Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 10, 2020 21:29:25 GMT
People who think seth friend privilege exists: ? The issue is it's a common view of people on the server, and it's not helped that historically that narrative has been supported by Seth. I'm personally aware that it has been a thing in the past, and I couldn't speak for if it still is, but the fact people believe it to be true is very possibly the bigger issue here, and the fact Seth endorsed it previously just makes it easier to believe it's still true... Again, nothing to do with this conversation though as I've said a few times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 21:41:37 GMT
Okay I'll actually say something I wasn't going to censor things, no one bothered to dm me and ask why I deleted the posts in the thread, that's because I meant to lock the thread but forgot to do it. Should of moved the posts to another thread but didn't.
|
|
Luke
Veteran Member
Go home to your family, Neo
Posts: 1,123
|
Post by Luke on May 10, 2020 22:29:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 22:36:38 GMT
I actually rewrote it in the thread it in "If I die" Instead of blindly going forward with an election, with no plan to get the server files or the discord server ownership transferred, I actually made a plan to deal with that instead of having everyone fucked when it comes down to it. People are salty (they can be, nothing is wrong with that) because I have my own plans for that event happening, and I removed the "removing an active owner part" which I actually see as exploitable, for reasons that you will likely see in the coming weeks if this group tries to go through.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 22:44:27 GMT
I actually rewrote it in the thread it in "If I die" Instead of blindly going forward with an election, with no plan to get the server files or the discord server ownership transferred, I actually made a plan to deal with that instead of having everyone fucked when it comes down to it. People are salty (they can be, nothing is wrong with that) because I have my own plans for that event happening, and I removed the "removing an active owner part" which I actually see as exploitable, for reasons that you will likely see in the coming weeks if this group tries to go through. What group? Also I understand you completely, I know I should've just DMed you but I wanted to raise other concerns
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 10, 2020 22:51:43 GMT
I actually rewrote it in the thread it in "If I die" Instead of blindly going forward with an election, with no plan to get the server files or the discord server ownership transferred, I actually made a plan to deal with that instead of having everyone fucked when it comes down to it. People are salty (they can be, nothing is wrong with that) because I have my own plans for that event happening, and I removed the "removing an active owner part" which I actually see as exploitable, for reasons that you will likely see in the coming weeks if this group tries to go through. 1. I think you'll find that nothing was "blindly going forward", the election process was set up to be as fair as possible. There was an entire system set up for temporary server hosts as well as Mark and Finest to change the TF website/forums to respect whichever owner is elected, and as for discord server ownership no process existed at the time, it's as simple as amending the original policy to add an agreed-upon system instead of butchering the original policy/throwing it away entirely. As for the server files, for one thing there is or should be a backup system (if there isn't then that means somebody is managing the server incorrectly and not that the policy is invalid) and deploying a Minecraft server like this is actually the easiest thing in the world. 2. "People are salty" because community votes are being ignored by you, see the 71% of people as of this post that have voted against the current policy and the bunch of other polls in which this community overwhelmingly supports the original policy. 3. The original policy only enabled "removing an active owner" if the executives unanimously agreed, that's Finest, our EAO, and whatever else the original policy outlined. I don't think an unanimous vote is very exploitable unless you think the elected executives + Finest are going to remove an owner who has done nothing wrong, if the owner was to go rogue we have to have a system. 4. Last part of your post is very vague. Are you suggesting that the current executives are trying to remove you from power?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2020 23:22:29 GMT
I actually rewrote it in the thread it in "If I die" Instead of blindly going forward with an election, with no plan to get the server files or the discord server ownership transferred, I actually made a plan to deal with that instead of having everyone fucked when it comes down to it. People are salty (they can be, nothing is wrong with that) because I have my own plans for that event happening, and I removed the "removing an active owner part" which I actually see as exploitable, for reasons that you will likely see in the coming weeks if this group tries to go through. 1. I think you'll find that nothing was "blindly going forward", the election process was set up to be as fair as possible. There was an entire system set up for temporary server hosts as well as Mark and Finest to change the TF website/forums to respect whichever owner is elected, and as for discord server ownership no process existed at the time, it's as simple as amending the original policy to add an agreed-upon system instead of butchering the original policy/throwing it away entirely. As for the server files, for one thing there is or should be a backup system (if there isn't then that means somebody is managing the server incorrectly and not that the policy is invalid) and deploying a Minecraft server like this is actually the easiest thing in the world. 2. "People are salty" because community votes are being ignored by you, see the 71% of people as of this post that have voted against the current policy and the bunch of other polls in which this community overwhelmingly supports the original policy. 3. The original policy only enabled "removing an active owner" if the executives unanimously agreed, that's Finest, our EAO, and whatever else the original policy outlined. I don't think an unanimous vote is very exploitable unless you think the elected executives + Finest are going to remove an owner who has done nothing wrong, if the owner was to go rogue we have to have a system. 4. Last part of your post is very vague. Are you suggesting that the current executives are trying to remove you from power? I'll tell you what, if what I think whats going to happen doesn't happen in the time I'm not going to disclose, I'll put it back, but amended to include some other details. But until then I am not putting it back.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 11, 2020 0:43:03 GMT
1. I think you'll find that nothing was "blindly going forward", the election process was set up to be as fair as possible. There was an entire system set up for temporary server hosts as well as Mark and Finest to change the TF website/forums to respect whichever owner is elected, and as for discord server ownership no process existed at the time, it's as simple as amending the original policy to add an agreed-upon system instead of butchering the original policy/throwing it away entirely. As for the server files, for one thing there is or should be a backup system (if there isn't then that means somebody is managing the server incorrectly and not that the policy is invalid) and deploying a Minecraft server like this is actually the easiest thing in the world. 2. "People are salty" because community votes are being ignored by you, see the 71% of people as of this post that have voted against the current policy and the bunch of other polls in which this community overwhelmingly supports the original policy. 3. The original policy only enabled "removing an active owner" if the executives unanimously agreed, that's Finest, our EAO, and whatever else the original policy outlined. I don't think an unanimous vote is very exploitable unless you think the elected executives + Finest are going to remove an owner who has done nothing wrong, if the owner was to go rogue we have to have a system. 4. Last part of your post is very vague. Are you suggesting that the current executives are trying to remove you from power? I'll tell you what, if what I think whats going to happen doesn't happen in the time I'm not going to disclose, I'll put it back, but amended to include some other details. But until then I am not putting it back. What does that even mean? You're holding up an important policy to protect the community which this community has overwhelmingly voted in favor for because of vague "what's going to happen".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 3:15:39 GMT
I'll tell you what, if what I think whats going to happen doesn't happen in the time I'm not going to disclose, I'll put it back, but amended to include some other details. But until then I am not putting it back. What does that even mean? You're holding up an important policy to protect the community which this community has overwhelmingly voted in favor for because of vague "what's going to happen". How is the original so much more important at this point? If I die, no problem, execute the policy I have right now. There is no other importance of the other one, it doesn't need to be an essay long to give instructions on what to do.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 11, 2020 5:37:48 GMT
What does that even mean? You're holding up an important policy to protect the community which this community has overwhelmingly voted in favor for because of vague "what's going to happen". How is the original so much more important at this point? If I die, no problem, execute the policy I have right now. There is no other importance of the other one, it doesn't need to be an essay long to give instructions on what to do. You make it seem like it was crafted to be artificially long when it didn't have to be, except just about every provision was relevant and not unnecessary. The policy you have lacks 95% of the important comprehensive details that the original has and opens the door for a chaotic situation come an emergency, there absolutely is importance in the other one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 7:16:22 GMT
How is the original so much more important at this point? If I die, no problem, execute the policy I have right now. There is no other importance of the other one, it doesn't need to be an essay long to give instructions on what to do. You make it seem like it was crafted to be artificially long when it didn't have to be, except just about every provision was relevant and not unnecessary. The policy you have lacks 95% of the important comprehensive details that the original has and opens the door for a chaotic situation come an emergency, there absolutely is importance in the other one. I've added some more important details, after reading the original. Let me know if it's decent or if you want to add more things.
|
|
Wild1145
Club 4000 Member
Inactive Player & Inactive Senior Admin
Posts: 10,414
| Likes: 9,680
|
Post by Wild1145 on May 11, 2020 7:23:58 GMT
You make it seem like it was crafted to be artificially long when it didn't have to be, except just about every provision was relevant and not unnecessary. The policy you have lacks 95% of the important comprehensive details that the original has and opens the door for a chaotic situation come an emergency, there absolutely is importance in the other one. I've added some more important details, after reading the original. Let me know if it's decent or if you want to add more things. Still doesn't include half of the stuff the old one did, which is the point of this entire discussion... This is not about if you die, there are a lot more factors that the original policy accounted for. Given the original policy is what actually made you the owner, maybe it would be good for you to explain what you dislike about it, feels like we should be basing all of this off of what is the known and accepted good, instead of you just making up a new policy that nobody here has agreed to...
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 13, 2020 4:43:17 GMT
You make it seem like it was crafted to be artificially long when it didn't have to be, except just about every provision was relevant and not unnecessary. The policy you have lacks 95% of the important comprehensive details that the original has and opens the door for a chaotic situation come an emergency, there absolutely is importance in the other one. I've added some more important details, after reading the original. Let me know if it's decent or if you want to add more things. Why don't you just post the original policy with no modifications which was in place in a new thread as a draft and let users or yourself suggest amendments to it that can be voted on?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 16, 2020 21:00:48 GMT
Going to bump this due to a lack of response.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on May 21, 2020 3:44:06 GMT
Going to bump this yet again as a solution has not been reached (I suggested one)...
|
|