There's no perfect system and every system has its flaws. Admitting that does what besides stating the very obvious?
How this is threatening people is beyond me, but I'm sure someone will find a way to make it sound plausible. Emphasis on sound.
And ofc people work on fixing that to minimize the flaws, but the majority-system is there to stay, bc that's the most fair way to deal with any situation when you may have very contradicting opinions and need to deliver a decision.
Former administration teams went with unanimous votes? Where by all blessed things on this world you got that from?
(07-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: But it takes effort and time from the side of the staff. It demands conversation about the case, discussion and it will end in fewer people being banned after an assessment process in which snapshot decisions are not an issue any more.
So you state the administration team does not put in the needed effort into its decisions, does not discuss situations and hands out snapshot decisions (as you called them)? So literally fascism. You like living under an oppressive rule?
(07-21-2016, 10:20 AM)Jansen Wrote: [...]a process that is likely not perfect, but at least ensures some fairness?
Another admittance that the system/proceeding was flawed. It's coming up in nearly every statement of the staff when it comes to the bans, and in every 1on1 talk. Yes, it is "not perfect". It is a bad way of doing it, as it threatens literally everybody, even those with white vests with a surprising insta-ban and thus kills the willingness to invest time, effort and creativity into the game.
If something is flawed, please work on fixing it, especially if the flawed execution has unforeseen negative consequences.
Process =/= System/Proceeding
Dont just take things out of context and try to apply a comment on a voting system to your ban related witch hunt.
(07-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote:
Quote:[...]would you prefer a community vote, which will turn out based on how many skype friends you have and how famous you are?
Not an option, and if it was meant to be taken seriously, I would dare say that this is not the place and time for sarcasm.
This was a valid suggestion, pretty much as valid as your 2/3 thing, with an added insight on how it would be influenced, which in turn should show why this option doesnt work. But its cool that you agree that this isnt an option as well.
(07-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote:
Quote:[...]unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, [...].
Former admin teams went with unanimous vote system and there were bans. However, it took some time to convince some staffers, and sometimes a final, very clear warning had to be given, and once that final warning was not working out, the unanimous vote was easy to get.
So, yes. It can work. But it takes effort and time from the side of the staff. It demands conversation about the case, discussion and it will end in fewer people being banned after an assessment process in which snapshot decisions are not an issue any more.
Go ahead and show me which Admin decisions in the past have been done with this legendary unanimous vote system of yours.
(07-21-2016, 11:20 AM)Jack_Henderson Wrote: Let's step back for a moment... I guess, this is exactly what would have been a good outcome, wouldn't it?
Quote:[...]unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, [...].
Quote:[...]community vote[...]
Between these extremes, the 2/3 majority vote that I mentioned already comes as the natural option.
If I now tell you that ALL of the bans would meet exactly this, they would be completely justified and fair?
It seems most of us agree that vote-based banning, in some form, is a terrible idea.
Can we go a step further, then, and say that all forms of ban-by-vote are a bad idea that's ripe for either abuse or ineffectiveness? And that trying to make it work is simply balancing one against the other?
If that's the case, then wouldn't it be wise to have a set of policies and procedures that are followed and enforced such that we can have consistent offenses, rulings, and punishments? Some kind of 'Guidelines for Admin Conduct' and some sort of 'Community Rules', perhaps?
Howard Williams - CEO, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Just try and stop us"
Caroline Convair - General Secretary, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Please excuse the CEO"
(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So, to the topic then. How's it supposed to work that banning people can just be done when the vote on it wasn't a majority-vote but an unanimous one?
So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
I guess it requires sufficient responsibility for an admin to take aside their personal friendships and judge objectively when it comes to an admin decision. I mean can't we just start with that, a responsible Administration Team? I'm pretty sure if we would have one, issues like the exploit above were non-existent.
Howard Williams - CEO, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Just try and stop us"
Caroline Convair - General Secretary, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Please excuse the CEO"
There is nothing passive-aggressive in it, at least not intentionally, I just don't know why would it be hard to separate one's relations as a player and one's job as an admin, and stay objective and free of any bias when doing admin job. Because Divine's reasoning against the unanimous vote system suggests that, but I see no reason why it couldn't be otherwise.
(07-20-2016, 07:54 PM)Garrett Jax Wrote: Lastly, since many of you have agreed with me privately that you bungled, it would be appropriate for you to apply this process retroactively toward the six recently banned players. It seems only fair.
JEASE BOB TALK ABOUT IN CONFIDENCE.
I have been somewhat constantly surprised how. Time has .. both deadened and blunted the issue. Some have put it behind them. Some don't care anymore. well I know 6 probably still do.
But really. I'm not an admin here. The systems and motivations i'm sure are the same though as where i have terrible and un paralleled tyrannical power, weed out the agitators keeps the good ones etc. But really. This place has always been a powder keg and when it goes off it takes a while for the powder to dry off again.
Time doesn't seem to be a vary... motivational factor in any decision. They just sorta bomb out of nowhere. I am assured its when everyone comes back with some sort of response.
Really guys if you got admins so aloof and out of touch cause of life or whatever and so busy it takes week(s) to turn shit around or solidify a decision or have a discussion... i dunno.. seems long to me.
I mean jesus if i did that in any of my other positions or any of my JOBS i wouldn't be there long.
Posts: 3,228
Threads: 100
Joined: May 2012
Staff roles: Balance Dev
(07-21-2016, 10:20 AM)Jansen Wrote:
(07-21-2016, 01:14 AM)Divine Wrote: So I'm friends with admin X and know people that're friends with admin Y and that's good chances at least one won't vote against me, viola... no ban.
See Divines points on why unanimous votes will not work and are not an option, you essentially backed his post up even further.
You don't seem to have a lot of faith in your fellow admins' competence if you believe that they would be incapable of setting aside bias after thorough discussion of a player's offences.
If you are correct in believing that individual admins' opinions on sanctions are so easily swayed by personal friendships with other players - instead of being based on objective evidence - that paints a grim picture of the admin team as a whole.
(07-21-2016, 02:04 PM)Haste Wrote: If you are correct in believing that individual admins' opinions on sanctions are so easily swayed by personal friendships with other players - instead of being based on objective evidence - that paints a grim picture of the admin team as a whole.
Consider that the admins removed a half-dozen long-standing members of the community, without warning, reasoning or transparency, by vote, despite knowing that they didn't really break any rules, and that, despite knowing this would definitely cause a shitstorm, they did it anyway.
Consider that, despite causing a shitstorm, despite being told by just about everyone with any shred of sense that they have Friended Up Hard, there has been one (explicitly unofficial) public statement regarding flimsy explanations for the above. The awful bans still stand, and the administration team as a whole still stands by them.
Consider that, two years ago, when I poked my head onto this server to play a few days of spaceships, not one but two people privately messaged me to warn me about badmins, arbitrary sanctions and poor rules in about as many days. This problem is years old.
Consider that, as we speak, a faction of the developers has gone on strike, as an act of non-confidence, to protest how terrible the admins are at their jobs. That is, that about a half-dozen developers are of the opinion that any further effort they put in to Freelancer Discovery would be an absolute and total waste of time because of these issues.
Motherfriend, you cannot imagine the grim picture server administration has painted of itself.
Howard Williams - CEO, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Just try and stop us"
Caroline Convair - General Secretary, Williams-Mordhauser Distributing - "Please excuse the CEO"