Because... owners are allowed to roam their company? Because it's theirs? At least, that's how it works in the corporate world. Correct me if I'm wrong. WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 17, '09 19:29

And if I'm not wrong, as soon as an Admin gets a position of power, their admin accounts are abandoned - or as it's known in the industry, claused. WACK! Reply Reply by: Rhuarc at Oct 17, '09 19:42

Sort of contrary to the the reason of this thread and I'm not trying to piss on parades here (quite the opposite - you've had more influence on this game as a player than 99% of this userbase ever will, and that alone is worth massive appreciation) but something has me scratching my head.

yourself here enquired as to how/why an admin/owner was allowed to take up a Godfather position and his reply was deleted. I may have misinterpreted his statement but, to me,it didn't look like there was any alternate meaning or hidden agenda in his words - it looked like a straight up inferrence rather than a sinister accusation or inferrence of some sort.

I can also appreciate that the debate has been brought up in less than savoury ways before,and that your 'goodbye' of sorts thread after a year of dedication on one account probably isn't the best place to raise the issue, but surely the post wacking just continues the issue? WACK! Reply Reply by: Noah-Levenstein at Oct 19, '09 11:06

I suppose the problem is that the innocent question might elicit less innocent accusations from others. WACK! Reply Reply by: Awesome at Oct 19, '09 11:13

Not to further detract from the purpose of this thread, which was to say farewell and explain the reasoning for retirement, but since it has brought up, I'll give my personal perspective.

An innocent question posed should not be responsible for malicious replies and responses, and therefore since (from what I remember of the original post by 'yourself') was asking a question without accusing anything, as it seemed to be for clarification purposes only, I have to agree with Noah that wacking the post does make it seem like the elephant in the room by its omission, especially since it was answered and explained by two other players in what seemed a pretty straightforward and honest way. WACK! Reply Reply by: GingerAle at Oct 19, '09 11:35

I could be wrong here but I thought he said 'never understood how...' rather than asking a quesiton. That was my interpretation anyway.

But back to my earlier statement:

Grin.

~T~ WACK! Reply Reply by: Tallien at Oct 19, '09 11:52

What is a quesiton exactly? WACK! Reply Reply by: BoabyWanKenobi at Oct 19, '09 12:24

btw.

I really just never understood how a game can function well, when an owner is involved.

Nothing more, nothing less. No accusations, no finger pointing. Just an observation that this was something that was allowed to happen in this game that I (should I have been the person making the rules) would not have wanted to happen in "my" game.

Relevance to his goodbye thread?

Why I think its very relevant, since this is OOC and the person behind the player came to bring his playing days as a GF to an end. WACK! Reply Reply by: yourself at Oct 19, '09 12:37

Owners have been playing for years now, and it hasn't seemed to collapse the site in a fit of fire and brimstone. The comment is irrelevant. WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 13:12

I understand what you're saying 'yourself', but I think you are speaking more in general terms. As I was reading your comment, I was thinking...how can a game acquire an equal playing field for everybody in the user-base when the primary owner of the site is running the game. I believe experience (one understanding the game better than the other) can alter the playing field but I'm speaking about an individual who has seen the very fine blue prints of the game. Wouldn't this give a clear disadvantage to those that haven't been behind the scenes?

Nothing more, nothing less. No accusations, no finger pointing. Just an observation that this was something that was allowed to happen in this game that I would not have wanted to happen in "my" game. WACK! Reply Reply by: luckygogo at Oct 19, '09 14:43

I'm pretty sure last time I checked, inferring that there was any sort of cheating or "advantages" from the admin staff whatsoever would result in the loss of a character and a ban. Have things changed? Just curious, really.

(And, from a personal perspective, I thought only Coders saw the "very fine blue prints" of the game. Billy_Bathtub, while many things, isn't a coder.) WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 14:46

[~] Last Sentiments Started by: ThomasRourke at Oct 17, '09 02:41

I thought he dropped the "administrator" title.

So you're telling me an owner of a site, store, bank, resturaunt, etc..wouldn't have any knowledge of their blue prints? WACK! Reply Reply by: luckygogo at Oct 19, '09 14:50

It's not all that uncommon, believe it or not. If the cook of a restaurant didn't build the building, why would it have access to the architect's work? Makes sense to me.

And, furthermore, this site functions in a way where everyone has their own job and sticks to it- at least to my knowledge. The coders code, the owners own, the assistants assist, and the players play. WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 14:52

FYI

Let me be clear before I am misunderstood.

I NEVER claimed or would I care to assume that Mr Rourke had any inside knowledge or that his account was "enhanced". WACK! Reply Reply by: yourself at Oct 19, '09 14:55

No, you never understood why owners were allowed to play. We get that. But why wouldn't they be? They pay for this place out of their pockets, and they don't get to enjoy the place? WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 14:56

His account was enhanced, enhanced with a cool sounding surname: Sounding being the key word, to be 100% cool, he'd have had to be ThomasRhuarc. WACK! Reply Reply by: Rhuarc at Oct 19, '09 14:57

Now thats a very intresting idea that bears more pondering.

Do the right names give the player an advantage? Say you sign on with some really dumb name like...say "Youself". It seems to me that you would not be taken as seriously or trusted like the person who signed as Tony Montana.

How does one overcome that deficiency? CAN one overcome it? WACK! Reply Reply by: yourself at Oct 19, '09 15:01

Yes. I have a captain named "Rhuarc". That should speak for itself. WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 15:02

Rourke! Rourke!!

I need an ambulance!! WACK! Reply Reply by: Rhuarc at Oct 19, '09 15:06

Guys, surrounding all the controversy here I feel I must go on record and let this be categorically known

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." WACK! Reply Reply by: Noah-Levenstein at Oct 19, '09 15:07

I'm not talking about any positions lower than an owner, but yes, I agree that would be funny if the cook had access to the architect's work haha!

Listen, I'm not saying Thomas had his account enhanced and I'm not saying he was cheating. All I'm saying is that this individual had ownership of the game before he became GF. Along with that state of ownership comes with the knowledge of the game. WACK! Reply Reply by: luckygogo at Oct 19, '09 15:08

That, or he simply owns it because he believes in the product, not because he developed it, created it or necessarily understands it.

Take for instance my current place of (OOC) employment- we have three owners. Only two of them know what's going on. The third simply bought in because he believed in the company, and wanted to support the ventures it takes.

No one can really know the ins and outs of the owners of this game, aside from the owners. What I don't understand is why everyone always seems to jump on the bandwagon that 'just because "X" happened, and "Y" happened, it means "Z" equals PURE FUCKING EVIL.' Why can't people just assume the best about the people that keep this game- that we all play and enjoy- running? WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 15:12

"Why can't people just assume the best about the people that keep this game- that we all play and enjoy- running?"

That goes for every aspect of life, why CANT people assume the best? It's just not in our nature. WACK! Reply Reply by: JonBonJovi at Oct 19, '09 15:13

Those people must have very, very sad lives, then. I assume the best of everyone- even the people that make me want to take a cheese grater to my face in irritation. I'm a regular ol' bundle of joy! WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 15:19

Good to know. I'd hate to live with someone for a week who wanted to grate my face ;-) WACK! Reply Reply by: JonBonJovi at Oct 19, '09 15:21

Watch your back in Jersey, that's all I can say. :P WACK! Reply Reply by: Marietta at Oct 19, '09 15:22

I'm not speculating the reasons of why he owns this game lol WACK! Reply Reply by: luckygogo at Oct 19, '09 15:27

Listen, I'm not saying Thomas had his account enhanced and I'm not saying he was cheating. All I'm saying is that this individual had ownership of the game before he became GF. Along with that state of ownership comes with the knowledge of the game.

Technically all of the administrators/coders/assistants have "knowledge of the game" that extends beyond what "typical players" know. They have access to features of the game including dupe checks, petty crime counters, at one point email/password checks, and a host of other functions. There is a chatroom on IRC where the administrators/coders/assistants are free to sit and discuss game-related changes and activities before they reach the general public. Is this argument of "knowledge of the game" extending to all people who are some sort of game administrator?

This entire discussion seems to be too focused just on Mr. Billy_Bathtub because he put in the work and effort on a game character to reach that plateau. Are you arguing that Billy_Bathtub should never have been Godfather or that any sort of game administrator shouldn't be able to play due to their advanced "knowledge of the game?" WACK! Reply Reply by: Rourke at Oct 19, '09 15:30

I removed that comment because I believed it did not belong in this thread. Its like at a wedding when the priest asks if there are any objections from the crowd, and someone shouts out "WHAT ABOUT WHEN SHE WAS RAPED, SHE WAS WEARING A BLACK SKIRT, DID SHE DESERVE IT?" While maybe in some peoples minds its an appropriate question, but basic tact would have dictated that this is not the time nor venue for it.

I own stock in Sonic - the fast food place. I've never seen the kitchen. I can't make one of their burgers. I sure as hell havn't tapped that hottie on skates who brings you your food. I just happen to have made a financial exchange for stock in the company.

Billy_Bathtub bought stock in Crooked Studios, an entertainment company. Months later, he also became an assistant. The same as Belle. The same as VendettaJames. The same as Sprozza. The same as Camazotz. The same as tiggy. The same as FrankieFigs. The same as FridgeRevenge. All these people at one time or another have become Crew Leaders. None of these people have access to the code. They are free to wander about the parking lot of Sonic, take the food from the window to the cars. But they are not allowed inside.

No one above has access to the code. No one above has direct DB access. I challenge any of them to give me the correct answer to the question of "What stats get adjusted and by how much, and what is the math behind the following situation: of when a Earner shoots at a live Capos BGs, with the earner in his home city, with a Don boss with 43 members, 17 of mademan+, Capo out of home city, with the capo offline, with the capo having a Don boss with 49 members, 23 are mademan+, with the Earner having a gun over 175 with BG health at 72, with the result message of "An unidentified assailant killed your Bodyguard!"

Not a single one of them can give me the correct answer. Why? Because they don't need to know to do their job. They are armed with the information needed to help new players when they ask questions. Know any staff of former staff? Ask them about the training they received. You would be surprised to find out "Oh, heh, I wasn't trained, I knew everything already" will be the answer you get from them. What does this mean you ask? It means they are like you, only their name is in color. The people who actually DO know the real details of the game are the coders. Anubis. Enkindle. Mario. Me. We know what goes on behind the scenes. We are intimate with how things actually work.

Gross assumptions is what makes the tinfoil hat community stir with excitement. If billy, prior to becoming a crewleader, had the ability to reply to Help Desk mail and look at people who failed petty codes, he had the tool. Having access to one naturally means you will abuse it. Correct?

So if you have a vagina, you are a prostitute. This is a 100% absolute.

Funny how when the same exact logic is applied here, it doesn't fit so well? WACK! Reply Reply by: Squishy at Oct 19, '09 15:41

No, that's not the argument of "knowledge of the game". Also, I was more specific by pointing out his position as a primary owner rather than an administrator. All of those features you spoke above are necessary to help this game run smooth and fair for everyone.

I'm claiming an individual with his status of ownership, excluding game administrators, should not be allowed to play due to their knowledge of the game. And I say "should not be allowed" for the fairness of the user base. WACK! Reply Reply by: luckygogo at Oct 19, '09 15:43

Rourke, I think you'll find that I freely discuss all these things in #divinelunacy with anyone who cares to listen. I flesh out the specifics of features with any one who happens to be in #divinelunacy. WACK! Reply Reply by: Squishy at Oct 19, '09 15:45

[~] Last Sentiments Started by: ThomasRourke at Oct 17, '09 02:41

As far as I can see, no-one is making much in the way of accusations, nor are they saying any benefits were had. The fact that admin accounts are disabled when privileged people, shall we call them, are in positions of power in-game also makes it far less of an issue.

However, this issue will always come up simply because it is construed as a conflict of interests. For instance, regardless of how honest and open Izzy and Billy are - and I don't for a second doubt they were/are/always will be, so don't get defensive - you can't really argue the fact that whilst they were in two of the most powerful in-game positions (GF and RH), it was a potential issue though it being perceived as a conflict of interest.

Frankly though, it doesn't really matter. Beyond the fact you put your trust in those in charge anyway, this is a game and is pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. If the owners want to play, so be it. There will always be debate about whether those with the real power behind the scenes should do so, but it's human nature to question these things. WACK! Reply Reply by: BoabyWanKenobi at Oct 19, '09 15:50

Rourke, I think you'll find that I freely discuss all these things in #divinelunacy with anyone who cares to listen. I flesh out the specifics of features with any one who happens to be in #divinelunacy.

I'm not questioning you at all, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy of the argument by one Mr. luckygogo.

I don't know where "ownership" really becomes involved as part of the equation as Billy_Bathtub being an owner has no bearing on his "abilities" in game. WACK! Reply Reply by: Rourke at Oct 19, '09 15:51

"I flesh out the specifics of features with any one who happens to be in #divinelunacy"

Fuck... So that's what I've been missing?!?

Cries WACK! Reply Reply by: JonBonJovi at Oct 19, '09 15:52

Just one thing to pull you up on there Squishy: "The same as Camazotz."

I can say with absolute confidence, that nobody or anything in known existence is the same as Camazotz.

For which we should all be eternally grateful.

~T~ WACK! Reply Reply by: Tallien at Oct 19, '09 15:54