Air Attack COC Update

[USHA_Kid]

The COC for AA has been updated.Seems there were some unwritten items that were not included in the wording.They are now included.

Please read:

Code of Conduct for public arenas on the Ketsujin-server

   General:

- Respect other players and don't do anything to purposely ruin their enjoyment of the game

- Do not swear or use bad language in chat or in pilot tags

- No escaping (exiting the game to avoid getting killed)

- No crashing on purpose (crashing to avoid getting killed)

- No colliding on purpose with planes on the runway.

- Do not use or abuse others call signs/tags

- Do not abuse the functions of the launchpage

- No Runwaying - This means no shooting or ramming of planes on the ground - When the wheels of a plane have touched down on the runway, it is "safe" and must not be attacked.

- Sysops flying with [SYSOP] - tag are doing a job, do not try to engage or shoot them.

Arena specific:

   public FFA:

- No teaming in FFA ( don't work together to kill others, don't avoid killing 'mates' on purpose)

- Do not shoot at other planes while you are on the runway (while parking or taxiing)

- No AA suicide on purpose

   public Teams-arena:

- Do not shoot members of your own nation in team arenas

- Keep sides balanced where possible

   public Rookie - arenas:

- The Rookie - arenas are there to allow new players to get to grips with the game without the pressure of the full arenas, therefore - No Players allowed with ranks above FLt unless giving instruction and they must do only that.

   Behavior in FFA arenas:
   Note that both of these following points are not rules, only suggestions.
   They are considered to be the honorable way to play by most veteran players.

- Spawnkilling: This is when a plane spawns in the air behind a player already in the room, within shooting range. Most players do not fire in this situation, but keep an eye on them. They may attack you.

- Shooting planes that have just taken off from one of the runways:
Most players do not shoot planes that have just taken off, but keep an eye on them. They may attack you.

[Temper]

Thanks Kid.

If anyone has an idea for a rule that should be added, or something that should be re-worded, let us know. We will consider it.

A rule that I would like to see added would be: Never ever shoot Temper. Don't even think about it!  

[Aegle]

No doubt I'll bring a tirade of abuse on my head as usual but I don't agree with:

No crashing on purpose (crashing to avoid getting killed)

- No colliding on purpose with planes on the runway.

- No AA suicide on purpose

 
An opinion on any of these three can only be subjective and I have frequently seen instances of sysops castigating pilots unfairly for these perceived offences. Even I, who have never received a ban in all the years I have played, have twice been "yelled" at by a sysop for "deliberately flying into AA" to prevent him from killing me. In both instances I was attempting to fly low across an enemy field but couldn't quite make it. I always attempt to stay aloft while under attack even if I have heavy AA damage but it isn't always possible.

I have seen pilots receiving short bans for runway ramming when it was simply a case of them trying to land when idiots had parked all across the runway.

How many of us have crashed under attack because we were so busy watching the attacker in rear view that we didn't see the obstruction ahead?

Oh I know that Temper may say that sysops are capable of being objective and from my observations of him and a couple of other sysops I would not have a problem with their judgement. I have many times, however, seen some sysops being blatantly subjective in that they lost it because the perceived offence was against them.

I just don't think that the "offences" I have mentioned are worthy of such attention. It's almost impossible to know they are deliberate acts unless the occurrences are so frequent as to be anything other than coincidence. In such instances the sysops would surely be covered by the simple existing rule: "Respect other players and don't do anything to purposely ruin their enjoyment of the game"

[Vipor]

Although your last statement is true that the said offenses would fall under "Respect other players and don't do anything to purposely ruin their enjoyment of the game", that in itself is subjective and general.

Today we are is all about specifics. There have been times where a Sysop has used that rule mentioned above and the pilot starts to complain that it wasnt ruining anyone's enjoyment and in fact that it is the Sysop who is ruining it for all for trying to enforce the rules. That said, if we have specific rules for specific offenses then there is no question as to what the Sysop is pertaining to and should be no rebuttal fomr the offender.

As for what is blatant and what is an accident, that is left up to the Sysop in the game at the time and any recordings can be looked at to determine if said offense requires disciplining or not. Very little is concrete or black and white and the rules & Sysops are in place so that the game can run smoothly and keep people from disrupting the enjoyment for others.

Trust me, most Sysops know when it is an accident or not. And if it is, then said pilot will be more careful next time.

Plenty of runways and room to land even with planes scattered on 1.

Escaping is a no brainer.

Running to AA and then shooting to avoid the persuer getting kill is obvious. If you have been firing above AA and then dive down to let AA kill you it is the same. If you are flying below AA then AA will not shoot.

As A Sysop the more specific rules in place the more all know what is allowed and not allowed. The CoC is mainly there for all to know them, not so Sysops can boot people or bann them for every little offense.

I kindly (no tirade of abuse from me) disagree with your assessment of the new rules. They are indeed needed and will help in the long run in my opinion.

[Aegle]

Thank you Vipor for confirming what I had to say even though, as a sysop, you reach a different conclusion.

Unfortunately I do not share your faith in the abillity of all our sysops to act objectively. I have seen far too much proof to the contrary.

Frankly I think a leaf should be taken out of the Fighter Ace book where, despite it being a far more complex game, they do not see the need for such restrictive rules. Having said all that however be assured that I, as I always have, will continue to obey the rules. Also, as I always have, I will not hesitate to speak my mind when the occasion warrants.   

[Rb_Tullamore-Dew]

I think it was I, who was an advocate of not adding above red written bits to the CoC, back in 2006 (or was it 2007 ? I know it was August :D  lol) when we gained access to the Ketsujin server and we (TAA) discussed a possible CoC for the gameplay with our british friends from the UKAAC.

The american community wasn´t yet organized but got represented by Sal, who also appointed the 1st couple american sysops, to cover the policing of the arenas during U.S. american prime times.

My main arguments back in the days were:

1.) Escaping:

 - the 1% kill rate:

+ If I have hit an opponent only once, it would be too late to escape for him, because I´d get the blue message anyway.

- If I haven´t hit my opponent and he escapes while I only engage, he makes a fool and a coward out of himself. I ´m not so sure if honor still means anything to anyone nowadays, it always meant alot to pilots, especially to those virtual pilots, playing  Fighter Ace and Air Attack.

Conclusion: it´s may be very annoying, if you chase someone around the map, from up north to down south or vice versa and as soon as you come in firing range, she/ he escapes and leaves you with the choice to either fly 20 minutes back to  center, where the action is or to crash. In this certain - very obvious - case, escaping should be punished, I agree by now.

2.) it is the very same argument with ´crashing on purpose´, though it maybe not that obvious to judge about whether it was on purpose or not.

But no matter what:
+ if it happened accidently, you´ll most likely get an apology from a honorable pilot and you´ll know, if it is meant honesty or not.

- You wont get anything from a foolish coward and she/ he will probably have some more ´accidents´in future. :D.

3.) - No colliding on purpose with planes on the runway:

When it happens the pilots of the parked planes are disgusted and angry, in the same way as when they´re in the air and proclaim: ´afk´ before they get shot down.
Land, repair and takeoff again. But if your doorbell is ringing, you poured your drink over the keyboard and now need to clean it or you get ho*** and therefore need to have a ´quickie´with your gf immediately, why not leaving the arena ?

I´d reword it into:  ´No colliding on purpose with planes next to/alongside/beside the runway´.  And this would be by far more obvious and easier to judge about. Isn´t this exactly why syops park their planes beside the runway and not in the middle of it, when they want to supervise the gameplay ?

4.) - No AA suicide on purpose:

Way too hard to judge about, if it was purposely or not. Especially with rooks often are surprised when they fought and fired way above aaa, the dogfight goes down within aaa-range and they got shot down. There are probably more obvious incidents of AA-suicide. In fact there are many different cases of AA-suicide, which doesn´t make it easier to judge about them. Lots of work ahead for those lazy sysops.  

Again the ´honor-factor´ does play a major role for me.

[Temper]

Unfortunately I do not share your faith in the abillity of all our sysops to act objectively. I have seen far too much proof to the contrary.

I would like to see this proof, so that I may judge for myself. You say you have seen it many times, so surely you had the presence of mind to film it at least a few times. If not, stating it in the forums is nothing more than mudslinging, in my opinion.

These new rules are not new. They have always been there under the first sentence of the CoC. Unfortunately, we have a few veteran players that need things spelled out in simple English, or they claim there is no rule against what they have done. That is why we have added the wording.


/edited for speeling misteaks

[Firestorm]

I can send you proof from a recent incident that was returned as "No Action Taken" for a blatant runway

[Temper]

Tell me who sent in the complaint and who it was against, and I can download the film from the tools. Tell me in PM, no need to derail this thread with a possible flame war.

[Firestorm]

Shall do mate

[Aegle]

I do think that mudslinging is a rather harsh description of my saying that some sysops have difficulty in behaving objectively when they perceive an offence against themselves. It was not my intention to start any kind of "flame war." I think my comments were valid, relevant and in response to your request, Temper.

As for proof anyone knows that if you personally observe something then it is proven to you even though you are unable to prove it to others. It has often been said but I will reiterate that not all of us fly in arenas with record turned on and usually an incident is over before you consider doing so.

Really all I am saying is that rules should not be such that they are so easily subject to interpretation and cannot be judged objectively. How on earth can anyone judge in many instances whether a pilot deliberately got hit by AA fire or deliberately crashed or rammed. That would be a subjective interpretation and I'm saying that not all of you are capable of being entirely objective in such instances. In fact it is probably unfair to expect any of you to be so perfect.

Anyway I've made my point and if it's mudslinging so be it. I guess if you throw enough mud at a wall some of it might stick.

[shrapnel]

Let's not pursue the issue of mudslinging folks.

When Kid made his post I thought it was simply made for information purposes but Temp has called for commentary and he's getting it.

I've got used to the idea that when Aegle and Vip get on the same subject it's kind of like a husband and wife spat  but Temp you aint no marriage counsellor.

As I see it the main thrust of the comments so far has been to say that sysops are human (No Temp you don't even resemble a god; especially in that pink tutu you like to wear in public) Being human they should not be expected to make simple judgements on things that are subject to different interpretation. No reason why Vip, Temp or any one else shouldn't disagree with that and they can say so. Vip said it respectfully so there's no reason for Temp to bring the word mudslinging into it. That's the sort of language that starts flame wars.

Aegle dear, check your sensitivity at the door please.

[USHA_Kid]

I made this post just so everyone would be aware of the changes and not be caught off guard.

These rules were asked for and debated by admins and sysops from each community and agreed on before they were posted.There were some areas that needed addressed due to some pilots using these tactics in the game.

Escaping to avoid a kill....

Sometimes a player will lose connection and it will look like he escaped to avoid getting killed.I believe most of us know when to act on it.If it only happened once and the pilot came back in and mentioned it,then no problem.But if it happens more than once right at the time the pilot is going to be killed ,then it really looks suspicious and will be dealt with.The timing of the escape comes into play.

Crashing to avoid getting killed.

Another tactic used by some.All of us have crashed while in a fight.I know I have more than I care to admit.Accidents do happen.I always tell the other pilot sorry and move on.This area is a little harder to control.I don't think we will be banning someone for 1 crash,But again,,,,if they continue doing it then it looks bad and will be dealt with.

AA Death,,,,

Remember this is in the FFA room,,,not the team room...It's pretty obvious when a pilot you chase into the AA shoots his gun into thin air to activate the AA guns to shoot him.That's where this comes into play.All of us have been caught in the AA while dogfighting and most of the time it's not on purpose.But we can tell on film if someone shoots at no one to get the AA guns to fire at themselves.

As with all rules...They will always be picked apart and debated and argued about.But we have to have them and hope that most sysops use fair judgment in applying the appropriate punishment when needed.

This is not Wal-Greens and we don't live in a perfect world.We just try to make the best of what we have to work with.

Good Day

[Temper]

I couldn't think of another word that conveyed my feelings other than mudslinging. Dirt tossing perhaps? :) If I offended Aegle, then I apologize. My point is that with no film, there is no chance for any sysop to defend his actions. What one person sees is not what another person sees.

Anyway, enough of that. Let's look at these rules a different way. What if escaping, crashing, and AA suicide were not against the rules? If everyone started doing those things as a matter of course, I would imagine the rooms would have many angry players in them. That is, until they got disgusted and quit.

[Aegle]

I'm not offended. I have developed a thick skin after dealing with the male ego approach to Air Attack for as long as I have  but I promise to steer away from the particular subject of sysop egos and stick to the topic.

Of course escaping under attack needs to be minimized but, as Tulla said, this is pretty well covered now by the fact that even with 1% damage your attacker gets the kill. I think it's reasonable to live with the fact that some will manage to escape before they are damaged. Maybe they didn't know they were being attacked and simply decided to quit and go back to real life or they had a connection interrupt. Those instances anyway are so few as not to warrant attention.

I said it was difficult to know whether someone has crashed deliberately and of course that is true but I also understand the point made by both Vipor and Temper that most people will apologize either voluntarily or after having been challenged. I agree that if someone does sincerely apologize it will probably go no further. I can add that rather than make an apology some will try to justify their action by saying they were being "hunted" or followed after take off. In such instances they have damned themselves by their own logged admission. Anyway I concede to having been won over by the argument that action would only be taken if it was a proven case of deliberate crashing.

As to deliberately seeking death by AA fire I remain totally opposed to such a rule. I just don't agree that it can be determined even with recordings. My own experience of looking at recordings is that it is almost impossible to accurately determine what occurred. Some things might be clear like someone straffing a plane that is clearly stationery on the runway but trying to determine whether a plane had landed prior to being killed is next to impossible. Equally it is impossible to determine whether someone who fired in AA was doing it to avoid a death or was shooting at an opponent. There are also those instances where you are having a legitimate dog fight at a safe distance above the field but in the course of the fight you drop below 2000' and get hit by AA fire. Sorry but I just don't buy that deliberate AA deaths can be so easily determined. On those occasions that I think someone has chosen an AA death instead of by me I don't say anything. If they can live with their shame so can I. In fact my attitude to most of these so called offences is that they lost and I won regardless of whether a kill is registered in my name.

I could say a lot about the runwaying rule also but I have learned to live with it. I just think that we have all lost sight of what the developers of the game intended when they inserted AA guns on air fields. For a dose of reality in that regard try Fighter Ace where you will find yourself being runwayed by fighters, bombers, tanks and foot soldiers all of whom are risking damage from AA fire while attempting to kill you. It's just a part of the game but I won't push it. I know it engenders a lot of heated argument in both directions.

I've said this before and I will say it again. The best hope for better behavior is for those who care to set an example and thereby teach those who are new to the game. Topics such as this in forums no matter how repetitive they may be are a very useful way of continuously emphasising the need for game integrity. On that subject I concede that I have a lot to learn about being diplomatic in my posts but, no doubt, Colonel Shrappy will keep me in line and lets face it I can have no better example of integrity and fairness than he provides. My apologies to Temper, Vipor and the entire sysop community. I would not have the courage to take on their job and I know they are all doing their best to provide us with a safe fun environment.