Legalistic bullcrap in my mission briefing

[Echo38]

Okay, so, in an effort to make my multiplayer dogfight server a friendly place, I had put the following in my mission briefing:

 

"Please do not engage or attack aircraft until after they have taken off and have been airborne for at least sixty seconds. Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation for an attack counts as engaging."

 

Unfortunately, someone I'll call "Bill" decided to shadow (read: flying a few hundred feet behind) someone I'll call "Jim" from the moment Jim took off until the moment Jim was killed by an ally of Bill, resulting in an understandably angry outburst from Jim and an unpleasant argument between all involved parties. Bill claimed that he was not preparing for an attack, so, in an effort to prevent such a situation from happening again, I've attempted to alter the wording of the briefing to better make the spirit of the rule clear. However, because I am not a freakin' lawyer, I'm having great difficulties with the wording of this. Can someone who is better with words & communication than I am help me out? So far, I have the following:

 

"Please do not engage or attack aircraft until after they have taken off and have been airborne for at least sixty seconds. Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation (or as if in preparation) for an attack counts as engaging, unless friendly intent is clearly communicated and not breached."

 

This still isn't clear enough, because "not breached" can be misconstrued to mean a reactive attack from the person being shadowed (who, I feel, has no obligation to refrain from engaging simply because the person behind him has announced that he will not open fire). I was hoping to say something along the lines of "unless friendly intent is communicated and the person broadcasting said intent does not alter intent without 60 seconds of prior notification, during which time he will disengage to a minimum distance of X feet," but this is problematic for several reasons; firstly, I don't know exactly what a fair distance is for the aircraft involved, and secondly, because the paragraph is already too long for the average player to bother to read.

 

People are already refusing to read the briefing--even when asked to read it--and I'm trying hard to not be an authoritarian administrator. I don't want to be constantly arguing with and kicking players. Any suggestions, other than removal of my "give them a fair chance" rule? That isn't subject to change--I've always had a "don't be a vulture" rule, and that isn't going to change now. But I need a better way of clearly wording the thing, briefly but in a manner which is reasonably clear and also does not give offenders grounds to argue.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Echo38

[Weta43]

Put a trigger zone with a 10km radius on each airbase that sends a weapons free message to the client as they leave it, and a weapons hold message as players enter, then slap a couple of avenger / tunguska on each Blue / Red airbase - that should give them the idea, and your briefing would only have to say 'abide by the ROE messages'.

[Echo38]

Hmm ... the bases are about one runway-length apart--it's meant to be a quick dogfight mission, hence the no-vulching thing. I guess I might have to experiment with protected "rear emergency airfields" as I did in other sim-games, for the event of griefers, but I still need the rule to be clear so that people don't have grounds for nit-picking fine details when I warn them. (But also concise so that it won't further put people off from reading the briefing, which is only four lines long, but still too long for most people's taste, evidently.)

Edited September 16, 2012 by Echo38

[WildBillKelsoe]

Okay, so, in an effort to make my multiplayer dogfight server a friendly place, I had put the following in my mission briefing:

 

"Please do not engage or attack aircraft until after they have taken off and have been airborne for at least sixty seconds. Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation for an attack counts as engaging."

 

Unfortunately, someone I'll call "Bill" decided to shadow (read: flying a few hundred feet behind) someone I'll call "Jim" from the moment Jim took off until the moment Jim was killed by an ally of Bill, resulting in an understandably angry outburst from Jim and an unpleasant argument between all involved parties. Bill claimed that he was not preparing for an attack, so, in an effort to prevent such a situation from happening again, I've attempted to alter the wording of the briefing to better make the spirit of the rule clear. However, because I am not a freakin' lawyer, I'm having great difficulties with the wording of this. Can someone who is better with words & communication than I am help me out? So far, I have the following:

 

"Please do not engage or attack aircraft until after they have taken off and have been airborne for at least sixty seconds. Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation (or as if in preparation) for an attack counts as engaging, unless friendly intent is clearly communicated and not breached."

 

This still isn't clear enough, because "not breached" can be misconstrued to mean a reactive attack from the person being shadowed (who, I feel, has no obligation to refrain from engaging simply because the person behind him has announced that he will not open fire). I was hoping to say something along the lines of "unless friendly intent is communicated and the person broadcasting said intent does not alter intent without 60 seconds of prior notification, during which time he will disengage to a minimum distance of X feet," but this is problematic for several reasons; firstly, I don't know exactly what a fair distance is for the aircraft involved, and secondly, because the paragraph is already too long for the average player to bother to read.

 

People are already refusing to read the briefing--even when asked to read it--and I'm trying hard to not be an authoritarian administrator. I don't want to be constantly arguing with and kicking players. Any suggestions, other than removal of my "give them a fair chance" rule? That isn't subject to change--I've always had a "don't be a vulture" rule, and that isn't going to change now. But I need a better way of clearly wording the thing, briefly but in a manner which is reasonably clear and also does not give offenders grounds to argue.

 

'no flying within 20 mikes of home base' ?

[Weta43]

"Hmm ... the bases are about one runway-length apart--it's meant to be a quick dogfight mission, "

 

Head over to the 2 Krasnodars - they're about 12 miles apart - so 2 minutes apart at 350 mph (1 minute to the midpoint), but have enough bettween them to enforce a no-fly over each airbase.

[Weta43]

So players are not allowed to engage, prepare to engege, or provide asssistance to others to allow them to engage, any aircraft for the first 60 seconds after they take off.

 

Quick question - if I don't follow them, circle them, or have someone else do it for me, how do I know if it's 60 seconds since they took off ?

[159th_Viper]

Ring the bases with Tungs, creating your 60-second + buffer as Weta already suggested. Severe punishment for an unsavoury practice. Having bases 8000 feet apart gives you little time to properly set up so quickly after take-off.

Edited September 16, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[Mohamengina]

Sounds like a mission design issue. Just make the bases further apart and protected by AA. Having bases right next to each other makes it impossible to prepare for combat readiness.:huh:

[GGTharos]

If you want 'quick dogfighting', start all planes in the air heading towards each other. That way you avoid most of this vulching issue.

 

Otherwise, put the two bases apart and designate a dogfighting area between them - dogfights allowed only in that area.

 

Hmm ... the bases are about one runway-length apart--it's meant to be a quick dogfight mission, hence the no-vulching thing. I guess I might have to experiment with protected "rear emergency airfields" as I did in other sim-games, for the event of griefers, but I still need the rule to be clear so that people don't have grounds for nit-picking fine details when I warn them. (But also concise so that it won't further put people off from reading the briefing, which is only four lines long, but still too long for most people's taste, evidently.)

[aaron886]

The solution seems easy to me... add a ton of air defenses.

[Krebs20]

I vote 50 shilkas per base. That should be enough AAA to keep them back.

[JG14_Smil]

This is why simmers tend to hate furball 'instant action dogfight' servers. Better get used to people not reading the Briefing too.

[joey45]

Start in the air heading the opposite way.

[blahdy]

Just separate out airbases by 120km and put S-300 and Patriot on each sides, lol.

[Wolfie]

People aren't dumb. They knew what you meant. You should ban them if they don't comply.

 

It's like Crysis. No base attacking. People didn't listen, so thats when the bases got the player sensing mini-nuke gattling guns installed. Problem solved.

Edited September 17, 2012 by Wolfie

[Wolf Rider]

People aren't dumb. They knew what you meant. You should ban them if they don't comply.

 

It's like Crysis. No base attacking. People didn't listen, so thats when the bases got the player sensing mini-nuke gattling guns installed. Problem solved.

 

 

 

:thumbup: :music_whistling:

[ErichVon]

Okay, so, in an effort to make my multiplayer dogfight server a friendly place, I had put the following in my mission briefing:

 

"Please do not engage or attack aircraft until after they have taken off and have been airborne for at least sixty seconds. Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation for an attack counts as engaging."

 

Unfortunately, someone I'll call "Bill" decided to shadow (read: flying a few hundred feet behind) someone I'll call "Jim" from the moment Jim took off until the moment Jim was killed by an ally of Bill, resulting in an understandably angry outburst from Jim and an unpleasant argument between all involved parties. Bill claimed that he was not preparing for an attack, so, in an effort to prevent such a situation from happening again, I've attempted to alter the wording of the briefing to better make the spirit of the rule clear. However, because I am not a freakin' lawyer, I'm having great difficulties with the wording of this. Can someone who is better with words & communication than I am help me out? So far, I have the following:

 

"Please do not engage or attack aircraft until after they have taken off and have been airborne for at least sixty seconds. Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation (or as if in preparation) for an attack counts as engaging, unless friendly intent is clearly communicated and not breached."

 

This still isn't clear enough, because "not breached" can be misconstrued to mean a reactive attack from the person being shadowed (who, I feel, has no obligation to refrain from engaging simply because the person behind him has announced that he will not open fire). I was hoping to say something along the lines of "unless friendly intent is communicated and the person broadcasting said intent does not alter intent without 60 seconds of prior notification, during which time he will disengage to a minimum distance of X feet," but this is problematic for several reasons; firstly, I don't know exactly what a fair distance is for the aircraft involved, and secondly, because the paragraph is already too long for the average player to bother to read.

 

People are already refusing to read the briefing--even when asked to read it--and I'm trying hard to not be an authoritarian administrator. I don't want to be constantly arguing with and kicking players. Any suggestions, other than removal of my "give them a fair chance" rule? That isn't subject to change--I've always had a "don't be a vulture" rule, and that isn't going to change now. But I need a better way of clearly wording the thing, briefly but in a manner which is reasonably clear and also does not give offenders grounds to argue.

 

That is why all the locked / passworded servers in Mutiplayer exist.

 

What I hate is being deliberately team-killed by my same country guys. The other game I fly, if a teamplayer tries to kill me. he dies, not me.

 

I had a jet on the other team persistently hang out over my helicopter respawn FARP just so I could not takeoff. I switched sides to fly. He left the server I was on. I switched back.

 

Argue? I moderate my own machinist group forum. People play by the rules or they are gone and no warning.

 

Especially with the Black Shark, 10 months later and I am still my own worst enemy---LOL!

[Echo38]

Thanks for all of the advice, everyone. I've solved the problem for the time being by changing the line to, "Following (or otherwise maneuvering) in preparation for an attack, or as if preparing to attack, counts as engaging." If, long-term, I continue to have problems with people toeing the line or outright disregarding the rule, I can add farther bases with anti-air defenses.