Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Captain Underpants

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

169 Excellent

About Captain Underpants

  • Rank
    Able seaman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. So poor fox2run is our guinea pig then? Skully, what do you think of the fact that the majority of players seem to think that we should punish fox2run although he has, to my knowledge, never spoken abusively (in fact he has always seemed to defend his views quite politely) to another player, been racist, homophobic or similar or tried to scam players etc. He is simply playing the game in a way some others don't like and despite breaking no rules, the consensus seems to be that we should punish him for it. I know I feel rather unsettled about this and wonder if you feel similarly?
  2. Are you seriously suggesting that fox2run be forcibly put into the Pirate faction?
  3. If a national was to behave that way toward his own faction I would deem it unacceptable. For a pirate to behave that way toward a player of another faction should be to be expected as acceptable role-playing and something the victim player should be aware of to protect themselves against.
  4. There is such a thing as true trolling and griefing. Where players abuse each other in-game or on the forums, where players use discriminatory or offensive language, where they scam each other or even try to force players out of the game, then I believe that action must be taken and that it is the responsibility of the devs and not the players to take such action. Fortunately we have systems whereby devs can be notified of such behaviour and they can deal accordingly. I do not see evidence of Fox2run doing anything even approaching this, and whilst he may be irritating, it is better to simply ignore him if you don't like him, rather than try to convict him and punish him for acts that break no rules, except unwritten social conventions that only some acknowledge. Stepping out of the 18th and nineteenth century for just a moment, and into our own 21st century, I believe Fox2run would be guilty of breaking social norms, but he would not be guilty of breaking any legal law for which he could be brought to trial. As much as people lying, being rude, obnoxious, boastful, being un-pc etc etc may, in some cases drive me crazy, I do not wish to see those things becoming illegal. Moving back into the 18th/19th century once more, if fox2run or other players do break all the unwritten social rules we have and, as such, annoy and frustrate other players, we will not need a formal sanction to punish them. They would, instead, reap what they sow and not find anyone willing to sail alongside them - that would be punishment enough.
  5. Having viewed the original post, I find the specific allegations against the defendant to be spurious. As follows: First. With treachery, by admittedly attacking a French ally. The French captain was only an ally of a select number of Danish players who had chosen to be so. Fox2run was bound by no alliance with the French nation; rather, according to the game mechanics he was, at that time, officially at war with the French. With the introduction of the new Alliance system and it's further development, a player's enemies and allies will become more clear, but the accusation relates to a time prior to these changes. As a loyal British captain from a large, loyal clan, I find it frustrating when a player or clan acts outside of the wishes of the dominant part of my faction. Nevertheless, I defend their right to do so and reject once more the notion that any Danish player or clan had the right to order Fox2run to ally with any other faction with the, then lack of a diplomacy system in-game. Therefore, you have accused Fox2run of behaving in a way that may frustrate and annoy certain other players (I would be one of them), but you have not accused him here of a criminal offence. Second. With inattention to the progress of the enemy, with treachery, with incapacity as a Komandør respectively; by admittedly joining Port Battles with under-classed ships. Once more, Fox2run is not being accused of anything here that could be regarded as criminal. At this present moment in time, there is no formal 'ownership' of a Port Battle (though this may change), and as we are assured that Fox2run was not using an alt to deliberately sabotage an attack, we must assume that he was fighting in the best way he believed and with the most appropriate ship according to his circumstance (which he has described). Again, we might consider his behaviour to be irritating and frustrating. However, we cannot find him guilty of any criminal offence. Third. With neglect of duty, with disobedience respectively; by admittedly not following Orders in such Port Battles. The prior principle applies here also. No player can claim ownership of a Port Battle in any real sense. The underlying assumption here is that certain Captains have the right to issue orders to other captains when in battle. However, this assumption has no foundation - on what basis are we deciding who has the authority to give orders? Fox2run has just as much right in fact to give orders and assume obedience as any other player. Until we have some formal mechanic/system to which all must abide, Fox2run cannot be convicted of disobeying orders which were given with no authority or mandate whatsoever. Fourth. With general misconduct, with griefing respectively; by not showing the expected social behavior of a Danish officer. In any court of law, a charge must be specific to a particular event or action. This charge is not specific in any way and, therefore, cannot be considered by a court. In summation, I would submit that the behaviour of Fox2run has been irritating and frustrating to some. However, I cannot see any place where he has broken any in-game laws or disobeyed any orders which had a right to be given. Whilst I may not approve of all of his actions, I defend the right of Fox2run to play Naval Action as he sees fit, free from punishment or sanction. I note and express my consternation with the fact that certain players have taken on the mantle of authority and the right to give orders to all within their faction, yet whilst having no grounds or basis to do so. There is a difference between voluntarily submitting oneself to another's orders (as I do frequently), and being forced to obey by someone who has no mandate whatsoever.
  6. It is clear that a pirate (dishonourable by nature and unworthy to stand as judge) is acting as judge of a Danish player's actions within the Danish nation. Surely this is most inappropriate. I perceive that no clan, player or group within a faction has the authority to issue orders to any other. This principle holds even with informal alliances made by such groups and views regarding how any other captain should play the game for which they have paid. To do so sets a dangerous precedent wherein players with no actual authority may dictate to others; where might allowing this lead? I hold that no player should be punished or judged for not using external programmes such as TS. Once more, this sets a most dangerous precedent; namely that certain players would be excluded from game content despite having paid just as much for said game. It is noted that the admiralty (devs) have issued not even a warning, let alone any punishment to the accused. As stated before, any captain is free to play as they wish save for cases of extreme anti-social behaviour which are judged by this admiralty. Without any such judgement from a genuine authority, how can those with none act as though they may dictate to others? I, therefore, submit that this is nought but a kangaroo court, with no real authority and judged on the basis of idle gossip and rumour-mongering rather than any hard fact or probable and enforceable misdemeanors. I, therefore, find fox2run not-guilty on all counts, and express my outrage with these proceedings and my concern at the direction such informal courts/lynch-mobs may take us all. Yours respectfully, Captain Underpants (on shore leave back in Blighty with his new-born daughter)
  7. Speaking as a proud and honourable Brit, this kind of behaviour normally gets me rather hot under the collar. However, when a pirate behaves like this it somehow seems quite appropriate and correct! Bravo to your audacity (you scurvy dog)!
  8. I would also like to add my congratulations to the Spanish faction for their work last night in defending Robras and capturing two British ports. It was good to see two sides actually engaging in good combat with each other and even though I was fighting for the British, it was good to see the Spanish coming out on top.
  9. You're saying that Britain betrayed you yet it was Britain who did everything possible to ensure peace whilst you insisted on war? You were warned that if under attack on two fronts Britain would have no option but to neutralise you as a threat (to protect it's own player base) and close one front, yet you still resent Britain for doing so. You say that you will always ally against Britain no matter what, despite British players having no desire to fight you continually. I really don't think the British council have any desire to 'one-port' Spain and do not see this as a likely outcome. What I think Britain will do is push Spain back as far as it takes to safely secure that border and no further - indeed I hope that this is the end result. All-in-all you pick a fight with an enemy that you claim is stronger than you yet does not want to fight you. Then, upon starting this fight you get upset when you get beaten. I mean, if I was to physically attack the world boxing champion despite them not wanting to fight, I can hardly complain when he whips my ass!
  10. Contrary to what people may think, I (and other British players) have an enormous amount of sympathy for regular Spanish players and we don't want to see the Spanish player base decimated. Rather, we all want to see a competitive and active Spanish nation.
  11. Again, I cannot understand the accusation that Britain is stopping your players playing with their setting of port-timers. More specifically I don't understand your view that Spanish players want to play in port-battles when Britain and her allies rolled through 30+ ports (with timers set by Spain) with little or no opposition.Sure, if there had been at least a minimal resistance you may have had more of a grievance. And don't fall back on the 'it was our holiday and, therefore, we could not play' excuse when other nations (Including Britain) were having a national holiday also.
  12. And that's why I really can't understand the actions of the Spanish and their attitude. If you believe that the situation favours Britain, why on earth would you choose to go to war with them when they have tried nothing but to pursue peace with you? Why when warned and knowing what the consequences of choosing war would be, yet still choosing that war would you complain when those consequences happen? I think the real truth is that the Spanish thought they were going to have an advantage over Britain by joining a 5v3 alliance that surrounded British waters and presenting a difficult multi-front conflict for them. I think the Spanish were actually looking forward to wiping Britain out with their allies (something they have always longed and tried to do), but are angry and salty after being well-beaten by a better organised and coordinated GB/US/VP alliance whilst abandoned by their 'friends.' Rather than throwing accusations around following your defeat, try looking at your poor initial strategic choices when choosing your enemies and the lack of support from your allies.
  13. This, a thousand times over. Though I suspect your wise words will have as much effect as farting in the wind, human nature being what it is...
  14. And yet, as has been confirmed on this thread already, most of the Spanish ports were taken by a very small number of ships; often only 2 or 3 - hardly a zerg... Nonetheless, Britain has spent most of the time since the Steam release fighting on multiple fronts against multiple, more numerous enemies. The current 5v3 situation is more of the same and explains why Britain chose to isolate one enemy and bring numbers in a concentrated manner. I fail to see the argument you have with 'zerging.' Surely putting the numbers you have in the right place, at the right time, causing you to outnumber the enemy is simple common sense and to do anything else would be simply absurd. Every faction in this game has always tried to create a situation where they outnumber an enemy and tried to make the most of those numbers - and rightly so.
  15. You are telling us that you are seriously complaining about having to fight against 4 nations (when you actually have 3 allies) who are constantly attacking your ports, pulling flags and making playing the game feel like a job? You have a very short memory it seems: Welcome to what the British faced for months on end. Except that the Brits were genuinely on their own against four coordinating nations (of which you were one - the wheel turns does it not?) and gave their enemies a damn-good fight. Absolute hypocrisy - if you can't take it, then don't dish it...
×
×
  • Create New...