Discovery Gaming Community

(09-06-2016, 02:06 AM)|nfrared Wrote: [ -> ]The root of the whole problem with this server is clearly visible on the previous page of this thread. The bit where the Dev team is sniping at the Admin team (yes that's right, two teams of people that don't work together and regularly and openly blame each other, are the ones you hope to provide you with a harmonious gaming environment... Let that sink in.)

If you can't even display unity in the group(s) that controls everyone's gaming experience, how can you hope to unify the server into a happy gaming environment?

There are many things fundamentally wrong here in this community, but you all know what they are. You are literally having the same circular arguments every time I check in here, so you are no closer to acting on any of the solutions it would appear.

Oh my god

Thank you for saying that

(09-06-2016, 02:06 AM)|nfrared Wrote: [ -> ]The root of the whole problem with this server is clearly visible on the previous page of this thread. The bit where the Dev team is sniping at the Admin team

You've identified the symptom, and mistaken it for the disease.

Another way it can be seen: the disease is that the problems with the Admin team have become so much of an issue, and have not been addressed (or been dismissed outright), such that the Dev Team have become just as upset as other parts of this community.

Judging by the "Dev Team Strike" thread that I perused the other day, that would be my guess.

Is it possible we stop preying on every potentially controversial word like hyenas and snipe each other for literally everything? We shouldn't jump at each other like that. If you can't write a post level-headed, just don't bother posting until you can. As difficult as it may be.

To the topic itself:
All community-eliminated administrators would really do is prevent influx of new admins. Mainly because, as others mentioned before, it inevitably encounters the same problems a community election of admins would have.

A problem with sanctions is that the amount of sanction reports makes it difficult and ridiculously time-consuming to "get to know the person". The pieces of evidence you have so far allow you to create an assumption of what this person is like. More evidence means a more accurate assumption. And for most sanctions, it doesn't even require that level of detail. So acting on assumption might not be as bad as some make it out to be, if such an assumption has a very solid basis.

As a last note, trusting 'popular community opinion' is a dangerous line to cross. Mainly because it's a few individuals (the majority of the time, as I observe, from the same group/clique) pretending to speak for the majority of the community, using words like "we", "the players" when it's only really the opinion of the echo chamber they're currently in. You speak for yourself and your group only, don't pretend otherwise.

(09-06-2016, 03:27 AM)LordVipex Wrote: [ -> ]Is it possible we stop preying on every potentially controversial word like hyenas and snipe each other for literally everything? We shouldn't jump at each other like that. If you can't write a post level-headed, just don't bother posting until you can. As difficult as it may be.

To the topic itself:
All community-eliminated administrators would really do is prevent influx of new admins. Mainly because, as others mentioned before, it inevitably encounters the same problems a community election of admins would have.

A problem with sanctions is that the amount of sanction reports makes it difficult and ridiculously time-consuming to "get to know the person". The pieces of evidence you have so far allow you to create an assumption of what this person is like. More evidence means a more accurate assumption. And for most sanctions, it doesn't even require that level of detail. So acting on assumption might not be as bad as some make it out to be, if such an assumption has a very solid basis.

As a last note, trusting 'popular community opinion' is a dangerous line to cross. Mainly because it's a few individuals (the majority of the time, as I observe, from the same group/clique) pretending to speak for the majority of the community, using words like "we", "the players" when it's only really the opinion of the echo chamber they're currently in. You speak for yourself and your group only, don't pretend otherwise.

Hi Maurice, I see you've dedicated an entire post to me without bothering to say so, or to take it up on a platform less intrusive to the actual conversation such as Skype.

As usual, you seem woefully unaware of the actual situation at hand. Dane did hit the nail on the head when he said this is a symptom, not the disease. I have no interest in sniping at anyone, and my post actually was written with an extremely level head. People are allowed to be shocked, repulsed, and object to a statement. That is what I did, and I made a concerted effort to explain why I was.

Admins - I don't think I made myself clear. When I talked about elimination, I meant the community voting in admins and the losers of the vote being eliminated by a cut off point, a requirement that a certain number of votes be reached. I do believe some of the current administrators do need to take a hike, but any system for the removal of an admin needs to have a great deal of thought put into it.

Sanctions & popular opinion - You've got this process backwards, I'm not insinuating that the admin team can or should go and talk to each individual person who has a report cross their desk. Rather I'm encouraging them to branch out and get to know these people they detest so much (Wesker, Omicega, Yber, Tachyon, anyone they'd like to drop a Heavy Decision Mk II on basically) beforehand, rather than just judging them from afar. Fly with them, talk to them, play the game. There are more perspectives to the game than the administration's, and right now they're speaking for themselves and their group only, don't pretend otherwise.

Disco is divided into many, many cliques. I don't pretend to know, like, or understand them all myself. But I certainly reach out and talk to them if a problem should arise. A prime example is and his merry bunch, who self admitted that he detests me in a conversation about gun balance. I took his concerns seriously and relayed them to the balance team, instead of scoffing at them and saying "well, that's his opinion and it isn't worth anything because he's him."

Just because I don't get along with someone doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to play the game, or worse - that I would like to impose sanctions on them or nerfs upon their faction based on the opinions I've drawn without even getting to know them. Let me reiterate - when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. And right now, we've got an administration which has self admitted that they are not willing to see outside their own box. That means some of them need to go, and some freshly community vetted blood needs to be voted in. That part, at least, is simple.

Checks and balances on the other hand, is quite another story.

(09-06-2016, 01:29 AM)Dane Summers Wrote: [ -> ]My point is this. If you think negatively on someone you've never had any interaction with outside of being an audience to their negativity, all you'll ever judge them on is that alone.

My two cents.

(09-06-2016, 03:45 AM)Durandal Wrote: [ -> ]As usual, you seem woefully unaware of the actual situation at hand. Dane did hit the nail on the head when he said this is a symptom, not the disease. I have no interest in sniping at anyone, and my post actually was written with an extremely level head. People are allowed to be shocked, repulsed, and object to a statement. That is what I did, and I made a concerted effort to explain why I was.

That portion was not directed at you, by the way.

(09-06-2016, 03:45 AM)Durandal Wrote: [ -> ]Admins - I don't think I made myself clear. When I talked about elimination, I meant the community voting in admins and the losers of the vote being eliminated by a cut off point, a requirement that a certain number of votes be reached. I do believe some of the current administrators do need to take a hike, but any system for the removal of an admin needs to have a great deal of thought put into it.

Again, this has the same problems that community elected admins have, as plenty others have pointed out before me.

Generally speaking, you don't need to fly with somebody to notice via evidence when individuals go out of their way to make the game horrible for others. If that's true for the players you mentioned is not something I know. I would appreciate if the admins talk with these individuals about that behaviour before a thing like a permaban. Then again, that may not always be necessary depending on the individual background of everyone. If somebody has repeatedly shown that change is impossible, then that's that.

As far as I can see, the administration is regularly recruiting new mods who can eventually rise to admin status. There was a thread where players could vote on who they'd like to see as mods, though it's important to note that popularity does not automatically qualify you to bear that responsibility.

I am just going to ask some questions here Justin.

If we begin a vote to remove the current admin team, and the vote would not reach a conclusive majority (something like, hmm, 60-70% of the community, excluding Alts), would you then finally stop constantly grinding the gears to a halt with your constant hatemongering (and this question goes towards you, but is really addressing all of the "bittervets". I will get to that in a minute. Oh, and as just pointed out to me - the oversimplification in what you are actually asking for is intentional, but might not get across, therefore this clarification.

And by the same logic, if we were to remove the Admins by popular vote, should the same not apply to devs? And don't even try to use the skill argument, there's skill involved in administering a community just as much as there is modding a game. And if you are of the opinion that the devs should be excluded from this rule for some other reason, you might want to consider if you are actually doing this discussion here for the reason you claim to do, or if there are not some ulterior motives behind that that you're maybe not even aware of yourself.

As for the "bittervets" jumping on the hate train here: You complain that the Admins don't have a spine for years, not doing anything, and claim that they're the problem. Then they actually do show a spine, and you're angry as well. Do you know why you're angry? Because they didn't cater to your needs for once. You're not entitled to demand anything just because your join date is before a certain time, or because you have seen Admins rise and fall, or because you lead a faction. What you are entitled to is to demand that the Admins are doing their job, and you are free to criticize them. I would still like if you would think before you go out and claim conspiracies or that everything is done just to harm you, because your constant lashing out just gets tiring for everyone, including yourself. If you disagree with a system, try to be constructive instead of insultive.

Oh, and don't think you're getting away here, Admins. While I am heavily critical of the ones using this thread venting their frustration over whatever is wrong in their opinion instead of engaging in constructive communication, you are not even trying to ease the tension. Yes, you are the administrators of this server, and you decide in the end, but that does neither make you immune to criticism nor does it justify an incredibly complex and opaque way of working. We're a community, and while you are on the top of it, that does include a certain responsibility to hear everybody's opinion if possible, be they angry or sad. You don't have to do what they ask, but what you have to do is at least try to communicate. Your constant silence is breeding this mood just as much as the hatemobs are.

So the tl;dr for normal people: You're behaving like children. All of you. Stop flinging fecal matter at each other and talk it out like grown adults. ALL of you.

(09-06-2016, 03:27 AM)LordVipex Wrote: [ -> ]As a last note, trusting 'popular community opinion' is a dangerous line to cross. Mainly because it's a few individuals (the majority of the time, as I observe, from the same group/clique) pretending to speak for the majority of the community, using words like "we", "the players" when it's only really the opinion of the echo chamber they're currently in. You speak for yourself and your group only, don't pretend otherwise.

Can you honestly tell yourself the community was wrong about the XTF event and Hannibal was right? If so you're part of the problem. The entire server, literally was at that event, over 100 people on the server some who haven't played in years came because its an yearly fun event the admins have had no problem with in the past as stated by . So if you're referring to the XTF event at least. You're very wrong, the entire community did give its opinion defending the XTF.

As for other topics yes its debatable but when I look at certain cliques opinions vs the admins when it comes to being sanctioned for using the word "mong" in local chat than I have a hard time believing the community would really be any worse than the current admin team at making decisions.

(09-06-2016, 05:25 AM)Wesker Wrote: [ -> ]Can you honestly tell yourself the community was wrong about the XTF event and Hannibal was right? If so you're part of the problem. The entire server, literally was at that event, over 100 people on the server some who haven't played in years came because its an yearly fun event the admins have had no problem with in the past as stated by . So if you're referring to the XTF event at least. You're very wrong, the entire community did give its opinion defending the XTF.

As for other topics yes its debatable but when I look at certain cliques opinions vs the admins when it comes to being sanctioned for using the word "****" in local chat than I have a hard time believing the community would really be any worse than the current admin team at making decisions.

Not referring to the XTF event at all, don't worry.

Guys, so I just had this shower thought. This problem of not trusting the admins + not wanting a democracy might be fixable with an observer committee.
Specifically, what if when highly controversial decisions (like the mass banning right around the time I joined) are observed by a group of "impartial" members of the community. Maybe after the fact even. No powers, no rights to give their opinion on the matter at hand.

They are only allowed to review the process used by the admins and report to the community of the decision was done in good faith (regardless of the outcome). Of course, they could not divulge details, so they have to be trusted by the community at large. They would be looking for things like biases in the admins, ignored evidence (for or against the case), anecdotal evidence, and anything that doesn't jive with proper judiciary procedures. Finally, they would disclose whether they agree with the verdict & whether they believe if it was done in good faith.

If they report that the decision was not done in good faith, the admins may want to rethink the process.

I think this would be a good balance between transparency towards the community and keeping specific details from being released.

Thoughts?