Demands SHOULD equal DM rights

[KarleyJon]

On 8/28/2025 at 10:15 PM, Jordan said:

I am a little mixed on the idea. I'd say +1* just because I can really understand where people get confused. Doing this would certainly clear up the misunderstandings of which there are quite a heavy sum like on the website. But at the same time although brought up already in this thread, it just arises another problem which is putting a certain rule on what counts as "Valid demands" which then instead of fixing the problem more so migrates it into a different thing all together. 

Overall though I'd say +1 but it would need some heavy wording to make sure its understood thoroughly 

The problem is no matter how you word it, some players will always try to bend the rule to their advantage."

Edited September 9, 2025 by KarleyJon

[Jellay]

The problem seems to be labs. +1 for just testing this new rule adaptation in labs only. 

[Jimmy Lynnch]

+1

[alexalex303]

7 hours ago, KarleyJon said:

The problem is no matter how you word it, some players will always try to bend the rule to their advantage."

anything will be an improvement over the status quo, in my opinion -- the amount of baiting for demands that is happening at labs is disgusting

[Quietthecutie]

I agree that demands, DM rights and the constant weaponisation of the reports system by certain parties is a problem.

I also agree that certain players constantly ruleplay and try to operate in such a way that dosent really make sense but uses the current ruleset to their beneift.

I also dont think altering The DM rule would fix the problem. 

What would happen is just a shifting of the goalposts. The same people will continue to instantly slam that "SAVE POV" upon taking an L. Then quickly scroll through their POV looking for something they could justify as a rulebreak. By OPs own admission they would simply have to change the title of their report from DM to NRP.

Im open to experimenting with a rule change, particularly in areas like labs which people should percieve as inheriently dangerous areas. Maybe something good will come out of it? Idk.

But i feel the problem is less to do with the current rules being inflexible than it is the mentality of the players hiding behind them, who will just adapt their justification for a report, very little else will change imo.

 

 

[Demonmit1]

1 hour ago, Quietthecutie said:

The same people will continue to instantly slam that "SAVE POV" upon taking an L.

dont do refunds for reports outside of like... exploit/cheating. people are incentivized to report every time they lose to get their stuff back.

[Marksy]

+1

[Marksy]

Allow me to elaborate on my +1

I think we should be careful where we allow this to happen and under what scenario. 

I agree if you aim a gun at someone and they drive off then you should have the right to shoot, especially when people are using that blanket protection of it being DM to just drive around talking smack or baiting because they know they will be able to report it. 

I think location wise it should make sense, in a lab sure, but you shouldn't be able to pull up next to someone in the city and point and shoot at them if they drive off unless you have serious valid reason to do so aside from "I want to rob this person" there should still be sufficient enough escalation for example, if you're driving into a lab to talk smack to people who are in there to bait demands, expect to get shot. 

However if you see someone in the city and point at them because you don't like them and they drive off and you open fire that opens more opportunity for issues with the rule and it being bent to people's interpretation. 

[Quietthecutie]

24 minutes ago, Marksy said:

However if you see someone in the city and point at them because you don't like them and they drive off and you open fire that opens more opportunity for issues with the rule and it being bent to people's interpretation. 

This is why i would like to see this or any other pvp rule change tested at labs only for the time being.

At labs people over relying on DM rules is done to death. Like "i was just chilling at labs and cooking and this guy pulled up and just shouted demands. and then i was shot at for no reason..." my brother in christ, you were shot at BECAUSE you were cooking at a lab...

Labs always feel very wooden to me because of this. Like we are going through a checklist and ticking off the boxes before someone says "fuck it" and gets cracking.

For my part, labs and their immeadiate area should be be treated as utter wilderness. The very fact you are presenting yourself in a very hostile environment civilians and police give a wide birth should be seen as  "reasonable escalation." The current system of driving up to someone and being like "howdy do, whatcha up to?" IN THE MIDDLE OF A DRUG LAB makes 0 sense..

[Clank]

11 hours ago, Marksy said:

However if you see someone in the city and point at them because you don't like them and they drive off and you open fire that opens more opportunity for issues with the rule and it being bent to people's interpretation. 

Whats wrong with that inherently though?

If you have beef with someone, one side of the beef will obviously come out on top. It should be handled in the RP, maybe by the losing side cutting their losses and being like "Listen, I know we have our differences. How about I pay you 50k and you stop robbing me." or "If I wrote you an apology letter would you stop looking for trouble?". 

I don't see why every conflict needs to be moderated by rules. If I didnt like someone and I caught them lacking. Then they hit me up a day later and offered me 50k to stop robbing them. I would be inclined to take it no? Why is that such a hard concept to understand on eclipse.

Edited September 1, 2025 by Clank

[alexalex303]

10 hours ago, Clank said:

Whats wrong with that inherently though?

If you have beef with someone, one side of the beef will obviously come out on top. It should be handled in the RP, maybe by the losing side cutting their losses and being like "Listen, I know we have our differences. How about I pay you 50k and you stop robbing me." or "If I wrote you an apology letter would you stop looking for trouble?". 

I don't see why every conflict needs to be moderated by rules. If I didnt like someone and I caught them lacking. Then they hit me up a day later and offered me 50k to stop robbing them. I would be inclined to take it no? Why is that such a hard concept to understand on eclipse.

Because a good amount of our player base does not care about the money. There were high level deals done at the faction level that were broken an hour later cause one of the factions just wanted to pvp and were looking for a reason, any reason.

What you're saying works when everyone self-moderates and has rational interests; with unlimited stashes, people have no incentive to ever make peace, as pvp itself is the goal.

This is more or less a different issue but it's very hard to be a moderate and somewhat realistic gang on ECRP; either you will never go to labs, mainly sit at your hq, do a bank every now and then and people will not have an easy reason to beef you OR

You go to labs a few times until you catch the wrong kind of attention and then people will chase you and harass you all day looking for a reason to beef you, not for cash or anything other than "free guns".

[Quietthecutie]

15 hours ago, Clank said:

I don't see why every conflict needs to be moderated by rules. If I didnt like someone and I caught them lacking. Then they hit me up a day later and offered me 50k to stop robbing them. I would be inclined to take it no? Why is that such a hard concept to understand on eclipse.

because people dont like losing and even moreso dislike acknowledging it. 

15 hours ago, Clank said:

"If I wrote you an apology letter would you stop looking for trouble?". 

15 hours ago, Clank said:

I don't see why every conflict needs to be moderated by rules.

In an idealistic server it prolly wouldnt be. but with the playerbase we have and the cops n robbers nature of what I would hazard a good 3/4 the RP is...

There will always be winners and losers, happy sacks and sad fucks. Fat cats and starving dogs. and when people lose they get upset. they lash out. people wanna be on top, people wanna win. and when they dont they look for a reason.

This is why moderation isn't just necessary, its vital. players cannot be trusted to self-moderate because they have inherent bias due to personal interest. im not saying all players are like that. some quite happily take an L. but a significant portion are.

Edited September 1, 2025 by Quietthecutie

[Clank]

8 hours ago, alexalex303 said:

What you're saying works when everyone self-moderates and has rational interests; with unlimited stashes, people have no incentive to ever make peace, as pvp itself is the goal.

If people had no incentive to make peace, they wouldnt be forum reporting each other nonstop to make the losing stop. If you removed the ability for someone to crybaby their way out of a beef. You force them to be diplomatic about it in game.

4 hours ago, Quietthecutie said:

There will always be winners and losers, happy sacks and sad fucks. Fat cats and starving dogs. and when people lose they get upset. they lash out. people wanna be on top, people wanna win. and when they dont they look for a reason.

If people could not forum report their way to a W, you would see more people accept their in character losses more. Its as simple as that. Forum reporting someone for deathmatching is an easy way to turn a salty situation into a serotonin boost. When in reality, people need to sever their connection between IC and OOC and instead focus on ending RP beef through IC means like the ways I suggested.

  

4 hours ago, Quietthecutie said:

This is why moderation isn't just necessary, its vital. players cannot be trusted to self-moderate because they have inherent bias due to personal interest. im not saying all players are like that. some quite happily take an L. but a significant portion are.

I promise you players would self-moderate when they realize they started an IC beef that they could not handle IC and received a "Well sort it IC" response from the admin team. 

The players that cannot "take the L" should be treated like toddlers.

An example is as follows:

Gang A: Crips | Gang B: Bloods

Crips start beef with the bloods, lets say by hitting bloods at a lab. Bloods want their retaliation. To make things right, bloods are demanding 100k from crips or they will continue to get robbed when they see each other. Crips then deny that offer. 

Fast forward a couple of weeks:

Crips have been losing 8/10 fights with bloods. Bloods are in a comfortable position. Crips resort to trying to report bloods. Crips are met with "This beef should be handled in game by the two parties" by admins. Crips are then left to fend for themselves IC because they started this beef IC. Bloods continue to rob crips, leading to the same 8/10 ratio in shootouts vs crips. Crips are then forced to negotiate a surrender or risk total turmoil.

Crips decide to pay 100k to bloods to end the beef.

Do you see how this was solved with zero admin intervention?

Edited September 1, 2025 by Clank

[Quietthecutie]

11 hours ago, Clank said:

15 hours ago, Quietthecutie said:

There will always be winners and losers, happy sacks and sad fucks. Fat cats and starving dogs. and when people lose they get upset. they lash out. people wanna be on top, people wanna win. and when they dont they look for a reason.

If people could not forum report their way to a W, you would see more people accept their in character losses more. Its as simple as that. Forum reporting someone for deathmatching is an easy way to turn a salty situation into a serotonin boost. When in reality, people need to sever their connection between IC and OOC and instead focus on ending RP beef through IC means like the ways I suggested.

  

15 hours ago, Quietthecutie said:

This is why moderation isn't just necessary, its vital. players cannot be trusted to self-moderate because they have inherent bias due to personal interest. im not saying all players are like that. some quite happily take an L. but a significant portion are.

I promise you players would self-moderate when they realize they started an IC beef that they could not handle IC and received a "Well sort it IC" response from the admin team. 

The players that cannot "take the L" should be treated like toddlers.

An example is as follows:

Gang A: Crips | Gang B: Bloods

Crips start beef with the bloods, lets say by hitting bloods at a lab. Bloods want their retaliation. To make things right, bloods are demanding 100k from crips or they will continue to get robbed when they see each other. Crips then deny that offer. 

Fast forward a couple of weeks:

Crips have been losing 8/10 fights with bloods. Bloods are in a comfortable position. Crips resort to trying to report bloods. Crips are met with "This beef should be handled in game by the two parties" by admins. Crips are then left to fend for themselves IC because they started this beef IC. Bloods continue to rob crips, leading to the same 8/10 ratio in shootouts vs crips. Crips are then forced to negotiate a surrender or risk total turmoil.

Crips decide to pay 100k to bloods to end the beef.

Do you see how this was solved with zero admin intervention?

Edited 10 hours ago by Clank

what you are saying makes perfect logical sense but only when you presume everyone has the same outlook at you do. When they dont, your theory falls apart.

I agree, i would fucking love for these beefs to be settled IC only, it makes for a more well rounded and most importantly....whats the phrase im looking for...self responsible experience? fuck around and find out type shit...like it would be wonderful.

but there should always be oversight for genuine rulebreaks. and how do we determine what a genuine rulebreak is? thats right! through the reports system. I would love to see staff be a bit more heavy handed with what is defined as a "petty report" or some incentive to not report every little thing that happens in the heat of battle. at the end of the day this is a videogame and sometimes people will make questionable decisions but not necessarily something that warrants a report.

Think of it like a sport...in many sports players can challenge a decision or outcome but they might have a limited ammount of challenges they can commit, say, 3 challenges (reports) over the period of a month. if their challenges (reports) are accepted, it dosent count as one used. if their challenge is denied (their report is denied) then they lose that challenge. basically if you report 3 times and 3 times it gets denied, you cant report any more until next month...that make sense?

Basically what i would want to see is some motivation for people to NOT report every little thing simply to try to get gear back or because they fail to distinguish IC from OOC. but i still feel the reports system should be available.

Edited September 2, 2025 by Quietthecutie

[Romeo Knight]

On 8/31/2025 at 3:46 PM, Marksy said:

Allow me to elaborate on my +1

I think we should be careful where we allow this to happen and under what scenario. 

I agree if you aim a gun at someone and they drive off then you should have the right to shoot, especially when people are using that blanket protection of it being DM to just drive around talking smack or baiting because they know they will be able to report it. 

I think location wise it should make sense, in a lab sure, but you shouldn't be able to pull up next to someone in the city and point and shoot at them if they drive off unless you have serious valid reason to do so aside from "I want to rob this person" there should still be sufficient enough escalation for example, if you're driving into a lab to talk smack to people who are in there to bait demands, expect to get shot. 

However if you see someone in the city and point at them because you don't like them and they drive off and you open fire that opens more opportunity for issues with the rule and it being bent to people's interpretation. 

This is how it needs to be done. NRP robbery will still apply , but in labs 100%.

[Demonmit1]

12 hours ago, Quietthecutie said:

what you are saying makes perfect logical sense but only when you presume everyone has the same outlook at you do. When they dont, your theory falls apart.

I agree, i would fucking love for these beefs to be settled IC only, it makes for a more well rounded and most importantly....whats the phrase im looking for...self responsible experience? fuck around and find out type shit...like it would be wonderful.

but there should always be oversight for genuine rulebreaks. and how do we determine what a genuine rulebreak is? thats right! through the reports system. I would love to see staff be a bit more heavy handed with what is defined as a "petty report" or some incentive to not report every little thing that happens in the heat of battle. at the end of the day this is a videogame and sometimes people will make questionable decisions but not necessarily something that warrants a report.

Think of it like a sport...in many sports players can challenge a decision or outcome but they might have a limited ammount of challenges they can commit, say, 3 challenges (reports) over the period of a month. if their challenges (reports) are accepted, it dosent count as one used. if their challenge is denied (their report is denied) then they lose that challenge. basically if you report 3 times and 3 times it gets denied, you cant report any more until next month...that make sense?

Basically what i would want to see is some motivation for people to NOT report every little thing simply to try to get gear back or because they fail to distinguish IC from OOC. but i still feel the reports system should be available.

the whole start of "how to report" starts with, "Are you the victim of a severe loss due to a rulebreak?"  again, a vast majority of reports seem to be based entirely on regaining lost assets due to losing a situation IC, with people throwing every possible rule on the list of rulebreaks being reported to see what sticks, and the report system incentivises reporting when you lose for the chance to get your stuff back. removing refunds will solve a lot. if the report is valid, the player being punished should have the assets removed and the OOC punishment. no refunds.

second, having a set limited amount of reports you can make and get denied is an interesting concept, but would fall apart in practice. Rules are different between RP servers, and we have a lot of rules, and they're applied differently from how they're written depending on what staff member is handling which report. it would just cause chaos, breed resentment, and make people more frustrated with staff inconsistencies. a 3 failed report limit would be overall bad.

BUT, staff should be more proactive on tracking failed reports, number of reports from individuals and factions, and work with Illegal Faction management to dish out faction related punishments for over reporting. its not random new players, its experienced, long term players in many different official factions that have lots of experience being forum warriors to win an IC situation after the fact OOCly. 

If a faction's members are constantly trying to win their wars on the forums instead of in-game, that is a faction management problem, and it should be handled as such. This requires no dev work, just a policy change, and it targets the real source of the toxicity without punishing the entire community.
 

[SquirtleSquad]

49 minutes ago, Demonmit1 said:

the whole start of "how to report" starts with, "Are you the victim of a severe loss due to a rulebreak?"  again, a vast majority of reports seem to be based entirely on regaining lost assets due to losing a situation IC, with people throwing every possible rule on the list of rulebreaks being reported to see what sticks, and the report system incentivises reporting when you lose for the chance to get your stuff back. removing refunds will solve a lot. if the report is valid, the player being punished should have the assets removed and the OOC punishment. no refunds.

If a rule was broken, regardless whether they want their assets back or not, they are within their rights to do well to the server by reporting it, and having it investigated. If accepted and the situation voided, the player who suffered loss from it, are welcome to request a refund. There's nothing wrong with this process.

50 minutes ago, Demonmit1 said:

BUT, staff should be more proactive on tracking failed reports, number of reports from individuals and factions, and work with Illegal Faction management to dish out faction related punishments for over reporting. its not random new players, its experienced, long term players in many different official factions that have lots of experience being forum warriors to win an IC situation after the fact OOCly. 

FM does currently observe, monitor and discuss reports with factions as necessary. This is nothing new. I don't feel there's such a thing as "over-reporting". There is a thing of petty reports, which are handled by the Report Management team, and goes through a process of review. I won't even address the last statement here.

 

Overall this idea is going to cause more headaches than I think it'll resolve. I do want to say that I think that demands are a means of escalation and "shit talking" saying the wrong things over and over again, poking the bear so to speak, should be fair to warrant attacking rights on a player. I mean you can't expect to walk up to someone insult them for 5 minutes straight and walk away unscathed. Now, of course there's using your brain and identifying what is an insult and not a quip or just what they think is "friendly banter" versus what is a full on attack of ones persona/background/lifestyle choice. Apply logic to real life. Would you honestly shoot someone or shoot to kill if someone said your dog looked fat, or that your mom was seen at X? No, that wouldn't make any sense in real life. But you would warrant punching, kicking, stabbing, or shooting someone if they sat there and insulted you with means of aggression for a minute or two.

The thing here is that we're an English roleplay server, however we have players from all over the world. Insults mean different things to different people in different regions of the world. I just don't see how this would go well because people would interpret what demands only means DM rights would look like. However, I would be happy to see what others on the Admin Team would think regarding this.

[Demonmit1]

29 minutes ago, SquirtleSquad said:

FM does currently observe, monitor and discuss reports with factions as necessary. This is nothing new.

prove it? been an issue brought up since FM 2.0, with no response, and no changes for 9+ months. If it was working as intended, why is it still an issue?

FM knows its an issue, built the rules to punish it with FM 2.0, and then have seemly been extremely reluctant to use it?

32 minutes ago, SquirtleSquad said:

Apply logic to real life. Would you honestly shoot someone or shoot to kill if someone said your dog looked fat, or that your mom was seen at X?

This is directly belittling the issue and making a fake argument that no one has argued. Staff has shown they're willing to playtest rule changes with the fearRP rule change, we should look at playtesting this DM rule change within specific areas. no one is saying your dog is fat and is expecting to get shot. rolling up into an active drug lab to bait DM rights so the rest of your friends can come fight is the issue people are saying here. people baiting fights are reporting the people they baited the fight with and lost. thats the issue.

36 minutes ago, SquirtleSquad said:

If accepted and the situation voided, the player who suffered loss from it, are welcome to request a refund. There's nothing wrong with this process.

there is inherently a problem with the process. giving players the chance to get their in character assets back from an accepted report inherently incentivizes rampant reporting anytime they lose. 

[Clank]

2 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

Apply logic to real life. Would you honestly shoot someone or shoot to kill if someone said your dog looked fat, or that your mom was seen at X? No, that wouldn't make any sense in real life. But you would warrant punching, kicking, stabbing, or shooting someone if they sat there and insulted you with means of aggression for a minute or two.

People get shot IRL for less LMFAOOOO.

Yes, you /are/ correct it does not make sense but there are ignorant people in this world. Just because something does not happen to /you/ does /not/ mean that it does not happen IRL. "Applying logic to real life" is irrelevant. I promise you if you come to florida and step in the wrong neighborhood you'll probably get shot if you said the wrong thing to the wrong person.

Even I personally have hovered my hand over my handgun in a heated road rage incident before.

We got rappers shooting and killing each other and making music videos describing exactly how they did the crime. Hell, take the whole ATK vs Foolios Crew beef for example. Both crews killing each other over petty shit and then dropping song after song after song after every kill. Yungeen Ace finally ended the beef and made a song called "Game Over" after he finally killed Foolio and told everyone exactly how he did it and bragged about killing him. Even had the killer in the video dancing and drinking Don Julio.

In the words of Yungeen himself. "I told em niggas to watch what they sayin to me, I kill for shit like this". 

How are you gonna sit here and argue semantics about what someone would and wouldn't do IRL or if it makes "logical sense" if it happens en masse in real life lmao.

Got niggas like Von and Durk that were shooting people over twitter beef and you gonna sit here and tell people to "apply logic" on a roleplay server where peoples characters have more kills than the bodycount in iraq?

Got cops in law enforcement that make gangs inside police departments with the requirement of murdering innocent civilians in order to join. Should we apply logic to them too?

Logic does not apply to criminals. Logic does not apply to shootings. There is more to life than a gated community with white picket fences.

Edited September 3, 2025 by Clank

[Demonmit1]

TL;DR - people wanna play a gangster so bad but don't want the actual IC repercussions of it, and staff encourage the OOC toxicity on the forums by ignoring, deflecting, or outright refusing there is an issue.


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


Look, this is going off into a tangent, as the OP is about demands should equal DM rights, but we've delved more into the core issue of players forum reporting to win situations and the current DM rules not representing the reality and realistic flow of interactions between players, and being weaponized by players to report their IC enemies to punish them OOCly and hope to receive IC compensation for lost assets for these ongoing IC faction wars/conflict.

So... what did I do? i had an AI scrape the player report forums going back 4 months on all the player reports. 

2 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

I won't even address the last statement here.

Well I will and it needs to be addressed.

Top Players Filing Reports (3+):

Why (Bo Vespucci): 8 reports
Trait (Damon Sandhill): 7 reports
MateiC (Matei Knight): 5 reports
Demonmit1 (Tim Sutton): 5 reports
Dnwlo (Raphael Lang): 5 reports
pingo0 (Darijan Stojanchov): 4 reports
Trevor Zelias (Richard Forth): 4 reports
Diabolical (John Gradwick): 4 reports
DawidG103 (Benny Carter): 3 reports
Kevin Biker: 3 reports
NEO77 (NEO BRUCE): 3 reports
moment (Ash Volkov): 3 reports
Cal (Callum Goat): 3 reports
SteakHappy (Alistair Vespucci): 3 reports
Felarx (Felarx Knight): 3 reports
Romeo Knight: 3 reports
Trevor Murphy: 3 reports

Most Reported Individuals (3+):

Callum_Goat: 7 reports
Felarx_Knight: 7 reports
Kevin_Biker: 7 reports
Romeo_Knight: 6 reports
Damon_Sandhill: 5 reports
Alistair_Vespucci: 5 reports
Leon_Vespucci: 5 reports
Misho_King: 4 reports
Kon_Xun / Kon_Xiao: 4 reports
Ronaldo_Knight: 4 reports
Andre_Banks: 4 reports
Jon_Alison: 4 reports
David_Deltoid: 4 reports
Alexis_Knight: 3 reports
Markus_Knight: 3 reports
Pablo_Marian: 3 reports
Bo_Vespucci: 3 reports
John_Gradwick: 3 reports
Ghost_Corteiz: 3 reports
Harry_Payne: 3 reports
Vincent_Crawford: 3 reports
Richard_Higuchi: 3 reports
Moreno_Makaveli: 3 reports

2 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

I don't feel there's such a thing as "over-reporting".

The data proves this feeling is incorrect. "Over-reporting" is not about the total number of reports server-wide; it is about the hyper-concentration of reports coming from, and directed at, a tiny fraction of the player base. The top 11 reporters are responsible for over 50 reports. The top 20 most-reported individuals are the subject of over 80 reports. This is exactly a definition of a concentrated problem. The vast majority of the server's OOC conflict is being generated by a handful of interconnected players and their factions.

2 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

I won't even address the last statement here.

The data proves that claim you're unwilling to address was 100% correct. The names on both lists are almost exclusively veteran players, leaders, and members of established, official factions like Empire, ESM, OTF, Rooks, and Highrollers. New players are virtually absent. This is not a problem of new players failing to understand the rules; it is a problem of veteran players using the OOC report system as a primary tool to litigate their long-standing in-character wars. This is the very definition of "forum warfare."

2 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

FM does currently observe, monitor and discuss reports with factions as necessary.

If this were effective, the problem would have improved. The data shows it has not. The most reported factions (Empire, ESM) are also home to some of the most prolific reporters. They engage in constant, hostile IC conflict, and when they lose, they immediately file OOC reports. Why? Because the system, with its promise of a potential refund or void, incentivizes this behavior. I posted in the FM 2.0 feedback, asking why FM were not enforcing their own "FM 2.0" rules, which explicitly allow for the demotion of factions due to excessive rule breaks and poor OOC attitude. It is now nine months later. The names and factions at the center of this data are the same ones that were the problem then. The claim that current monitoring is sufficient is directly contradicted by the fact that the same groups are still at the center of the server's OOC toxicity with no apparent faction-level consequences.

Full transparency, I'm on that list of people who filed the most reports. Obviously I'm going to have an inherent bias here, but in trying to remove that, I fed the AI this conversation, and all the raw data from all the reports over the past 4 months, and this is what it had to say:

Demonmit1's reports are procedural, targeting objective rule-breaks like combat logging and NRP evasion tactics. They stand in stark contrast to the majority of these reports, which are subjective attempts to litigate the escalation of lost gunfights against direct rivals. The fact that law enforcement has to resort to being high-volume reporters just to get basic rules enforced is a symptom of this same broken culture.

From the replies on this post, a lot of long term server members have boiled down the original Demands should give DM rights, and found the core issue we believe is the problem, using the forums as a weapon against your in game rivals. The tools to fix this culture already exist in the FM 2.0 handbook. People just want them to be used, and have been asking for 9+ months, waiting for a response, and there's been no visible change or enforcement.

Edited September 3, 2025 by Demonmit1

[alexalex303]

2 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

If a rule was broken, regardless whether they want their assets back or not, they are within their rights to do well to the server by reporting it, and having it investigated. If accepted and the situation voided, the player who suffered loss from it, are welcome to request a refund. There's nothing wrong with this process.

There is something wrong in that it gives people an incentive to report others. This is a very asset driven server and you're telling people if you report someone you might get your losses compensated. If you see no issue then it is what it is, but I see a big one.

[Clank]

3 hours ago, SquirtleSquad said:

If a rule was broken, regardless whether they want their assets back or not, they are within their rights to do well to the server by reporting it, and having it investigated. If accepted and the situation voided, the player who suffered loss from it, are welcome to request a refund. There's nothing wrong with this process.

The problem is when staff all rule differently and its a spin of a roulette wheel cause the rules are so poorly written and open to interpretation. You're basically entering a wheelspin minigame every time you get reported and praying it lands on an admin that is reasonable with rule enforcement. 

You take two staff members, they'll both have completely different opinions on the same report, let alone the same rule.

If you sit here and tell me my statement is factually incorrect, well I'll sit here and tell you that I've personally seen certain members of the community get off scott-free with things I have been punished for. I've expressed my concerns through the correct ways ultimately to no response regarding my concerns.

[CalvinKlein]

25 minutes ago, Demonmit1 said:

The data proves that claim you're unwilling to address was 100% correct. The names on both lists are almost exclusively veteran players, leaders, and members of established, official factions like Empire, ESM, OTF, Rooks, and Highrollers. New players are virtually absent. This is not a problem of new players failing to understand the rules; it is a problem of veteran players using the OOC report system as a primary tool to litigate their long-standing in-character wars. This is the very definition of "forum warfare."

 

I love your comment but I just want to clarify, none of those names of the most reporting or reported are in rooks  

[Bala]

The problem with trying to apply realism to this stuff, is that we're all a bunch of neckbeards and neeks here and our 'realism' comes from seeing stuff on TV or in movies, rather than having to actually live it.

The other problem is that people will want realism until it's a negative experience for them, then it's a game all of a sudden. 

If you apply common sense to the DM rule, then you can allow the staff team to apply common sense to their rulings but if you put all these imaginery hoops up that someone has to jump through to act somewhat more authentically then don't be surprised if you end up with a bunch of people weaponizing the report section or getting reported a number of times.

You shouldn't be able to kill people for no reason, but under common sense, there are more reasons someone could get dead than are currently allowed.

[Eliza]

57 minutes ago, Demonmit1 said:

Look, this is going off into a tangent, as the OP is about demands should equal DM rights, but we've delved more into the core issue of players forum reporting to win situations and the current DM rules not representing the reality and realistic flow of interactions between players, and being weaponized by players to report their IC enemies to punish them OOCly and hope to receive IC compensation for lost assets for these ongoing IC faction wars/conflict.

I think it’s important to remember that everyone has their own reasons for filing a forum report. What one person might see as petty or unnecessary, another might view as completely justified. That’s why it’s ultimately the responsibility of the staff handling these reports to determine whether a report is valid or not. For example, Jimbob could look at some reports made by John, and think that they are petty, while John may see the same report as fully justified and necessary because he believes he was the victim of a rulebreak, and wants to try and get his items back. The subjectivity is unavoidable. Any player is entitled to submit a report and have it investigated if they believe they were subject to a rule break, as you’ve done five times in the last four months according to your own data.