Crime & Punishment

Dude.....for all intents and purposes one of our corps only logs in one day of the week ffs (and I'm not even exaggerating that bit). What part of no sh*ts given do you not understand?

But I think you're kinda missing the forest for the trees. Our guys can do that, and sometimes they do take a break to do [insert tangential activity here] for [insert reason here], but generally everyone contributes in the manner they are able because they want to be here. Nothing beyond that really motivates them, no pap links or similar organizational structure exists either to motivate participation or to punish a lack of participation. People help because they want to help, nothing more.

Likewise, you're kinda not getting the mentality of the pilots involved. We're going up against the largest (renters don't count - they don't fight) and most successful coalition in eve. Sh*t hitting the fan is implied in the job description - that possibility is a fact of every day life. On a good day we're outnumbered 4 to 1. And that's exactly what every pilot in moa signed up for.


I see the source of your confusion. My statement was, "I don't hate you guys." And I don't. Neither do a lot of players in MoA, though obviously I can't speak for everyone.

Attacking someone in a videogame != hating someone (in a videogame or otherwise).

If you can't make that distinction, that isn't a good thing, and maybe you should take a break.

But let's take a step back for a moment. Could you imagine how boring your game would be if no one ever attacked the cfc? Think about it. Sure you might be able to rat/mine/plex up enough for 3 titans and 2 supers per dude in peace. But with no one to shoot, what's the point? What would you do, have a race with your fifty thousand buddies to see who can shoot the most red crosses?

Does MoA exist to attack the CFC? That's certainly our modus operandi. But let's reiterate 2 points: attacking != hating, and you're the largest coalition in the game - someone is going to attack the king of the hill - that's the game.

Also, since you appear to be one of the three people in eve to take SOTAs seriously, let's talk about SOTA's:

Huh. That totally sounds well adjusted.




At the end of the day: yes, I am playing for fun, as are many others in eve as a whole. And to be perfectly honest I thought someone might want another perspective since people kept mentioning moa. The views here are my own and nothing more, you or anyone else can listen if you want. Or you can choose to ignore it, say "try harder", call it "bull," and live in a bubble of your own making. It's your choice, do whatever.

It was more the "for much of moa you're just red brackets we shoot for content". You pick to shoot us because your alliance goal is to shoot goons. And you are right, your guys want to be there, which is there source of motivation. But that still doesn't mean that your alliance leader (who does froth at the mouth) doesn't pay attention to who's doing what.

It would be very boring, and I don't advocate people not shooting us for that very reason. It's the simple complaint that you seem to be of the impression that because we click a link to make our leaders lives easier and to show we exist, that we're somehow being converted into a group of employees while you guys enjoy the game. I enjoy playing the geme as much as you do, I do what I want to do for fun. Clicking a link when I go to shoot you guy though, that guarantees that next time I'll still be able to do that and won't ever find myself between ships. So how you find that amusing, I don't know.

Did you play Diablo 2 and run around laughing "HAHAHA, look at all these idiots clicking on all the loot. LOSERS!"


All I was pointing out is that your leadership clearly takes things seriously, and are working towards being more organised. Clearly they see the benefit of using systems like jabber and fleetup, and unified doctrines. Participation based rewards are simply another link in that chain.

And I'm sure in some corps, the situation is like that, but a few corps demanding participation with threats of kicks doesn't speak about the whole system. The system is there to make sure that people that help out and are active get rewarded for doing so, and those that don't want to don't. It wouldn't send a very good message if a guy who did zip was rewarded to the same degree as someone who turned up to every fight and supported his alliance 110%. An FC handing out pap to those that turned up when the fleet stood down is the same thing. Reward those who made the effort.

And some people do farm. There's non-combat ops with pap links.

I'm sure there probably are a few being dragged along, but for the most part if you are in a null group, you are doing so because you want to be there. The participation isn't so much compensation for doing something they don't want, but an encouragement to come along and help out your alliance rather than sitting aside and helping yourself.

I wouldn't say only test posts there, but I'd certainly say it's biased. I for example have never looked for and thus never found that thread, and if I didn't I'd not bother signing up to post. So the likelihood is that the majority of people that find it do so because they are looking to complain about it. Maybe their corp is crap and bullies them into participation, I don't really know. All I know is that clicking a link when I go to do PvP means I get better rewards, validate my SRP and help the higher ups get a view of what the coalition is doing.

And paplinks aren't the issue those people have, are they? Really, it's mandatory CTAs which are the issue, regardless of how the attendance to those is logged. The issue would be the same if your corp threatened to kick you for not showing up even if they just manually looked at the name in the list. The CFCs approach to these is pretty casual, and the few times they are like "GET ME EVERYONE!" it usually means you want to turn up, since you're about to lose all your stuff to the enemy if you don't.

Uh-huh. Geee, I must be parroting stuff, huh? Well I guess, but...

And then you go back to pretty much confirm everything I said, but stipulating that goons don't set these required metrics (which I never claimed, each time I refereed to cfc alliances in general, not any alliance in particular*), and that it's the internal business of the cfc alliance in question, which is pretty much in perfect agreement with my point regarding the two statements I quoted in this post. Ok.

It's interesting that you say I'm parroting stuff I've read elsewhere, and then go back and basically tell me the exact same thing I've been saying (and referencing) but with the additional stipulation (from both you and Lucas) that only a minority of corps are really doing it. Well fine, I'm perfectly willing to accept that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.




*The only time I directly reference goons in the discussion of pap links is saying that goon leadership came up with a genius idea, all of the other times I broadly reference the CFC in general, of which these "small minority CEOs" are a part.

Well, nice back-pedal I suppose?

You were clearly talking about CFC policy handed down by GSF leadership. In reality, there's maybe a handful of small corps in member-alliances who are new to their alliance and want to make themselves look useful, so will ask their members to make sure they're clicking pap-links (note: this is markedly a different thing than posting CTAs and ensuring people go on OPs).

For what it's worth, you're arguing against a fair and logical system that does everything possible to relieve any ~space work~ from our myriad of CEOs and executors in the CFC (to prevent burn out) which is why, now we've forced you to challenge some dumb assumptions you were repeating from elsewhere, your argument looks kinda dumb.

Forced? My arguments have been civil and reasonable throughout. I have listened to your responses and been receptive, and when presented with adequate facts I have changed my position accordingly.


Except for the bit where I made every effort to explicitly avoid saying anything on that point regarding GSF policy with the exception of the "genius idea" statement. For good reason. But let's delve into the specifics of the post you quoted, shall we?


So let me be clear, this statement : "That's a whole new level of ~serious business~"? I support it 100%. This is a new level of ~serious business~ for eve. Now you and your fellow posters *may* have convinced me that it's a benign thing for the good of [insert relevant parties here], but that doesn't change the validity of aforementioned statement regarding a new level of ~serious business~.


Uh-huh.


Now who's backtracking? Those two quoted statements are markedly different in their implications.

---

"your argument looks kinda dumb." ~ Khanh'rhh

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. Somehow, over the last 4 pages I don't think we'll completely agree on any issue, and that too is okay.

Dude, if you don't see how punching in a timeclock/clicking a link that serves that exact same function for record keeping, logistics, and management purposes is more ~serious business~ than NOT maintianing that same timeclock/link service.....well..... But I like how you try to insult me with ever post. Two posts ago I was stupid, now I'm naive. Good stuff.


Honestly, I don't see why you're so opposed to the ~serious business~ label, Mallak seems to have embraced it:

The serious business aspect of it covers URL's rather nicely, in point of fact. Running the IT infrastructure necessary to support your system is in and of itself ~serious business~. If you're telling me that creating, bug testing, and maintaining a system that tracks and verifies input from what 15k, 20k distinct users on a regular basis isn't serious business by video game guild standards, than we have a difference in our definitions.

Saying the robust IT infrastructure that exists specifically for this service isn't serious business? Well maybe not by corporate standards, but by mmo guild standards? You guys like to throw around the phrase "trying too hard" quite a bit. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.

Why do you guys have such an aversion to the "serious business" label?

I have always taken my EVE very seriously i don't know what you're talking about.

Why do you have such an aversion to the pubbie label?

I love MoA. Must clearly admit it.
( This happens once a year, when they come to fight, prolly with a Tri or BL fleet.)
**** aside, Fade would be really boring without them.