Updated Code of Conduct

I think the code of conduct is inadequate so I am having a go at rewriting it. There is some new content here as well as a bit of organization. I plan to remove the whole "Elaborations" section as it looks redundant and probably is redundant. This version is longer than my ideal end result. I have included most of what I think could possibly be included.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

0. Don't make the game better off without your presence

This is the fundamental rule that underpins the rest of the code of conduct. Individuals who willfully act to degrade or worsen the experience of others can and will be removed, even if they do not violate the letter of any other part of the code.

1. Respect other players

Zero-K is a multi-player community and as such we should attempt to create a positive, welcoming and friendly gaming environment at all times. When questioning others actions or opinions, do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Do not blame others for a loss or insult other players.

Do not take out your anger on other players. Do not swear at them, blame them for defeat or smack talk them. Some moderate use of language in frustration is tolerated but not encouraged, but do not direct it at other players. We do not tolerate language that is abusive, bigoted, obscene, racist or sexist.

This especially applies to when spectating games as you must respect the right of players to play their game in peace. Do not disrupt their game with heckling or excessive comments. Chatting to players can be helpful, especially when teaching or sorting out problems, but be quiet if players want you to stop interrupting.

2. Help newbies

Offer new players friendly advice and help them with any issues they may have. It is encouraged for you to take on a mentor mindset and teach them how to play. Be forgiving to players who have trouble pulling their weight and try to give them advice on how they can best help the team and improve their game.

3. Cooperate with your team

Try to act and coordinate for the mutual success of the whole team. In a team game, cooperating, coordinating and planning strategies as a group will lead to greater success and a better team atmosphere. Realize that a player with higher Elo probably knows what they are talking about. Do not willfully make things worse for your allies.

Highly risky strategies or experimentation can disrupt the enjoyment of the game for the rest of your team. No strategy is banned, experimentation is part of Zero-K, but it is best to discuss risky experiments with your team prior to implementation. Do not take agency away from your teammates by gambling the game on a risky move without their consent. Moderately risky strategies may not require agreement, however, if your teammates object then perhaps it is to be avoided. Keep in mind that 1v1, free-for-all and organized clan play can be an outlet for your riskiest experiments.

Play as if you mean to stick with your team until the end of the game. Do not embark on a risky gambit and resign if it fails as this is likely to make the game less fun for your teammates. If you do not want to play a full game then do not join a team that intends to play a full game. Resigning due to an early setback will frustrate your team as there is often still time to turn the game around. If, however, you feel you have played and lost a full game feel free to resign or start a team resign vote, do not spam votes. When resigning do not sabotage your team or destroy your own units.

Deliberately attacking or blocking allied units with the intent to cause your team to lose is the most serious violation. Never attempt to intentionally grief the game for your teammates. If you do not wish to play a certain game or with certain players, leave the game. Do not self-destruct your units with the intent of denying them to your allies. This sometimes requires a judgement call by moderators, new players will be given the benefit of the doubt, smurfs and verbally abusive players will not.

4. Maintain fairness

Do not cheat. Cheating includes using any method that would give you information that is usually obscured by the fog of war. Helper widgets that control your units, sound warnings, place marks etc. are fine. If you make a particularly useful widget it is nice to release it to the community. Zero-K is built on open source and this is one of the ways we receive improvements.

Avoid giving out information while spectating unless you are sure that all participants in the game would not mind. Even innocuous seeming information can sway a game so it is best to be cautious. This applies to players who resign, leave your former team to play out the remainder of the game without your input. Feel free to discuss the game in spectator chat (Alt + Enter).

5. Abide by moderator actions

Moderator arbitration is intended to resolve disputes, not prolong them; as such, we expect you to respect and abide by their decisions. If you feel a moderator has acted unjustly, you may bring it up respectfully through the appropriate channels; however, mute/ban dodging of any kind is punishable by immediate banning of any alternate accounts used and an extension or increase in the original punishment.

Making forum threads complaining about how unjust one's penalty was and insulting the moderation/administration team is one of the most common reactions by trolls to moderator action. Players with this tendency also tend to have justified penalties. Don't do this.

6. Avoid inflammatory forum topics

Due to their highly inflammatory nature, political and religious discussions are relegated to the semi-hidden "asylum" section of the forum. Please avoid bringing them up elsewhere.

Would be good to see a diff with the current.

quote: Avoid giving out information while spectating unless you are sure that all participants in the game would not mind. Even innocuous seeming information can sway a game so it is best to be cautious. This applies to players who resign, leave your former team to play out the remainder of the game without your input. Feel free to discuss the game in spectator chat (Alt + Enter).

Isnt alt+enter ally chat?

Either way thank you for this. I feel this will help relieve some of the tension here. I think the next step should be a sort of appeal form and an updated report page. Appeal form would be accessable even when site blocked, this way users who have been forum blocked and lobby blocked could appeal in case theyre wrongly punished or overly punished.

Report update would have a drop down box of violations and a text field for evidence.

quote: So, what is the point with all of those strategies? Example : if a com nap fails in a 2v2 after 30sec (+resign just after because game is really over at this point), does it break the coc?

The point of most of those strategies is to gain a huge advantage. And the answer is it depends on consent.

High risk tactics are different than troll/silly tactics. Troll/silly tactics are more used for personal pleasure. Roach/skuttle drop is high risk, high skill, high reward. Most troll/silly tactics are generally high risk/low reward or directly damaging to the team. This is classified as 'griefing' -- purposefully causing your team to lose.

I think such high risk/profit tactic generally spoils game, no matter if suceeded or not.
Lets imagine 4v4 game. Because Firepluk has quite a high elo he usuually ends up with some NullAI player. So, he on a small to mid sized map he rushes forward with lvl2 recon, plops cloaky near enemy and rushes 2 Wariors. Now, there are 2 possible outputs:
1. He fails (such a surprise) and resigns (even bigger surprise). Now his team is left with 3, or quite often 2 (usefull) players (not very polite, but face the reality). Not very fun to play.
2. He (somehow) manages to wipe out entire (or most of) enemy base. Alone. Without letting anyone else to taste the action. Not fun to play either, even tho we basically won.
Either way, such playstyle should be considered as "spoiling fun for other", the zero point. At least when it is used too often.

Its like playing poker and going all in at the blinds stage every fucking single hand. At some point people will just leave. Or in case of zk, make u leave by kick, fulfilling the "make the game better without u" prophesy.

Its not game balance, its just people being bad at defending cheese. This is a problem that plagues all RTS games. Find one where there aren't people complaining about "le evil rush strats that kill fun! waaaahhh!".


This is mostly due to the huge skill differential in the team games room. Who thought it was a good idea to have new players play with firepluk who has been playing this game for 50% of daylight hours for the past 5 years?
Kill the one room madness.
I know that I would play many more team games if they were of a reasonable size and had more balanced skill levels.
You may hear "but i love cf" from certain people, but I'd wager there are atleast as many people who hate the cf madness and play less because of it. It causes so many problems...

Zerok is literally the only game I have ever seen that is too nice to say "sorry this room is full" and automagically redirect you to another room(preferably its smart and sorts people according to elo).

quote: Meanwhile, I don't see how anyone gets to tell anyone how they should play. Allowing people to think that this is acceptable, will encourage people to be abusive to each other based on their play style...

The point is that some players' play styles are inherently abusive to their team-mates' opportunity to enjoy the game.

A grievance against such play styles should be "legitimised" by the CoC, since it is a legitimate problem.

Aquanim

That just results in the tyranny of the majority, it's subjective.

Sanctioning people based on their play styles is inherently abusive to their opportunity to play the game.

Your complaint is no more legitimate than there's.

This problem is solved in many other games of different genres by players being able to choose who they play with. Otherwise you just end up with big round circle of abuse, in a community where player on player abuse seems to be considered by many to be a problem.

Players need to be empowered to solve their own problems instead of enforcing subjectively defined rules that are purely based on someone's opinion.

As slaab has previously stated, players hypocritically and inconsistently decry high risk tactics when they fail and celebrate them when they win. How can you possibly assert that players are a reliable why of establishing that a play style is right or wrong.

I've seen plenty of games where people set rules like "no artillery" or "no air" under the auspices that these things are overpowered and are ruining the game when actually it's just that the average player doesn't know how to effectively deal with these things. Do you really want to go down the route of players being able to make these decisions rather than someone performing a calculated analysis of the game balance.

You should be able to take measures to counter the rush that do not mean you lose out in the midgame period, if it is not possible to do this then it is a game balance issue. Game balance is more than just making sure that the anti air unit has an advantage over the air unit.

quote: That just results in the tyranny of the majority, it's subjective.

quote: Do you really want to go down the route of players being able to make these decisions

Colour me confused.

As to my opinion, defining what tactics are acceptable is not the CoC job, it's the community job.
If you don't like how a specific person plays, you have many tools at your disposal - Serious host, kicking, private rooms.
Staying in the all welcome room is equivalent to saying: "I'm still not mad enough at you to do anything about it, please troll harder"

Vote with your (virtual) legs.

Aquanim

I'll stop crying if you stop crying about peoples play styles being abusive.

Im not advocating maximum liberty, but instead i'm advocating using different tools to curtail the behaviour. Technically i'm arguing for deregulation, which is a conservative trait not a liberal trait but hey ho.

Now you're straw manning me, i thought it through just fine, but if you're going to change what I said and then argue against what you changed it to, how are we going to get anywhere with this level of intellectual dishonesty?

hokomoko

Sorry if i've confused you, i was just trying to point out that, if we go down the route of banning certain strategies in the COC, then all you would need is the majority of players to not like a legitimate strategy and it would get banned in the COC.

I completely agree with you, this is exactly what i was talking about when I mentioned empowering players to solve their problems instead of people "crying" as aquanim would put it about how someone is ruining their game and trying to wield the coc as a weapon aginst other people.