There have been many cases recently where I’ve read a player or staff report and the verdict has left me confused about the rules and why the verdict is being ruled as it is. I will go through a few examples:
The conversations in game between the staff member and the player were largely the player being accused of frontlining and being told that he can’t go outside of cades as CL, being in full combat gear was mentioned too. The given verdict only mentions being in combat gear being against the rules, however it used the word “even” which could possibly imply that there was more that the player did wrong that for some reason the staff is not specifying. So is leaving the cades as CL against the rules? Or would the player have been fine if they weren’t wearing combat gear? Was the staff member right to accuse the player of frontlining? Is firing a few bullets at a lurker to scare it off from attacking another player as CL against the rules? None of these questions were answered at all, despite the fact that they are pretty clearly questions that people want to know the answer to. Maybe the “PFC++” part was supposed to be the explanation? But that really doesn’t clarify anything to me at all because I don’t know what staff’s definition of “PFC++” is.
This report accused a player of purposely shooting them, and provided evidence of the player sprite clicking them, with the obvious implication that the sprite clicks are likely not accidental FF aimed at a xeno. The verdict didn’t actually address the evidence and gave some confusing reasoning, leaving me with questions. Does the staff think that the evidence was mistaken/false? Or do they agree that the player sprite clicked the accuser but thinks that it could have been accidental? Or does staff think that the sprite clicking could have been on purpose, but it was ok because “you’re in active combat when the entire cade line is firing”? The second sentence is even more baffling, is that implying that if they blocked off both plasteel cades, therefore fully locking the player out, with the clear intent solely to punish the player for disobeying orders would that have been ok? Are you allowed to purposely get people killed just to punish them for ignoring orders? Once again the verdict just leaves me confused.
This one I actually had to ask in staff-help for a rule clarification. For as long as I’ve been playing this game it’s been a super normal thing for xenos to guard corpses, so this new ruling is a significant ruling to introduce. Yet it was dropped in the most vague way imaginable. “Xenos only see corpses as corpses, and nothing more” was incredibly vague, it COULD be interpreted as “xenos are not aware that marines can revive corpses, even if they witness medics reviving corpses” but if that was the intent then it should have been worded that way. I’m glad we got a rule clarification after I asked but in my opinion I shouldn’t have had to ask in the first place, also the rule clarification itself still isn’t as clear as I would have wished but that’s a whole different topic I guess.
My problem with these is not the rulings that were given, but the way they were expressed and the lack of clarity.
The first example would have been fine if it said something like “The accusations of frontlining were untrue but you still broke the rules by being in full combat gear as CL. Going outside the cades to corporate dome would have been fine otherwise. No action will be taken against the staff because the note mentions being in full combat gear and is still valid”
The second example would have been fine with something like “The evidence is not enough to say that the player purposely shot you, they could have sprite clicked you on accident. If you are outside of cades during a fight it is too hard to prove whether someone shot you on purpose or accident” (I’ll be honest I’m not sure how to justify that last sentence but ideally the staff just explains what they mean in more detail)
The third example would have been fine with something like “Xenos are never aware that marines can revive corpses, and therefore cannot guard bodies unless a queen expresses intent to gib a corpse.” (although personally I still don’t understand why queen even has a gib ability if xenos just ‘see corpses as corpses’)
Those are just example justifications based on my best guess on what the staff’s intentions were, but obviously I cannot read the minds of staff so I’m not saying that those explanations specifically are what they should have said. Staff should justify it in whatever way makes sense to them.
It seems to me like staff when making verdicts only care about giving a correct verdict and do not care about the wording of the verdict and how clear it is to people reading it. So my request is that in future staff make an honest effort to explain their reasoning and make their rulings clear and understandable. It should not be that difficult to do as all they would have to do for the most part is explain their reasoning. They should be going over all the evidence and considering the rules and how to interpret them anyway, all I ask is that instead of keeping those thoughts to yourself you write down your thought process and reasoning for the verdict.