Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 9:31:55 GMT
Why not? People recently bitched about it not being used merely for adminstrating Which it should be, it's not really an escape from normal chat where you can break rules here instead. Wtf are you trying to say
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 16:04:59 GMT
Zaid 's new policy should effect all aspects of administration... not just the ones we deem convenient. If we're raising the bar for admin expectation (which shouldn't have dropped in the first place), it should be raised in all aspects of administration- Adminchat should be no exception. AC should be used it's intended purpose: administrative chat. Creating exceptions will only lead to a slippery slope of immaturity, taking us right back to where we started.
|
|
|
Post by Fluffasaurus_Rex on Aug 4, 2019 16:23:00 GMT
Is this going to be a solid wall of new expectations, or will executives and developers be allowed to cause shitshows as happened during the original "markbyron way."
Are we to expect a new set of rules and guidelines for senior admins to follow if other admins break this policy? A full list of suspendable offenses would be a great start for this. Things such as using wildcard or disrespecting others are the first things that come to mind, the only issue being what exactly the repercussions for these acts should be. It's going to be very discouraging if we as a team only target certain people for the same offenses.
What are we to do if for some reason an executive is partaking in misconduct? I'd assume the whole "Make a forum thread, and hope to god you dont get a target on your back" is all we have for now, but a way for "lower" admins to report higher ups would be the next thing we should work on.
Taking one step at a time instead of going all in at once is the best course of action; I'm glad you aren't making all these changes in policy at once. Starting with inactivity was a great first step, and now reeling in admins who are far too gone is a great follow up.
|
|
|
Post by awesomelink234 on Aug 4, 2019 16:35:18 GMT
YES THANK YOU
I was getting pretty sick of all the constant sexual talk in the adminchat. Like, seriously, people, don't you have anything else better to do?
|
|
Luke
Veteran Member
Go home to your family, Neo
Posts: 1,123
|
Post by Luke on Aug 4, 2019 16:40:13 GMT
Is this going to be a solid wall of new expectations, or will executives and developers be allowed to cause shitshows as happened during the original "markbyron way." Are we to expect a new set of rules and guidelines for senior admins to follow if other admins break this policy? A full list of suspendable offenses would be a great start for this. Things such as using wildcard or disrespecting others are the first things that come to mind, the only issue being what exactly the repercussions for these acts should be. It's going to be very discouraging if we as a team only target certain people for the same offenses. What are we to do if for some reason an executive is partaking in misconduct? I'd assume the whole "Make a forum thread, and hope to god you dont get a target on your back" is all we have for now, but a way for "lower" admins to report higher ups would be the next thing we should work on. Taking one step at a time instead of going all in at once is the best course of action; I'm glad you aren't making all these changes in policy at once. Starting with inactivity was a great first step, and now reeling in admins who are far too gone is a great follow up. why not do the vote off policy for executives? if seth or zaid gets a certain amount of reports about an exec, a voteoff is made?
|
|
CoolJWB
Veteran Member
Cool guys don't look back at explosions.
Posts: 734
| Likes: 330
|
Post by CoolJWB on Aug 4, 2019 19:38:36 GMT
Thank you Zaid.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 4, 2019 19:54:24 GMT
Is this going to be a solid wall of new expectations, or will executives and developers be allowed to cause shitshows as happened during the original "markbyron way." Are we to expect a new set of rules and guidelines for senior admins to follow if other admins break this policy? A full list of suspendable offenses would be a great start for this. Things such as using wildcard or disrespecting others are the first things that come to mind, the only issue being what exactly the repercussions for these acts should be. It's going to be very discouraging if we as a team only target certain people for the same offenses. What are we to do if for some reason an executive is partaking in misconduct? I'd assume the whole "Make a forum thread, and hope to god you dont get a target on your back" is all we have for now, but a way for "lower" admins to report higher ups would be the next thing we should work on. Taking one step at a time instead of going all in at once is the best course of action; I'm glad you aren't making all these changes in policy at once. Starting with inactivity was a great first step, and now reeling in admins who are far too gone is a great follow up. why not do the vote off policy for executives? if seth or zaid gets a certain amount of reports about an exec, a voteoff is made? You realize that if we followed that system we would still have inFAmas right now right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 19:56:24 GMT
why not do the vote off policy for executives? if seth or zaid gets a certain amount of reports about an exec, a voteoff is made? You realize that if we followed that system we would still have inFAmas right now right? Could you elaborate?
|
|
Alco RS11
Veteran Member
my old account is back.
Posts: 3,079
| Likes: 1,034
IGN: Alco_Rs11
|
Post by Alco RS11 on Aug 4, 2019 19:57:21 GMT
Thank you. It's about time the buffoonery is curtailed.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 4, 2019 19:58:57 GMT
You realize that if we followed that system we would still have inFAmas right now right? Could you elaborate? We didn't use the official vote off policy because it was too weak. Nothing is ever accomplished by PMing the person that they want to voteoff and hoping they lead a movement to vote themselves off. Instead, things got done through an actual community effort. A public voteoff was posted and people voted through a poll and the voteoff had to be enforced by Cow because everybody else was twiddling their thumbs.
|
|
Zaid
Veteran Member
When it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."
Posts: 3,007
|
Post by Zaid on Aug 4, 2019 20:03:35 GMT
Is this going to be a solid wall of new expectations, or will executives and developers be allowed to cause shitshows as happened during the original "markbyron way." Are we to expect a new set of rules and guidelines for senior admins to follow if other admins break this policy? A full list of suspendable offenses would be a great start for this. Things such as using wildcard or disrespecting others are the first things that come to mind, the only issue being what exactly the repercussions for these acts should be. It's going to be very discouraging if we as a team only target certain people for the same offenses. What are we to do if for some reason an executive is partaking in misconduct? I'd assume the whole "Make a forum thread, and hope to god you dont get a target on your back" is all we have for now, but a way for "lower" admins to report higher ups would be the next thing we should work on. Taking one step at a time instead of going all in at once is the best course of action; I'm glad you aren't making all these changes in policy at once. Starting with inactivity was a great first step, and now reeling in admins who are far too gone is a great follow up. You could call it the semi-mark way if you want. This policy will apply to all levels of admins, including devs and execs including myself. I hope to continue to move TF in this direction slowly but surely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 20:03:38 GMT
We didn't use the official vote off policy because it was too weak. Nothing is ever accomplished by PMing the person that they want to voteoff and hoping they lead a movement to vote themselves off. Instead, things got done through an actual community effort. A public voteoff was posted and people voted through a poll and the voteoff had to be enforced by Cow because everybody else was twiddling their thumbs. Why not just let the voteoff either be handled by Seth or the execs then?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 4, 2019 20:05:00 GMT
We didn't use the official vote off policy because it was too weak. Nothing is ever accomplished by PMing the person that they want to voteoff and hoping they lead a movement to vote themselves off. Instead, things got done through an actual community effort. A public voteoff was posted and people voted through a poll and the voteoff had to be enforced by Cow because everybody else was twiddling their thumbs. Why not just let the voteoff either be handled by Seth or the execs then? Because of what I just said??
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Aug 4, 2019 20:06:00 GMT
Is this going to be a solid wall of new expectations, or will executives and developers be allowed to cause shitshows as happened during the original "markbyron way." Are we to expect a new set of rules and guidelines for senior admins to follow if other admins break this policy? A full list of suspendable offenses would be a great start for this. Things such as using wildcard or disrespecting others are the first things that come to mind, the only issue being what exactly the repercussions for these acts should be. It's going to be very discouraging if we as a team only target certain people for the same offenses. What are we to do if for some reason an executive is partaking in misconduct? I'd assume the whole "Make a forum thread, and hope to god you dont get a target on your back" is all we have for now, but a way for "lower" admins to report higher ups would be the next thing we should work on. Taking one step at a time instead of going all in at once is the best course of action; I'm glad you aren't making all these changes in policy at once. Starting with inactivity was a great first step, and now reeling in admins who are far too gone is a great follow up. You could call it the semi-mark way if you want. This policy will apply to all levels of admins, including devs and execs including myself. I hope to continue to move TF in this direction slowly but surely. All I see is talk on this front. Why don't you just roll out an actual policy with provisions? Simply saying there will be change never gets anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 20:07:38 GMT
Why not just let the voteoff either be handled by Seth or the execs then? Because of what I just said?? Which didn't refute what I asked.... "Nothing is ever accomplished by PMing the person that they want to voteoff and hoping they lead a movement to vote themselves off." You're implying that nothing is accomplished if we PM the person who is solely responsible for a voteoff about wanting them gone. So if that's the case, we could either leave it up to Seth (the owner) or the executives (a collective of 3-5 people).
|
|