72 replies to this topic

[soulless]

Not sure I'll be able to make this but either someone from oG will join or rize you can carry on with the spirit of the discussion whether it goes left or right.


- create a forum channel on here for teamspeak questions/answers/support.  Ts discussions are decentralized, all over the place or dont happen or are not accessible to everyone.  Creating a forum channel keeps everyone in open view of any ts discussion eventually even if they happen somewhere else and give ts admins one place to solidly go to view them if they are not extremely active on the forum.

- keep all ts meetings that require guilds scheduled and calendared on the forum as well.  There has been numerous adhoc meetings that have been called where people were in the middle of a guild activity in my case or not available at all.  Keeping them in scheduled using a calendar object we already have with an appropriate lead time solved everyone's problems.

-open ts permissions to be viewable to all parties of the ts with an ehmry tag and above.  This allows everyone to have complete awareness of each roles access and capabilities in a transparent manner and also provides some level of security for those that feel everyone shouldn't be able to see it.

- end the practice of giving admin to every guild and base the needs for administration on load and coverage only. If we only need x, x is all we need. Obvious point is obvious, enhances security and decreases risk.  Apply this to head admin too.

- flatten permission structure to only what is required, keep it simple, decrease risk and enhance security. Streamline roles if they aren't already.

- reestablish whisper list communication for the server to communicate across borderlands and ebg for those commanders who want to work towards that level of communication.  Provide a guide on how to set up a whisper list for anyone interested.

- establish rules of protocol for whisper listing that if not followed will remove access.  Essential information only in whisper list, no chatter.

[Slein Jinn]

soulless, on 11 September 2015 - 08:24 AM, said:

- create a forum channel on here for teamspeak questions/answers/support.  Ts discussions are decentralized, all over the place or dont happen or are not accessible to everyone.  Creating a forum channel keeps everyone in open view of any ts discussion eventually even if they happen somewhere else and give ts admins one place to solidly go to view them if they are not extremely active on the forum.

I like this idea.

[Liric]

Much better to have information available in text. Why would anyone NOT want a record?

[Rimmy1a]

Liric, on 12 September 2015 - 08:38 AM, said:

Much better to have information available in text. Why would anyone NOT want a record?

Indeed. That is a question that has been pointedly asked more than once.

There are lots of bad reasons and zero good reasons.

[Bishop]

Participation is really the most important matter. If there are people who don't want it recorded for whatever reason, then don't record. We can debate whether one manner of archiving will be more efficient over another. Neither are more important than the meeting itself.

[RizeJodo]

Participation in TS meetings has been almost impossible with the impromptu nature of the meetings and general lack of notice by the TS administration. One time we had a meeting scheduled to start within a 4 hour time window.

I sat in the TS channel with 2 others and waited for 3 hours until the TS admins showed up to actually hold the meeting. Was a lot of fun.

And with the general disregard for what is agreed upon during meetings (ie: hacking policy, TS admin authorization, forum integration with the TS, and even communication of changes to the TS on the forums so players know what is going on) it has been brought up multiple times that a more permanent form of archival is necessary.

Or else what's the point in having a meeting to discuss something. Deciding to make changes. And then have people just do what they want anyway.

[Rimmy1a]

Bishop, on 12 September 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

Participation is really the most important matter. If there are people who don't want it recorded for whatever reason, then don't record. We can debate whether one manner of archiving will be more efficient over another. Neither are more important than the meeting itself.

Pray tell, in a game where the players are in literally every time zone on the planet, and in addition have their own windows of opportunity to participate between sleep, work, school, children, and life in general... how do you propose that setting a fixed slice of time for whoever can show up - thus excluding everyone else - is better than a persistent thread that everybody can read and respond to at their leisure, which can also be referred back to if there are questions?

[cassy]

Rimmy1a, on 12 September 2015 - 03:47 PM, said:

how do you propose that setting a fixed slice of time for whoever can show up - thus excluding everyone else

Sometimes it is better for people to be able to talk to each other.  TS has a lot of advantages over text.  We can make notes and put them on a thread afterwards, I am not opposed to recording, but I understand why some people might find it irritating.

[Aduah]

Yea, I was watching college football. Who schedules a meeting on a saturday night during college football season?

[Bishop]

Rimmy it seems that you've had a couple bad scheduling and communication blunders. No one wants to waste people's time. As for scheduling the perfect time. It won't happen. Same thing happens for raid schedules. You won't be able to get everyone. Some can't, some won't get the message, and some just don't care to show up. You pick a time that the most can attend, make it happen, then reach out to the other principles who can disseminate to their people. If you have 100 members in your guild, you'd be luck to have 20 active. Of those, maybe 10 will be active in WvW. It's the law of averages. Move forward and don't wait for ideal circumstances to magically appear. "The Administration" are just players like you and me, trying to get some play time in and help their server mates in the process. If some time doesn't work for you, get with them another time and see what the meeting was about. Boycotting a meeting because it doesn't have a quorum is silly. Delegitimizing the meeting after the fact is even worse. Now if someone was intentionally not invited or informed of the meeting, then you might have an issue.

[soulless]

cassy, on 12 September 2015 - 07:58 PM, said:

Sometimes it is better for people to be able to talk to each other.  TS has a lot of advantages over text.  We can make notes and put them on a thread afterwards, I am not opposed to recording, but I understand why some people might find it irritating.

Ts has a lot of advantages over text and text has a lot of advantages over ts.  Using both maximizes your advantages, using one or the other minimizes it.

[Rimmy1a]

Aduah, on 13 September 2015 - 01:17 AM, said:

Who schedules a meeting on a saturday night

No other elaboration needed.

[Rimmy1a]

Split into two posts because of excessive quoting.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

Rimmy it seems that you've had a couple bad scheduling and communication blunders.

No.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

No one wants to waste people's time.

Then you don't know the personalities involved in this has-gone-on-for-far-too-long-plague-of-a-problem.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

As for scheduling the perfect time. It won't happen. Same thing happens for raid schedules. You won't be able to get everyone.

Except that a raid 1) only applies to members of a guild and 2) is only for fun. Neither of these describes the TS server, and you also can't switch to another Ehmry TS which meets your needs better the way you can a guild.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

Some can't, some won't get the message, and some just don't care to show up. You pick a time that the most can attend, make it happen,

Do you think that's how ANet should disseminate information then? Do a one-shot verbal "meeting" and anybody who didn't show up doesn't get heard or informed? Come on.

[Rimmy1a]

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

then reach out to the other principles who can disseminate to their people.

The problem is, this doesn't happen. Aggressively so, as in outright stated refusal.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

If you have 100 members in your guild, you'd be luck to have 20 active. Of those, maybe 10 will be active in WvW. It's the law of averages. Move forward and don't wait for ideal circumstances to magically appear.

Averages don't apply to specific cases. And nobody is waiting for magical circumstances to occur.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

"The Administration" are

I know each and every one of them, probably better than you.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

just players like you and me, trying to get some play time in and help their server mates in the process.

Actually, this isn't the case, both through history and previously stated intent.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

Boycotting a meeting because it doesn't have a quorum is silly.

Who boycotted, and how does it apply to me?

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

Delegitimizing the meeting after the fact is even worse.

I was doing it before the meeting.

Bishop, on 13 September 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

Now if someone was intentionally not invited or informed of the meeting, then you might have an issue.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Liric]

As someone who doesn't really care one way or another what happens in a TS meeting discussing the use of TS itself, as I don't use the program 99% of the time to begin with...

A forum based discussion allows for all individuals to put forth a complete statement due to the fact that a thread is not consistently taken over by the loudest, most talkative individuals. Participants are able to go back and reference specific comments at will. This, to me, gives more of a chance for the best argument to be read and utilized instead of just the one best propelled by force of personality. In hopeful theory, at least.

[UltraEM]

I had a family thing that Sunday morning so I missed it. Whoops.

[cassy]

Rimmy1a, on 13 September 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

Except that a raid 1) only applies to members of a guild and 2) is only for fun. Neither of these describes the TS server, and you also can't switch to another Ehmry TS which meets your needs better the way you can a guild.

I certainly could.  If there were a reason that people wanted a different TS set up, it isn't difficult and I could set one up, or have Flutts do it.  I believe we have a server in New York, and one in London that could handle it.  My Networking understanding is still very basic though.

Al theories about what could have, would have, or should have been said aside . . .

I was at the TS meeting.  Several things were addressed.  We went over the difference between Super Admin rights, Admin rights, the TS privileges of Guild leaders, and officers.
It was good info for anyone who is new, or who was concerned about the changes.
We went over some issues and questions that OG had about not having an Administrator at the moment.
We went over an issue that Rize had about having given up his admin status, and now that he is playing again he wanted it back.
We also briefly mentioned that if someone is banned from TS the reason must be documented, or the ban will be lifted.
A J may run a trial complaint system that allows users to register complaints about the behavior of others in TS.  However, if it is abused it will end, and you will feel the wrath of A.J.  (and she is unlikely to bake you Baklava)

Also that people dislike having meetings because they are boring and Lexx smells funny.
It was also mentioned that Flutts likes Turtles!
This was the most we have heard from Nere on TS in a long time, and she still sounds adorable.
  you Nere!

[Rimmy1a]

cassy, on 13 September 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

I certainly could.  If there were a reason that people wanted a different TS set up, it isn't difficult and I could set one up,

Literally anybody could. Did you mistake my meaning about a community working better on a single TS server with some complaint about the mechanical setting of another server?

cassy, on 13 September 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

We also briefly mentioned that if someone is banned from TS the reason must be documented, or the ban will be lifted.

Very interestinfg, that a faction so adverse to documenting now makes this statement. To be documented in a comment line on the TS? One certainly hopes that, after ignoring previous collective decisions, the "management" doesn't push this simply to get previously banned friends back.

[RizeJodo]

cassy, on 13 September 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

I certainly could.  If there were a reason that people wanted a different TS set up, it isn't difficult and I could set one up, or have Flutts do it.  I believe we have a server in New York, and one in London that could handle it.  My Networking understanding is still very basic though.

Al theories about what could have, would have, or should have been said aside . . .

I was at the TS meeting.  Several things were addressed.  We went over the difference between Super Admin rights, Admin rights, the TS privileges of Guild leaders, and officers.
It was good info for anyone who is new, or who was concerned about the changes.
We went over some issues and questions that OG had about not having an Administrator at the moment.
We went over an issue that Rize had about having given up his admin status, and now that he is playing again he wanted it back.
We also briefly mentioned that if someone is banned from TS the reason must be documented, or the ban will be lifted.
A J may run a trial complaint system that allows users to register complaints about the behavior of others in TS.  However, if it is abused it will end, and you will feel the wrath of A.J.  (and she is unlikely to bake you Baklava)

Also that people dislike having meetings because they are boring and Lexx smells funny.
It was also mentioned that Flutts likes Turtles!
This was the most we have heard from Nere on TS in a long time, and she still sounds adorable.
  you Nere!

I never said I wanted my admin rights back; when I mentioned the possibility of giving me my admin rights back it was in response to another issue and was said in jest... I said that I had an issue when I gave up my admin rights with the admin that removed the privileges as said admin wanted to ignore and an agreement we made in a meeting on 12/06/2014. I then said if nobody wanted to be the forum/TS liaison I would do it if I had my rights back (a joke because it was mentioned that the TS news were being communicated here and up to this nothing warranted posting).

But yeah the other stuff was covered. Skitzuu made a topic covering everything in the general discussion thread that is a bit more in depth.

[cassy]

Rimmy1a, on 13 September 2015 - 02:54 PM, said:

Very interestinfg, that a faction so adverse to documenting now makes this statement. To be documented in a comment line on the TS? One certainly hopes that, after ignoring previous collective decisions, the "management" doesn't push this simply to get previously banned friends back.

That ban is very well documented, I think it was a reference to whatever happened with Babie sammich.  
It was more like saying if you ban someone, you have to be able to explain it to their guild leader, TS people, and anyone who asks.  If no one knows why someone was banned. . .  they won't stay banned.  It was all very reasonable.


If you were that interested you could have gone to the meeting BTW, it isn't as if you weren't invited to attend.  That way you could have asked all of your questions and gotten answers right away.

RizeJodo, on 13 September 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

I never said I wanted my admin rights back; when I mentioned the possibility of giving me my admin rights back it was in response to another issue and was said in jest... I said that I had an issue when I gave up my admin rights with the admin that removed the privileges as said admin wanted to ignore and an agreement we made in a meeting on 12/06/2014.

It seemed pretty much like an issue specific to your guild though, like the OG stuff.  You guys went back and forth a bit, but it seemed like it didn't involve any other guilds or any general changes.
If I had seen the thread you were talking about, and could have set you up as an admin, I would have done that BTW.  I don't think I can now though.