Mafrans
Veteran Member
We assholes need to stick together, if you're a fellow asshole please pm me.
Posts: 1,760
| Likes: 1,703
|
Post by Mafrans on Dec 9, 2017 13:22:28 GMT
Just going to point out to Polska ?ywno?? that you should attempt to minimize the amount of unnecessary comments you make on your own suggestions. Other than that, im staying neutral for now.
|
|
|
Post by ???DaddyIndica on Dec 9, 2017 14:41:35 GMT
I do believe that this would work for a lot of different reasons but I also believe that in order to cut down the amount of admins we need to impose a new inactivity policy. To start, if you’re anything less than a Telnet, and you go inactive quickly after becoming a super I believe you should be deranged. I also believe rogues and such shouldn’t be able to reinstate, they where so angry about something that they either aided someone or they did something harmful to the server itself. I don’t see how people who login once and then just shitpost on the forums should be an admin, regardless of rank. I also believe that we should make it harder to become an admin. Like idk, instead of letting seniors SPaS willynilly (how the past two rogues got shorted) we should add a limit or maybe a little more investigations. Anyway, I’ll probably add on later.
|
|
Connor
Veteran Member
Posts: 1,663
| Likes: 3,861
|
Post by Connor on Dec 9, 2017 15:05:22 GMT
I agree 100%, ZeKurt put it very well.
|
|
|
Post by Drunkle Qrow (BuscusFan) on Dec 9, 2017 15:11:54 GMT
I do believe that this would work for a lot of different reasons but I also believe that in order to cut down the amount of admins we need to impose a new inactivity policy. To start, if you’re anything less than a Telnet, and you go inactive quickly after becoming a super I believe you should be deranged. I also believe rogues and such shouldn’t be able to reinstate, they where so angry about something that they either aided someone or they did something harmful to the server itself. I don’t see how people who login once and then just shitpost on the forums should be an admin, regardless of rank. I also believe that we should make it harder to become an admin. Like idk, instead of letting seniors SPaS willynilly (how the past two rogues got shorted) we should add a limit or maybe a little more investigations. Anyway, I’ll probably add on later. The thing is I don't think making admin applications harder would really work that well. When I got admin it was relatively easy. From what I can remember the basic requirement back then was forum account registered for 30 days and you had to change your profile picture from the default noob avatar. Those were the minimum requirements, the most lax the application rules have been and yet, there was none of these problems we have now. We've already made the application process harder than it used to be but instead of things getting better they've clearly gotten worse. So ask yourself if none of these problems occurred when the application process was so lax but they're occurring now when the application process has already been made harder. Well then it's not the application process that's the problem is it?
|
|
Mudaadedah
Veteran Member
Posts: 2,925
| Likes: 1,825
|
Post by Mudaadedah on Dec 9, 2017 15:15:43 GMT
vouch
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 15:30:00 GMT
Vouch
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 19:57:05 GMT
I feel the problem lies in the fact that we are a Free OP server, so players expect lots of permissions and the feeling of being staff. When I joined TF, I already had the intention of becoming a pseudo staff member since I thought that was the meaning of a Free OP server. I found out that I didn't have as many permissions as I expected, so I applied for staff. I see that there are more admins than OPs most times, so I don't disagree that there's a problem. However, we need to prioritize applications from other time zones. Most people here are from North America or Europe, and that's when you see a lot of staff on. The quality of staff has dropped a bit, but it's never really been perfect. We should probably approve less members/stop accepting them (it would help) but there is still a problem with our current ratio. I disagree with the idea that a free op server is bound to have this problem. We've only really seen freeop servers that happen to copy TF's system, so there is really no basis for the idea that this is the only way it will work. We have been talking about needing admins more and more for specific timezones for so long, but nothing has actually been accomplished from that, except having more admins than players. Like I said in the original post, my ideas won't work as well if we don't fully commit to them, and from how many people are agreeing with the suggestion, I think people are ready for drastic changes. No half measures. Off topic, going to ping markbyron and Windows for visibility
|
|
xfilez
Veteran Member
paint me like one of your french girls
Posts: 2,667
| Likes: 3,303
|
Post by xfilez on Dec 9, 2017 20:24:02 GMT
Vouch
|
|
?eta/?lpha
Veteran Member
Currently contemplating contemplation...
Posts: 528
| Likes: 252
|
Post by ?eta/?lpha on Dec 9, 2017 21:16:43 GMT
Please stay to the topic or take this to PM, blackedout and Polaris Seltzeris ONT: Honestly don't know why we still need admins in US and EU timezones. Before i was one, i used to pull all-nighters a lot, so i saw there where no admins online mostly at the time and made sure to keep an eye on players for reports so once admins came they took care of it. And sometihes now adays it's still the case; I join late at night and i see no other admins online. I think if we do make it so that we need to make applications stricter, we NEED to make timezones more important. We could try getting more admins in the opposite ends of the timezones. We already have some from the EU and US zones, but we dont have many between them. We can't rely on admins who stay up late, so i think that not only should we make a system that we only open requestion when we really are low on admins and not enough are joining, but we should make a requirement for people from timezones where we don't have any admins online that can join. A way to help players know what we want from an admin while applications are open could be to make a post in the admin application section saying something like "Admin requirements for [date] onward applicants" or something like that to let players know what we want in the team.
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Dec 9, 2017 21:48:26 GMT
I am surprised by the amount of vouches this is getting right off the bat. As I posted in Zekurt's thread, I support the goal of having admins online 24/7. We unfortunately don't have that yet, and it combines excellently with reducing the amount of accepted applicants by strictly filtering by online times (not timezones; if an admin wants to binge-administrate, why would we stop them?). Since this is a dual suggestion: this was also already in my comments on Zekurt's thread, but I believe making reinstatement from a suspension harder is a trivial change because of the way suspension lengths and application outcomes are currently determined, namely by a select amount of executives. Edit: see totalfreedom.boards.net/post/659486/thread. This post and the ones below imply some things that I don't mean to imply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2017 22:08:31 GMT
As I posted in Zekurt's thread, I support the goal of having admins online 24/7. We unfortunately don't have that yet, and it combines excellently with reducing the amount of accepted applicants by strictly filtering by online times (not timezones; if an admin wants to binge-administrate, why would we stop them?). I think people are vouching because we have been trying to achieve that ideal 'admin always online' idea for years with no success under this system. I honestly have no faith in any small change fixing the current system. I honestly just think many people (admins and ops included) are just starting to realize that big changes are needed, and that clinging on to this current system is just doing more harm than good. It's starting to feel like, imo, that every single admin and player could vouch on this (almost definitely not lol), and the owners would still find a way to refuse the suggestion.
|
|
Poke
Veteran Member
meme
Posts: 1,214
| Likes: 641
|
Post by Poke on Dec 9, 2017 22:11:45 GMT
vouch
|
|
rylie.
Veteran Member
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Posts: 3,932
| Likes: 5,664
IGN: breedingslave/breedme
Old IGN: Typhlosion147
Discord: Xeoda#2839
Birthdate (MM/DD): 04/26
Timezone: UTC-05:00
|
Post by rylie. on Dec 9, 2017 22:12:29 GMT
Vouch.
|
|
|
Post by ???TheHour on Dec 9, 2017 22:16:52 GMT
Vouch
|
|
StevenNL2000
Forum Admin
Posts: 6,415
| Likes: 6,936
IGN: StevenNL2000
Timezone: UTC+01:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by StevenNL2000 on Dec 9, 2017 22:30:23 GMT
As I posted in Zekurt's thread, I support the goal of having admins online 24/7. We unfortunately don't have that yet, and it combines excellently with reducing the amount of accepted applicants by strictly filtering by online times (not timezones; if an admin wants to binge-administrate, why would we stop them?). I think people are vouching because we have been trying to achieve that ideal 'admin always online' idea for years with no success under this system. I honestly have no faith in any small change fixing the current system. I honestly just think many people (admins and ops included) are just starting to realize that big changes are needed, and that clinging on to this current system is just doing more harm than good. It's starting to feel like, imo, that every single admin and player could vouch on this (almost definitely not lol), and the owners would still find a way to refuse the suggestion. But we certainly can't achieve it by completely closing applications. I do not think a radical chance is unnecessary, but I also think it should be made to move forward, not because the current method isn't working and we haven't tried the other one yet.
|
|