This is a very unprofessional announcement.

Post the actual logs showing that Curtis has said that his goal was to intentionally cripple the game financially. The user base needs to see real proof, not he said she said.

Reply by: Just_Dicing at Sep 12, '20 20:53

While Curiosity pushes me to ask to see them, the fact is that this is a game run by one person with a small staff under him... As a D&D player, there is something i learned really quickly about running and playing games....:

"If you don't trust the Game Master (GM) to remain neutral/fair (as possible) then don't play the game."

If You think the GM is just gonna kill upper structure for no reason, then whats the point of playing. Whats the point of putting your time in only to die at the top. Furthermore, if the GM lets players bully him into adding extra protections to strengthen an already stifling ruling class, it becomes unfair to the rest of the player base.

Frankly, that leads to this game stagnating. It's in EVERYONE'S best interests that the "Floaters" get eaten by the fish underneath regularly or the fish in the water die. (Or... in this case, loose interest.) While I don't think the GM should be manning a net to fish out the floaters and scum constantly, some times it's necessary to stir the waters to allow growth... Specially when the floaters are killing off any fish that may be getting big enough to eat them.

Pond analogy aside... Part of this games draw is the players ability to grow. if you put a cap on that, players loose interest. if you try to force the GM to make that cap stronger... Specially seeing that this is killing players interest in playing... You're taking the GM's neutrality from them. They can't stand back and let people work it out on their own if they're literally being forced in. Squishy does try to let the game run itself, but there have to be lines.

It's almost more realistic anyways as anybody with a gun can shoot at anybody they're just not very likely to hit

I have to disagree with you on this one Doogle, there is a difference between “interference” and “being forces into it” 🤷‍♀️ Attack finances of the game, you’re gonna face the admins, not players.

The bottom line is we are all supposedly adults here (people lie about their age all the time so no telling) and if you have to bully the admins and cheat to win a game than you never truly won. All that you achieved is making yourself look like a complete asshat to him and everyone around you. 

the finances of this game are none of my business but id do the same in Squishy's shoes. 

This doesn't bother me. This game rewards toxic and destructive play and has continually been the target of awful cliques who rise to power because this game rewards it and insulates them from the consequences of their actions. Eventually they overstep and face the repercussions.

What does bother me is this statement:

These people were killed in the past for this, and the userbase let them rank up again.  Then the cycle started back up, while everyone watched.

This is not the first time I've seen things like this, and even after being gone for months it still frustrates me. This idea that the userbase has some obligation to "put down" the toxic and destructive behaviors with no tools to accomplish it. There is no pocket of white knight players who are willing to put in hundreds of hours of work just to keep the streets clean. The only times that toxic cunts don't rule this game is when they're in striking distance of another set of toxic cunts- which gave the game a kind of social strategy.

But this "social strategy" component died a long time ago, and I can tell you why:

• Players can use credits and hustle points in the thousands to build a character independent of their crew or their city.
• Leaders are forbidden from knowing who their members are, so every critical role will go to people they know they can trust.
• These cliques are often well-funded and are capable of buying BGs to cap well in advance of the time it would take to shoot them. So even if you put every player on equal footing (like a reset), you'd still have the same assholes rising to the top because they'd be untouchable in less than a week.

If we are going to publicly hold the userbase responsible for not getting the thousands of kills it takes to unseat these toxic players, perhaps it would show a little goodwill to simply acknowledge that it isn't the userbase who writes that math. Time and again, suggestions have been made that would de-centralize power and force the game back into social strategy as opposed to this purging-from-an-ivory-tower bullshit and time and again, those suggestions were shot down.

The wack and BG wack math, the BG cap, the credit and hustle point stockpiles (and the ways these stockpiles continue to grow), and other game features that further enable this garbage are not and have never been the userbase's responsibility. And given the fact that this same shit has been happening for years and years, are we ready to admit that maybe there's some part of the game that needs fixed if we really want to usher in a new kind of gameplay?

I couldn't agree more with what Javier said.

What I meant by unprofessional is that the administrator of the platform is making announcements littered with clumsy penis references and assumed sexual preferences of their paying customers. It is not a good look. 

As to your point about intentionally trying to bankrupt the game - I was both a credit purchaser and an investor until yesterday - given those two actions financially support the game, this does not appear to apply to me.

If the actions of the users in question justify being banned in conjunction with your terms of service, then that punishment should have applied. Your Site Rules should form the framework for all disciplinary issues; it should be an emotionless case of cause and effect.

If you didn't apply that punishment, allowed them to continue to play, took their time and money and then chose to take action afterwards on those same actions, that would seem very ethically suspect to me. Almost as ethically suspect as taking action without providing any explanation whatsoever.

But when you choose to circumvent your own Site Rules and unilaterally issue whatever punishment you feel fits the invented crime, I guess it is hard to follow any formal procedure anyway.

SammyGarcini,

i couldnt have put that better myself but here is the answer to your question and its quite simple actually.

Nobody is willing to put in the effortless work in that is required to build a gun and take care of the issue themselves. they prefer to waste money on hiitlists hoping that another hitter would be stupid enough to try for an amount that would equate to 60 or 70 creds most of the time. When that doesnt work they pay the obscene amount required to keep it on the hitlist hoping that Tyler will get lucky and 1% the target. 

building the necessary gun to do something about that and affect the desired change is incredibly easy, compared to the old days when it took months of hard work just to build a gun that shot through forts, much less killed an IWP CL or Godfather. 

When they are not doing that and they die over and over again at the hands of the regime that killed them, all they do is bitch, moan and groan about it and point fingers instead of tipping their cap at the person who beat them at their own game. 

At the end of the day, this game is just that... a game. people forgot that fact a long time ago.

Players like that drove lots of old school players away. This is needed right now to push the most selfish players to actually take an introspective look at what they are trying to do. Hopefully this brings back a good chunk of those who left

A number of us are not sold on this. Once the auth is required again the purging will continue. The upper structure will learn nothing unless this feature  remains in some form... like any Made+ does not need auth AND anyone under made does not need auth for 3 ranks above them. This bullshit of keeping more than half the userbase at Wiseguy needs addressed and not having to be authed to show their displeasure should be a permanent addition. 

There is a sad state of affairs, that's for sure Taradiddle.

For example; I was just shot (SammyGarcini) for what I'd said here, in the announcement forum, for defending the game against people who wanted to essentially destroy it.

Your previous account was not shot for what you said but how you said it.