CUOP has not engaged in any actions that are not within the realm of legitimate uses of mechanics. We have not engaged in any name calling, threats, or hostility outside of the explicit scope of CUOP. It is strictly the opposition to CUOP that is engaging in behaviour that breaches the community guidelines.
The fact of the matter Tex is that, like has occurred with Dirk, there is a perceived breach of a social norm.
You don’t appear to understand that PrUn is economic pvp mmo game.
We have not directed any action towards an individual, whereas you have explicitly targetted individuals within CUOP.
Your response is clear, and it tells me everything I need to know right now.
I’m still confused why CUOP are getting so upset if they genuinely wanted to test the community’s response to abuse and nefarious tactics. Almost as if that wasn’t ever there intention…
All responses to CUOP have been within the uses of gameplay mechanics. Individual targetting is much better than the carpet bombing that CUOP have engaged in.
I do think Prdgi raises a really interesting point in trying to define the game in a strict economic pvp mmo gameplay situation. I’m not sure how one can possibly suggest that is the case with 0 scoreboard, a chat, corporations, a forum, and various other social aspects. Infact a MMO by definition will always tend away from pure pvp economic competition in many ways. To suggest social norms are in no way part of the game seems a weak argument.
Uh, I think the verbal vitriol that has been directed at them exceeds “within the uses of gameplay mechanics.” Suggesting that a player or players should be driven from the game is definitely not within.
It’s one thing for us to play a tough game together. It’s another to declare that people are Scoundrels and toxic. If I mounted a campaign to convince the entire playerbase that you, @Bobemor, were a despicable person who no one should do business with ever again… that’d be within the uses of gameplay mechanics, right?
If I was actively attacking you/the community and you felt it necessary to do this to galvinise the community to action and dissuade such attacks in the future. It also wouldn’t upset me if I explicitly asked for such actions to be taken and publicly said that that was a large part of my aims in that I wanted to test the ability of people to organise.
I also wouldn’t do this, because I quite enjoy working with the community.
You’re right though I do find it an odd take to say they want a community reaction and then appear put out and annoyed with the form that that is taking. Like they want to have their cake and eat it. It also seems they haven’t thought of the longer term implications of such behaviour.
TLDR:
CUOP steal other player’s production ability no less than if they pirated shipments, but claim its not OK to pirate in response.
They turn up on a planet with one player and shut them down, leading to that player and then their corp mate to quit but claim it isn’t personal.
Their members quit a corp and backstab it, leading to another player quitting, but then claim its the resistance causing lots of players to quit.
Their members go on chat and forums talking about how great their aims and methods are while talking down anyone who criticises them or tries to find ways to counter CUOP, and then accuse the resistance of being toxic.
One member of CUOP can’t take the response to this comeback and doesn’t just quit, he takes tonnes of goods from bystanders with him impacting the player base even more, but again GDP and CUOP blame the resistance rather than taking ownership of the course of events they and only they are responsible for unleashing.
Prdgi, your and CUOPs actions are rightly seen as harming the community. Tex is right that bullies try to control what is considered bullying to their advantage: I know from bitter personal experience. Your actions may be bad enough, but the longer you fail to get that you and CUOP consciously chose to cause all of this, the longer you try to tell us what is and is not bullying to suit you, the longer you claim that the resistance caused more harm than you did, then the longer you will be treated as a pariah. Your call…
What I find the most disturbing about whole the CUOP thing, is that a Dev is agreeing with it, and even backing it… It should have been clear that people will be annoyed by such a “test”.
“Tests” should be officially announced and followed up. As I said before on the discord, this should have been an official test with guarantees that impacted people will get reimbursed for what they lost.
I was going to pay the monthly fee , but now that many of my trade partners quit the game, or aren’t actively playing anymore, my projects are slowing down, or coming to a stop, I’m not sure if I will subscribe. It sure isn’t as fun anymore to play as a few weeks ago, now it really feels like doing chores.
I had some players quiting the game that provided me with products I needed, now I either will need to find some other people and convince them making a new production chain, or do it all myself. ( What seems more reliable than counting on others, although this game is meant to be played the other way around ).
Are you referring to me? While it is true, that COUP came to us to ask if they can pull it off and if it is within the game’s rules, it is not true that we are backing it in any other way. Of course we anticipated that people will be getting upset about that, but that is true for pretty much every large scale operation.
We haven’t made any public statements about COUP and counter-COUP so far, because there is no obvious technical problem (like for example the insufficient rating system) that can be solved easily. When COUP started we started having game design / gameplay vision meetings to clarify our own vision of the game and make it communicable to the community. We are trying to answer questions like “Do we want this kind of economic conflict in the game?”, “How easy should it be?”, “What can affected players do to strike back / defend themselves?”. All these questions don’t have a single, simple answer and are hard to implement into code. So I kindly ask for a little patience, so we can sort these things out.
thank you for this.
A post like that at the beginning or shortly after would have been very appreciated!
I think that’s all anyone really is asking for.
We know that coming up with changes (if at all) takes time.
A short “we are watching and evaluating” goes a long way.
While I’m not Thuan and cannot speak for who he was referring to…Nick appeared to be the member of the Dev team who was actively encouraging CUOP and trying to coordinate timing of the attack with a YouTuber joining the game.
This had absolutely nothing to do with a YouTuber joining the game. I made that absolutely clear weeks ago.
Nick and I had spoken about a time when a YouTuber wanted to try something similar. There has been nothing else said by Nick, myself, or cuop that suggests this was in coordination with any social influencer.
You posted a screenshot of your DM conversation with Nick in Discord. Clear as day.
It was clearly encouraged by Nick at the request of a social media influencer he was recruiting. Thus Thuan’s statement above is 100% accurate.
By the way, anyone who has DM conversations with Prdgi - They aren’t private, he posts screenshots and sells you out when it suits him. He tries to blame the person he screenshotted for his actions and doesn’t take responsibility for them himself. You’ve been warned.
from what i have seen, prdgi has kept dms private unless he has been given specific permission by the other person in the dms that he is allowed to reveal a specific interaction that they had together.
No clue how that was a personal attack, but you are entitled to your view.
Here is what happened:
Prdgi created a private channel in the Senate Discord to “negotiate” with the CUOP opposition. He invited myself and one or two other members of the opposition to the channel, and then proceeded to tell us that the only way we could oppose CUOP was by attempting to vote them out. Any other in game actions were supposed to be out of bounds. Because the “test” was “approved by the developers”, as if that somehow made it ok.
We denied his request.
He then posted a screenshot of his DMs with Nick…left it up for about a minute…posted “That’s long enough” and deleted the screenshot. Asked again that we withdraw the boycott request against CUOP members. He said something about how we should never talk about what he said in that channel outside of that channel. My response is a bit higher up in this thread, you can go read it if interested. Because I instantly knew that I should never talk to Prdgi in a private Discord channel again.
I left the private channel and have since left the Senate Discord entirely.
In fairness, Pencil may be right, perhaps Nick did authorize Prdgi to share that screenshot. I have no idea. But if he did, then why did Prdgi delete the screenshot from Discord after a minute?
Why am I bringing it up now? Hell, why am I even in this discussion? Because someone @‘ed me earlier in a separate thread, and I came to see why I got a notification, and, well, I saw a misleading statement that needed to be corrected. It got brought up only because someone denied it. I kept my mouth shut until then.
And then I got a notification that someone replied to my correction. And then another notification that I got @‘ed. So I’ve come back two more times. Whatevs, y’all can do what you want. All notifications are turned off, I’ll never be on this page again.
Damn shame, I really liked the game, and it has some really cool people in it. But Prdgi is right about one thing…the community is extremely toxic.
The channel in the senate was setup as a way for us to communicate with the leaders of Anti-cuop. I used the phrase “I expect what we speak about here stays in here.” because I had full intent of providing greater explanation to selected people rather than the entire community. I specifically stated thatya prize from my own finances would be given to the successful team.
My attempts at civility and “play” were met with spite.
In this case you are correct. I had not asked explicit permission from Nick prior, which is why removed the post. I believe that it contained no information that I felt Nick would not say publicly. Nevertheless, I removed it.
This is the only instance to my knowledge where I have shared a snippet of a private chat in a public setting without explicit prior permission.
“We also have intent to pirate from Tex” and the screen print that immediately follows (on this thread: Shoutout to CUOP for becoming the new dirk) is directly from a private server of which you, @Prdgi , are not even a member.
How did you go about getting that? @Rubicate was spying, so I assume that’s how.
But that’s also pretty cheap that you use private messages and make it seem like it was a public conversation or information directed at someone specifically on a public channel. You also followed it up with a post from Tex saying that he wasn’t in possession of any pirated any goods, and you implied that he was lying. Now, I honestly don’t know if he actually eventually pirated any goods. But at the time of that post (which, to my recollection, was about a day after the post from the private channel), he hadn’t actually pirated anything because, as he even said in the post (reminder: from the private channel of which you aren’t a member), no one had fulfilled any contracts.
To be clear, I’m definitely against some of the comments that I’ve seen—well after the fact of them being made, because I’m busy and don’t regularly keep up with this stuff—in public chats or DMs. I’m not sticking up for that stuff and do think that it shouldn’t be tolerated.
But it also seems that you were privy to some private information that very likely colored the way you responded to some things. And the way that you see some responses (some, although not all, of which were not bullying, IMO).
In any case… Personally, I don’t think you’re “the devil” that some think you are. Honestly, so much has been said in so many places that I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you forgot the screenshot I mentioned above was from a private channel. But I also think that you’re not “the angel” that you’re claiming to be… because, somehow, you still had some kind of access to that private channel.
I’ve not attempted to say the contents of that post were directed at someone. The purpose of that snippet is to show that whilst there was attempted piracy, its failure was being passed off as an avoidance of piracy. Furthermore, us bringing up the possibility of piracy was met with scorn and defamation by Houston.
It was thus clear that, whilst engaged in (attempted) piracy, opposing players were content to defame gdp/cuop for “even thinking of piracy”. Tell me, is that a fair thing to do?
Every piece of text that ive quoted showing bullying has been in public viewable places. There is no need to delve into private dms or invite only servers in order to make this case.
The source could have been any number of the individuals within opposing groups that provided information to us.
I don’t see you calling out any of the players who posted the messages I have referred to. There are a few people from opposition groups who will make blanket statements such as “some of those messages have crossed lines”. These statements don’t do anything except provide an attempt to distance the player from others.
Call them out, because the posters see nothing wrong with it. If you don’t, it just shows you are tolerant of that behaviour.