balances that would make things more fair for everybody, and I'm okay with that in theory. Depends on what they cook up.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
STO doesn't have any mechanism whereby those checks and balances can be quantified as a game mechanic.
This may be getting way too technical for this discussion, but I was just reading a paper called Do Robots Dream of Electric Laws (PDF link to paper) which talks about the computability of law- in essence, the attempt to reduce the law to some kind of computer-implementable system.
And, well, the long and short of it is that it isn't really possible, even for trivial laws. Even the attempt to reduce speeding offenses to something a computer could effectively implement is incredibly difficult.
I'm not sure it's simply the fact that STO doesn't have any mechanism; it may simply be that such a mechanism is not practical, period.
To which I would suggest that we are putting the cart before the horse. The question is not necessarily what mechanisms Cryptic could implement to 'protect' fleets, but what, exactly, Cryptic wants fleets to be. You can't answer the former until you answer the latter.
Comments
The ultimate problem with this perspective is that, well, this is the internet. If you limited people to only interacting with people they actually know and trust, that kind of defeats the purpose.
There are plenty of reasons to suggest that fleet restrictions shouldn't be changed, but this isn't a good one. It's like saying "We don't need police, just use better locks on your doors"- it ignores the fact that the purpose of having a society is to create rules to manage social behavior.
No, it's like saying "Don't call police because someone is in your house, you self gave him/her keys." or "Someone has stolen all my money from my bank account. It's not my fault that I gave him credit card and PIN.".
So if you leave your doors unlocked, it's okay for people to steal from you?
The truth is, of course, it's not. Society does not accept that premise. Just because someone is trustworthy does not mean that they are somehow bereft of protection, or that they should be bereft of protection. After all, we as a society generally try to encourage altruism and trust.
I don't understand this "well if you trusted someone then it's totally your fault and we shouldn't do anything about this!" That seems to defeat the purpose of having a society with rules and structures.
Why do people take the idea of "personal responsibility"- being responsible for your actions- and twist it into the idea that "personal responsibility" makes you responsible for the actions of other bad people?
Leaving door unlocked and giving some one keys to them are two completely different situations. It's not that someone has TRIBBLE your account, promote himself to Fleet Leader and than kick you out from fleet. It's similar to situation when you own a company, sell 50% + 1 stock to other person and then cry that this person can overrule all your decisions or even fired you.
We either need direct access to a system of human arbitration and I pity the poor souls with that job or some mechanism built into the system that minimizes the potential for damage.
Call it a nanny state mentality if you will but that is far better than one where anarchy prevails.
1: The first level of protection would be this: an officer of the highest rank cannot be kicked without the consent of 2 other ranking officers.
This would apply to higher up ranks only, and would be bypassed in the event of an account being inactive for more than 3 months.
2: If more than 10 people are kicked in a 24 hour period by a single person a fail safe will kick in blocking all further kicks until 4 senior officers vote to allow its bypass.
3: The Fleet master/founder can be fore ably removed by a vote of no confidence if more than 70% of members vote to do so.
I am not a coder so I do not know how difficult such things would be to implement. I would also suggest the system doesn't kick in until a fleet is of a certain size.
At the moment things are arranged heavily in favor of the founder(s) of a fleet and does little to acknowledge the contributions of its members (the very people who build it) which can be wiped out if an account is TRIBBLE or a founder simply decides they want all the resources for themselves.
Its time to even things up a bit. My solution may not be the best I'm willing to admit, so lets open the floor and hear some more idea's, perhaps the best ones will be picked up and implemented by cryptic
I don't like it number 3 more so I am fleet master and if you don't like my rule your welcome to leave
and again with kick system trolls ppl trolls
system Lord Baal is dead
1: The first level of protection would be this: an officer of the highest rank cannot be kicked without the consent of 2 other ranking officers.
This would apply to higher up ranks only, and would be bypassed in the event of an account being inactive for more than 3 months.
TRIBBLE leader promotes two other officers up in rank, those three kick the old leadership.
2: If more than 10 people are kicked in a 24 hour period by a single person a fail safe will kick in blocking all further kicks until 4 senior officers vote to allow its bypass.
First person kicks 10, invites another account, they kick 10, invites another account, they kick 10
3: The Fleet master/founder can be fore ably removed by a vote of no confidence if more than 70% of members vote to do so.
Someone with invite permissions can either flood the roster with the numbers to have the no confidence vote or kick members to get the no-confidence percentage up
Your suggestions and most suggestions I see on this topic give 'hackers' and thieves more methods to choose from. If these suggestions were implemented I would be forced to take away invite and kicking permissions from my officers and regular members
Please try to post in existing threads when the topic is the same. Granted, sometimes easier said than done as in this case.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
You may have founded your fleet but other peoples contributions 'made' it.
If your worried 70% of your members want you gone... then its clear there is a good reason for it.
The point of this 'rule' would be to stop rogue fleet masters deciding to pretend their accounts have been TRIBBLE and stealing all the fleets resources after a certain ammount of time.
There needs to be a shift from 'my fleet' to 'our' fleet, and whether or not you founded it, if 70% want you gone, you should be gone.
and look here if I get wind of something like this being put on trib I will kick all but who I think I may trust sorry guild/fleet are only a democracy if said leader wants it that way and im the praetor and I don't want my fleet to be a democracy my fleet only a democracy up till its something I don't like
ive never played a mmos that don't work they same way as sto
and trust me I would not be the only one to do so
system Lord Baal is dead
Like I said if your afraid of 70% of your fleet then something is seriously wrong to begin with.
you do not take this in to account this is a free mmos I can make 50 account if I wanted ppl do forget the trolls but seeing this fleet system is the same as most mmos it not going to change to suit your whims
and my fleet doing good for a small fleet I don't need 400+ ppl
and also don't forget there may be ppl who talk nicely to you be friendly with you but could be hateing your rule the hole time
system Lord Baal is dead
A good point and something to keep in mind if/when a fleet protection system is implemented. Perhaps limit voting rights based on time played, ect.
My suggestion that this 'system' only kicks in when a fleet reaches a certain size, for small fleets I agree it would be an unwelcome and cumbersome system, however once you start talking 200, 300, 400, and all those people have contributed to the creation and maintenance of the fleet it is not only only unfair to allow a single person to hold absolute control, it is also tempting fate.
What I am suggesting is a similar system we have for launching nuclear weapons (an extreme example I know!) in that it does not allow drastic sweeping changes without accountability and fail safes in place, surely this is a good thing?
Well that's true for anything in life, but it shouldn't stop us from safeguarding the work of hundreds of people.
Make it so a fleet leader can not get demoted or kicked.
A fleet leader must leave of his own free will, via the leave button.
This easy change would prevent a hostile take over.
The fleet I'm in has 500 active members and only one Fleet Leader.
We did this to protect our fleet and efforts from such problems.
Also the fleet leader turned off kicks for everyone but himself, bank change permission, and fleet rename.
Any fleet that thinks it needs more than one leader is mistaken.
Any fleet that forms up under a leader who is not active everyday is mistaken.
Our fleet leader says his role is to keep the fleet safe and our rank 6 officers job is to run the fleet.
This is just to much drama, I just can't not believe people are crying for I want more than one Fleet Leader.
Really I mean really, the safe guards are already in place, it just sounds like people want more.
This entire junk about votes is wrong it will open the door for a entire fleet to getting stolen.
Say your a fleet leader you spent 100s of dollars on Dilithium on your SB ,you recruit 1 new guy.
He chats nice and befriends you, then gets 10 of his other friends to join the your little fleet.
They vote you out and you lost your fleet, then they sell it to the highest bidder then move to the next fleet.
Note::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Cryptic already has a solution to protect a fleet it's called when you make a fleet the founder is the only fleet leader..
The founder is the only one with rights to promote people and setup permissions either good or bad.
What your asking for is Cryptic to setup a system to protect your fleet from bad fleet leader decisions.
Next you will ask the government to post guards in front of your house to protect it.
So when you leave home with the doors unlocked and wide open thieves don't walk off with your stuff.
But democracies have checks and balances. Neither the President nor the majority are able to do whatever they please.
STO doesn't have any mechanism whereby those checks and balances can be quantified as a game mechanic.
There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority and it can be just as destructive as the jerk who tries to own everything and everyone in the fleet. In some cases, the Commander in Chief model is simply better, depending on who the CiC is.
I try very hard to be the very model of a benevolent dictatorial, despite my limitations which are simply quite lamentable.
I want our fleet to be successful, and I want to do what's best for the members of the fleet that I lead.
At the same time, I have a vision for our fleet. There are principles that I expect our fleet to live up to. If there ever came a time when the majority conflicted with that vision, I would have two choices... leave or command. Some people would probably say that I should be the one to leave. Well... maybe. I have my own investment in the fleet too.
Fortunately for me, I don't think I'd ever be put in that position. But I can see a case for the "My Way" highway.
I think that Cryptic will eventually try to put in some of the checks and balances that would make things more fair for everybody, and I'm okay with that in theory. Depends on what they cook up.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
This may be getting way too technical for this discussion, but I was just reading a paper called Do Robots Dream of Electric Laws (PDF link to paper) which talks about the computability of law- in essence, the attempt to reduce the law to some kind of computer-implementable system.
And, well, the long and short of it is that it isn't really possible, even for trivial laws. Even the attempt to reduce speeding offenses to something a computer could effectively implement is incredibly difficult.
I'm not sure it's simply the fact that STO doesn't have any mechanism; it may simply be that such a mechanism is not practical, period.
To which I would suggest that we are putting the cart before the horse. The question is not necessarily what mechanisms Cryptic could implement to 'protect' fleets, but what, exactly, Cryptic wants fleets to be. You can't answer the former until you answer the latter.