72 replies to this topic

[cassy]

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

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?

Honestly, your statement didn't make a lot of sense to me.  It seems like you don't really use TS, you want to talk about it a lot, but not in a meeting where you can be heard and things can be decided. . . it still doesn't make any sense.  Even Nere spoke up.


I also do like when things are transparent, and the same rules are applied to everyone.  I was actually in favor of more transparency, and more documentation in that whole mess.  If one person is kicked for hacking, then everyone hacking should be kicked. Interpersonal conflicts aren't a good reason to change the rules for everyone.

[RizeJodo]

Naaahh. It had nothing to do with my guild. It had to do with myself requesting my adminship be transferred to another player and obtaining the necessary (required) approval on the forums. Then when I approached an admin regarding said approval (just needing someone to implement the transfer) said admin stated "anything on the forums holds no weight for the TS."

When I mentioned the previous meeting during which we established the TS forum liaison and agreed that forum posts would be taken into account when discussing TS issues the admin said "he didn't care."

He then called admins in and approved the transfer.

So the job got done, but it was the complete disregard for agreements that were made in the past that I was complaining about. Especially when admins are also playing with their permissions by removing others rights and entering private channels unannounced.

It was a valid complaint. And one that would not have been missed if admins took the position at least a bit more seriously.


Turtle discussions were happening in chat so I think my argument was missed.


Edit: fixed spelling due to posting from phone

[soulless]

I would say anything I have brought up in my capacity as leader of oG has been less of an oG 'issue' as well.   The conversation and my concerns on the ts just came out of the discussion of why we even need a guild admin per guild at all, but its an overall concern for ehmry that kept the thoughts rolling.

[Rimmy1a]

cassy, on 13 September 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

That ban is very well documented, I think it was a reference to whatever happened with Babie

It certainly is, which is why it was so interesting that when said hacker came back, Lexx on his own overturned all the documentation and deliberation (which he had been party to, by the way) and restored TS rights and then suddenly demanded MORE documentation so as to justify special treatment for his friend.

cassy, on 13 September 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

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.

Except that what you read as me being interested was actually me being cynical. I know from experience that certain autocratic individuals ignore what has been agreed upon - even if they were the original authors - so that nothing "said" necessarily holds when it's needed to.

All of the problems I have with Ehmry's TS, all of them, are still in effect and the powers that be have been part of the posted conversations in the forum. I would be surprised if there was anything new to learn that affected me, and of course I can read the synopsis kindly provided after the fact.

More so, some people who share my criticisms usually attend whatever meetings happen in TS, so my presence isn't required nor would it be helpful to anyone.

[Rimmy1a]

cassy, on 13 September 2015 - 05:14 PM, said:

Honestly, your statement didn't make a lot of sense to me.  It seems like you don't really use TS, you want to talk about it a lot, but not in a meeting where you can be heard and things can be decided. . . it still doesn't make any sense.

If it doesn't make sense to you, it's because you're not privy to every conversation held in whispers, party chat, TS channels, emails, and forum conversations with roots and events sometimes starting years ago.

I don't like certain things, so I don't go where they continue to happen. Fresh examples continue to happen, and I don't like those either despite them not happening to me personally. Is this really so difficult to understand?

[Ehm C Hammer]

i don't understand anything.
Everyone just get in TS to argue. It is more fun to play the game with people in channel. I don't personally care what they talk about, just talk and call out some contested parts of the map once every hour or so.

[Rimmy1a]

Ehm C Hammer, on 13 September 2015 - 10:33 PM, said:

i don't understand anything.
Everyone just get in TS to argue. It is more fun to play the game with people in channel. I don't personally care what they talk about, just talk and call out some contested parts of the map once every hour or so.

Everything you say here is 100% true, in my opinion.

Annoyingly, baggage sometimes accrues and some people can shrug it off and others feel weighed down by it.

But if you don't like how Wal-Mart does business, you don't shop at Wal-Mart.

I am positive that I increased your understanding in the slightest. While writing this, I think I felt my own decrease.

[cassy]

Rimmy1a, on 13 September 2015 - 10:49 PM, said:

I am positive that I increased your understanding in the slightest. While writing this, I think I felt my own decrease.

This is pretty much how I feel about this conversation too.  The more it is discussed, the less sense it is making.

Rimmy1a, on 13 September 2015 - 10:07 PM, said:

All of the problems I have with Ehmry's TS, all of them, are still in effect and the powers that be have been part of the posted conversations in the forum. I would be surprised if there was anything new to learn that affected me, and of course I can read the synopsis kindly provided after the fact.

Cynicism is a defense mechanism, so if you are being cynical you are unlikely to find new and surprising things.  I don't pretend to know why you don't use TS, but it is your choice.

Also as an FYI, I don't think Lexx was on when Bathory came back before.  She had a new Username, IP address, etc and someone thought that made it a different account or something.  If I remember correctly is was Lexx who clarified things about that, and she ended up banned again.
We talked about it a lot at the time, it wasn't a formal meeting, but it was mostly on TS so I am pretty sure that you missed it.  

We had just let someone else back around that time who had also been banned, so there was genuine confusion.  When you have an exception to the rules for one person . . . other people want the same thing, and drama ensues.

It looks like Ronny, Thor, and Crosius have done most of the banns, it isn't really a Lexx thing.

RizeJodo, on 13 September 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

Turtle discussions were happening in chat so I think my argument was missed.

   It pretty clearly seemed like there was an admin who was behaving badly, but it wasn't me, and didn't need to be addressed by me.  If people don't want to talk about it openly, then they clearly want it to be their own affair.
I am sorry that person behaved badly, but I add permissions, channels, etc all the time.  I didn't actually ask to do this, but I don't mind doing it, and my personal feelings about a person have never determined that person's permissions etc.

I just added it to the summary because I don't like to leave things out.  
I think the turtle discussion came after, because  . . . .well Flutts will be Flutts.


[

[Rimmy1a]

cassy, on 14 September 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

Cynicism is a defense mechanism, so if you are being cynical you are unlikely to find new and surprising things.  I don't pretend to know why you don't use TS, but it is your choice.

So is Pollyannaism. When I say that the same things I didn't like a year ago are currently continuing, that doesn't make them particularly new or surprising, does it?

cassy, on 14 September 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

Also as an FYI, I don't think Lexx was on when Bathory came back before.  She had a new Username, IP address, etc and someone thought that made it a different account or something.  If I remember correctly is was Lexx who clarified things about that, and she ended up banned again.
We talked about it a lot at the time, it wasn't a formal meeting, but it was mostly on TS so I am pretty sure that you missed it.  

I didn't miss anything. You probably don't need to FYI me when I can go back and read Lexx's declaration to do whatever the hell he wants about Bathory, DESPITE prior and widespread agreement, and the additional hoops he wanted to subject other to jump through because Bathory was/is his friend.

[cassy]

Rimmy1a, on 14 September 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

So is Pollyannaism. When I say that the same things I didn't like a year ago are currently continuing, that doesn't make them particularly new or surprising, does it?

I am often surprised by what you dislike, and I do not keep track of it in any way.

Rimmy1a, on 14 September 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

I didn't miss anything. You probably don't need to FYI me when I can go back and read Lexx's declaration to do whatever the hell he wants about Bathory, DESPITE prior and widespread agreement, and the additional hoops he wanted to subject other to jump through because Bathory was/is his friend.

You guys complain about not having access to discussions that happen on TS, and when people try to let you know, this is the response.  
Since many people stopped using the forums, obviously, the forums do not have the entire discussion.  The person who validated Bathory's new account wasn't Lexx, and the person who added the new ban wasn't Lexx.
However around the same time another person had their "permanent" ban lifted because of the strong feelings of 1 guild leader.  Why is was unreasonable for one guild, but reasonable for another was never very clear.  However, the server has moved on, so has Bathory.

[Rimmy1a]

I'm including the chain of conversation here to show how stupid it is:

cassy, on 14 September 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

Cynicism is a defense mechanism, so if you are being cynical you are unlikely to find new and surprising things.  I don't pretend to know why you don't use TS, but it is your choice.

Rimmy1a, on 14 September 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

So is Pollyannaism. When I say that the same things I didn't like a year ago are currently continuing, that doesn't make them particularly new or surprising, does it?

cassy, on 14 September 2015 - 11:04 PM, said:

I am often surprised by what you dislike, and I do not keep track of it in any way.

What, and I emphasize this, what the fuck are you, in fact, trying to say?

You are meandering around from Chicken Soup for the Soulisms to logical fallacies to making issues that I have into something about you. Speak plainly if you have something to say, don't quote and then "answer" something unrelated to the quote. Arguing just for the sake of post count is just stupid.

cassy, on 14 September 2015 - 11:04 PM, said:

You guys complain about not having access to discussions that happen on TS, and when people try to let you know, this is the response.  
Since many people stopped using the forums, obviously, the forums do not have the entire discussion.

Nor do you, but when that's pointed out you discount it for your uninformed version.

The specific complaint about "not having access to meetings on TS" stand up to scrutiny - they are a ridiculous way to inform and/or solicit feedback for a group of loosely aligned individuals scattered across the globe. Meetings like that fail at their stated, but do serve less savoury ones left unstated. Or the people preferring them can't make the leap from "the fifteen of us all work the same hours in the same office so an in-person meeting makes sense" to "if the people with the problems aren't at the meetings, the meetings ain't worth shit".

Further, the complaints go much further, and range from favouritism, punishments at the whim of admins, lack of consistency, failure to do what has previously been agreed to be done, and other fundamental failures of administration, some stretching from years ago until this very moment.

If these are not things that you personally experience or find vexing, then step aside and stop muddying things up with vapid meandering responses. Please.

Specifically: there are issues that actually exist - stop arguing that they don't, and stop discounting the issues that others have just because you personally don't experience them.

Reply if you like, I will not continue with you in this thread.

[Cora]

Can you bullet point what you don't like about TS.

[Rimmy1a]

Cora, on 15 September 2015 - 01:09 AM, said:

Can you bullet point what you don't like about TS.

Starting with one better suited to bulletpointing:

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

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.

In addition, I want adherence to previous agreements, because why go through things again and again if the other party doesn't operate in good faith?

For starters.

Skitzuu has been appointed / volunteered to facilitate this process, so I'll be watching to see what changes.

[cassy]

Rimmy1a, on 15 September 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

The specific complaint about "not having access to meetings on TS" stand up to scrutiny - they are a ridiculous way to inform and/or solicit feedback for a group of loosely aligned individuals scattered across the globe. Meetings like that fail at their stated, but do serve less savoury ones left unstated.

You can claim TS meetings don't solve anything, but almost every question you had was already answered in less than an hour.  Skitzuu also posted it to the forums.

Half of the people who use TS don't use these forums, so you will never hear from them here.  So there have been issues of poor communication, in the past and I cited one earlier.  Focusing all communication here won't help any of the people who don't use these forums.  Problems will continue.  You guys could compromise and make a Facebook page as well or something, if the point is better communication.

Meetings on TS were in fact stated in the forums before they happened.  This is a thread doing that exact thing.  The only exception was a time sensitive issue abut a person who behaved badly.

If you have a week or two to debate, it is reasonable to give notice on the forums.  If something needs to be done in 10 minutes, some form of voice comms will simply work better.  

As for permissions, you can click on the permissions button and see them all, which was covered in the meeting.  Not only that it is there, but how to get to it.  If needed I can elaborate, but it is very simple.

The same is true of a Whisper List (but not everyone stayed that long), it is under tools.  
Or hit CTRL   SHIFT W
This is also simple, but if needed anyone with TS can elaborate, or take screenshots.

The only thing you list that hasn't happened already is the forum side.  Thuley and Rill already do a lot, and I see no reason to give either of them a hard time about it.  I don't think that is your intention either.

As for the guild thing, there are already some guilds that have no admins, and some that have several.   However, the guilds with the most concerns also have no admins.  It isn't a coincidence.  If people don't solve problems they get worse.  

Skitzuu volunteering to do something about the problem makes a lot more sense than meetings or forum threads.  In the end, someone has to do the work.  We have fewer admins here than on a lot of TS servers, and there are large periods when there are few if any online.

[Skitzuu]

Hi,

I'll refer to Soulless's post as he seemed to lay it out pretty well and touch on everything he had mentioned, as quoted below. Please feel free to continue posting any critiques/comments/questions/suggestions etc, I'm making sure they're dispersed to the appropriate people in a timely fashion.

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

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.

This is one of the major points we touched on during the meeting this past weekend. I'm in hope that Lexx is still getting in touch with Thuley and will continue to bug him until this is resolved. Personally, this is a huge point that needs to be implemented. Everything is indeed all over the place, and I think it should be required of all admins to check the forum that will be setup for any discrepancy.

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

- 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.

This was not really brought up at the meeting, but I agree 100% and will get others opinions on it. I feel no guild should be required but it should be preferred that they're there. We have to remember that, as pointed out hundreds of times all over the place, everyone is in a different timezone, admins included. It's unfair to schedule something when others cannot make it, thus having their point not making it to the admins or even the server in general. I also feel getting the forums setup to include a TS sub-forum would more than likely cut down on this happening as often as it does.

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

-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.

I've touched on this in my previous topic, we found a possible solution of just right clicking on someone in TS and selecting Permissions -> Permissions Overview - as stated this only view-able to ranks "Ehmry Bay" and above.

Please let me know if this is to your liking, if not I can find some way to force it in to an appropriate forum post that could be stickied somewhere with a short description of each permission.

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

- 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.

This is an ongoing discussion. We will have more information, hopefully soon, on the outcome. As many admins have pointed out, more is better than less, that is to not reflect my personal opinion, but rather what seems to be the favorable opinion amongst everyone at this time. Although, I have to point out that any admin abusing their powers/not maintaining the rules they agreed to uphold, should be removed without any further discussion or decision.

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

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

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm relatively new to the TS3 permissions structure, I used to strictly only use Skype for voice comms in other games.

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

- 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.

I'm just going to lob these two together, as they seem to go hand-in-hand. I haven't been around for the "Whisper List Communication" - would someone be kind and explain the original idea behind this?

I hope I've answered any concerns/questions that were posted in here, if not feel free to continue discussing and I'll make sure to reply asap!

[soulless]

Thank god almighty Jesus for this post, I'm moving to the bible belt in the morning. Thank you for the receptiveness you are showing and in the very least here it DESERVES its own post.


I'll answer momentarily

[soulless]

Quote

Permissions Overview - as stated this only view-able to ranks "Ehmry Bay" and above.

Please let me know if this is to your liking, if not I can find some way to force it in to an appropriate forum post that could be stickied somewhere with a short description of each permission.

This is what I suggested to Lex to a tee, I think it should work or at least any discussions afterward about groups, group perms, discrepancies, can be had with the visibility now there so it will pause a few of my statements until i spend some time to review when I get a chance and if anything amounts to it we can feed it to the next meeting for anyone that has any input.

Quote

As many admins have pointed out, more is better than less, that is to not reflect my personal opinion, but rather what seems to be the favorable

I'll refrain from commenting until you have had your conclusions.  

As a point of clarification on cassys comments about admin for each guild being the reason we have had issues...this is patently false and an engineered misrepresentative statement.  There has been no issues with oG TS and the entire discussion came up because i asked If leader has the same perms as admin, and if so why would I need admin to begin with if it can do anything I need locally with leader?  There was two contradictory clarifications given prior to the ts meeting, after it i hear we had another in the meeting, doesn't matter now as it can be seen. I'll review and comment upon that closing.

Quote

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm relatively new to the TS3 permissions structure, I used to strictly only use Skype for voice comms in other games.

This more towards all the levels of permissions between head admin, admin, leader, officer, member ...etc etc.  Do we need them all...I believe a discussion was had, I have view now of perms.  I'll refrain from commenting until I have had a look and been more informed on the discussion.

Lastly whisper list is essentially a TS mechanic that used to be in use where I can be in my guild chan and teamspeak across a whisper list of users who may be anywhere in ts including the ebg or borderlands Chan.  It was used for cases where home needed help, they could be a whisper sent out across all channel users who are interested and in the whisper group no matter where they are in ts and people could run and assist on the basis of that.  This allowed guilds to run in guilds, ebg or home chans to run as they are, but have total cross comms.


The danger of it is people abuse it and talk about what they had for dinner.  Whisper lists should be short burst coms.  'Need help at Garrison 40 at the door'.  'OK og/woe/cot/whomever coming'.  That's it.

[soulless]

One last question...how are you treating this liasoning with the forum?  Your approach is leagues more productive and purposeful then others and i rather just disregard the noise altogether for the little to no value brought over what you are bringing to the table.  I had discussions prior with Dawg in particular that amounted to respectful disagreement, and that was fine and fed positively into the discourse versus *edited for keeping the positive vibe*.

[Skitzuu]

soulless, on 15 September 2015 - 10:54 PM, said:

One last question...how are you treating this liasoning with the forum?  Your approach is leagues more productive and purposeful then others and i rather just disregard the noise altogether for the little to no value brought over what you are bringing to the table.  I had discussions prior with Dawg in particular that amounted to respectful disagreement, and that was fine and fed positively into the discourse versus *edited for keeping the positive vibe*.

I'm treating this in a similar fashion to a PR position. My opinions shouldn't be stated here (these forums), period. In regards to disagreements and such like that, I'd refrain from them until an actual meeting where my opinion would be stated - I feel like this position allows me to speak only for decisions from meetings and not on opinions on/from others. I'd also refrain from not including certain concerns in meetings, regardless of the nature of them, as everyone deserves the right to be heard equally.

If people want to know why Lexx disagrees with certain things, then that will be brought up, and the following day I'll have posted the reasoning behind certain things. If one person were to bring up a major change that the overwhelming majority were against, I'd still make it a point to make sure it's discussed at any meeting, because in a position like this, I should check my bias at the door.

[soulless]

Thanks for the clarity, I'll treat your commentary on that basis as decision points on matters if you have made decisive commentary (as above).

Secondarily I'll provide you some added content via pm of where the conversation originated from to give you further context and remove the possibility of misrepresentation.