Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk


0 0
Agency Subscription Limit
  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

ctown28
ctown28
Huntsman

Feb-16-2008 18:02

I think its time to revisit the idea of subscription limits for onw person within an agency. It's been the rule that one individual person can only sub up to two people in an agency. After that it's considered an unfair advantage. This was the case a while ago, maybe not so much anymore. I currently have 3 subbed detectives, ctown, Brady Quinn and Bonelady. I have never hid that but also never really offered that information. I really wasn't aware of the "rule" that is really impossible to enforce. What about couples that log in from the same IP address, families, etc.

Anyhow, when this was brought to my attention, I decided to move Brady Quinn out of Dawg Pound Investigations to avoid any conflict before omeone complained. I still think this is an unfair rule. The agencies that have "control" of their detectives because they have gone inactive and the directors know the passwords actually gives a better advantage. They got that control, yet someone else has paid their money for it. IMHO, if I want to pay to sub 3 dets, thats my money paying for it. Either lift that silly rule or ban password sharing. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Now remember, this is to be an open debate, if you are looking for an argument, find a different thread, if you disagree but want to be objective, please post and lets have a respectful debate!

Replies

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Feb-18-2008 01:30

lol ok well... I know this 'rule is only 'honour' based as I quote from Admin:

4) A single player should not be the primary controller of any more than two detectives in a single agency. The only time when we can positively identify individual players is at the subscription purchase. So in practice, this is interpreted to mean that no more than two detectives in a single agency can be subscribed by the same person.

http://noir.playsleuth.com/map/cityhall/post.spy?id=17427

And maybe it needs clarification from Ben when he isn't so busy trying to get SoM off the ground...

But, I would think until he says otherwise that a groundswell of public popular opinion does not actually constitute a rule change.

*It may very well instigate one*, and more power to the people if that's the case, but until that time I wouldn't be too hasty.

ctown28
ctown28
Huntsman

Feb-18-2008 02:40

Fair enough, Using your word "technically" it is not a rule, if it was a "technical rule" the IP I used would not have allowed me to put the detective in that agency. It seems to be an "rule" that Admin presented and got the community to agree on. I already have "approval" from Admin to keep all three as the initail problem has died down,

The rule is basically based on the honor sytem, Admin doesnt have time to check and see whos IP is logged into what each and everyday. This is no different thna the Arch Villain league where its an unwritten rule not to play sidekick cases as thats an advantage, but some still do.

I would like to think that I have done the honorable thing and asked the communities blessing, I already have Admins

ctown28
ctown28
Huntsman

Feb-18-2008 02:58

I actually should clarify, I contacted Admin about it and after a short debate he didn't think it would be a problem. I still moved one of them, Iwant to move him back, I already have admins approval, I want the communities.


Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Feb-18-2008 04:41

lol. This is like one of those detective novels where you get all the missing pieces of the puzzle in the final chapter, rather than at the start where everything would have made oh so much more sense... but then like all good mysteries it wouldn't have been half as good a story.

Why didn't you just say, OK I've talked to Ben and he says that having 3 subs in my Agency is cool by him, so why don't we aren't you all doing it?

You made a lot of unnecessary 'rage against the machine' statements at the beginning, based in the surety of already having the machine on side. :s

So, probably what's more interesting to everyone now, and since you've made the statement, is:

IS this in fact a firm and fast rule change or not for the whole Sleuth Community?

Ben?

Secret_Squirrel
Secret_Squirrel
Safety Officer

Feb-18-2008 04:42

PS Sorry Ben :)

Sleuth Sindy
Sleuth Sindy
Pinball Wizard

Feb-18-2008 04:52

My feeling is that the silent majority on Sleuth could care less about this issue; there are just a few detectives out there who just HAVE to make it an issue, and of course, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It's not majority rule, it's whoever whines the loudest.

That's just my opinion.

Sleuth Sindy
Sleuth Sindy
Pinball Wizard

Feb-18-2008 04:57

And let me just state that I only have two detectives and that's all I have time for or can afford, so I am within the "Honor Code" here and have no desire to have anymore than is allowed, so I have no personal agenda in stating my opinions here. These are just my opinions and observations.

Sleuth Sindy
Sleuth Sindy
Pinball Wizard

Feb-18-2008 05:20

ctown:

Let me ask you this: Did you pay your subscription to Sleuth or to the community at large? The only person who should be able to dictate to you what you can or cannot do with your detectives is the person you paid your subscription to.

Bonelady
Bonelady
Collector

Feb-18-2008 11:14

SS and Sindy,

fair good statements, part of the reason for this thread was/is to revisit the entire idea. Please allow me to clarify a few things. While Ben did not come and and say ok go ahead and do it, he did lean toward approval when I offered to go through the "loophole" of transferring this detective to my co-director.

In a nutshell he said he would let me figure out the best way to handle it. The system had been abused in the past, (at the very begining of Treasure Hunts) At that point I moved Brady out of the agency and into Wish as I did not want to cause any problems. I could have just kept my mouth shuty and nobody really would have been none the wiser as to the detectives I play as, but would that have been the ethical thing to do? Now what's the best way to handle it? I figured it wouldn't hurt to tap the community for opinions, if the majority has no problem, I will move Brady back to DPI, if the majority still feels that's an unfair advantage, I may not agree with them but will respect the wishes of the community.
As a community, I think we owe it to ourselves to be respectful and mindful of otheres opinions whether they are agreed with or not.

Sindy, I agree Ben should be the only one who can dictate that, however I don't think he really cares one way or another about it, the community however does or this would never have been an issue. If anything, Ben has always listened to player feedback about the any and all concerns, in fact thats how this rule came to be in the first place.

Sleuth Sindy
Sleuth Sindy
Pinball Wizard

Feb-18-2008 11:44

Bonelady:

I agree we should be community conscious and respectful of others, but I think that this also includes keeping your nose firmly where it belongs, in your own business and not that of other people.

Having said all that, I am not going to post on this thread anymore as I don't want to create a lot of hard feelings in the "community," although I still have them.

Happy Sleuthing

  <<First Page  |  <Previous Next>  |  Last Page>>  

[ You must login to reply ]