MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Locked
User avatar
LacertaPes
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:28 pm
Byond Username: LacertaPes

MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Post by LacertaPes » #523899

Oranges has proven time and time again that they merge untested things that break the game (both unintentionally and intentionally) and consistently show they do things to antagonize the player base and administration. Further they’ve largely proven through multiple examples of incompetence that they have no oversight over things they’re doing beyond manipulation. This is evidenced by the multiple PR’s merged with no testing that have broken things in game.

This is why I’m asking for a vote. Let’s see how the community feels about this. No shitposts. Discussion. You have measures to prevent abuse by rotating head admins. I feel the same standard should be held for head coders/maintainers. I’m asking you to run a poll please. Let’s see how the community really feels about them.

Evidence: I’m going to start with war ops. Here’s an example of oranges trying to dictate policy/admin through the codebase: warops
https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/pull/45307

Whether it got pulled or not is irrelevant. This is an example of the 3.5 rule and really goes to show the genius of what Oranges is doing. Whether consciously manipulating or unconsciously manipulating the player base. I believe oranges writes up something like this just to GET the idea of enacting a change such as this in some percentage of the player bases mind. What is largely derided now has reached some (a small percentage) of people who now believe in what the pull request was ultimately about. It gets people to talk about it. Oranges submits it because in the future it can be used again. He knows it will fail and yet he submits it with the knowledge that if 50 people read it 5 will take it to heart. He will then submit it again further down the road those 5 will swell to 10. Then those 10 to 20 until they become the majority. The overall outcome being he will eventually get his way.

A perfect example of oranges doing this before is with cat people: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19965 you can see in this thread here. Another direct overreach of oranges that causes a headache for administration.

You can see here the filter was wrong. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... 43#p446943 and as you can see once appropriate filters were applied the community voted to keep. Instead of oranges accepting the result which they were largely prepared to do prior to the filter changing the vote to keep from remove. They added a new poll which was biased. Two to three options to remove and one to keep and they then dangled bait over top of the communities head by tying in the prospect of a new race to go along with removal.

Here we are yet again. Embroiled in another controversy another vote to keep or remove cat people completely. Only this time the 3% rule is in favor of both the administration and Oranges. There’s more people now who’re new and have not played with cat people that only know the game as it is without cat people being a choice. Makes it easier to enact policy change and alienate those that still play cat characters. This is called the 20/60/20 principle. It’s applicable to things like this. Yet again a compromise largely being undermined and more of the older player base being intentionally alienated. I know people who left during the first felinid removal. I know people who left during the second felinid removal. I know people who are going “what am I going to do.” during the third felinid removal.

You can also see here: Image

It’s a serious hot button issue for a lot of people and you can still see that it causes concern with some in the player base. How’s it even remotely okay to joke about something like that? Specifically given that there was substantial proof that there was some odd behavior with how felinid poll 2.0 was run that required felinid poll 2.5


Hotkeys. There was no reason for this. It’s created an uproar and their response has essentially been telling people to get fucked. https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... ey#p523874

“But that’s just oranges.” Is no longer acceptable.


Image

It’s just proof that they’re actively enacting their vision for tg by removing oldfags through either taking away game mechanics they enjoy or specific races they enjoy. That’s a comment that largely would be dismissed as oranges being oranges but when you look at the actual context of changes being made you can see that it’s not purely made in jest.

There are numerous other instances in the past month pointing at his incompetence as a head coder that have had detrimental effects in game. Racist nanites. (These have yet to be completely exploited. I’ve only seen one instance where someone was charging in game credits for other races to receive the benefits of nanites.)

Anyone remember floor tiles and metal rods duping materials? It was qust’s fault but isn’t Qust largely responsible to oranges?
The reinforced window buff is fucking asinine.
Meme removal of specific maps. (A tactic to get maps removed.)


https://github.com/tgstation/tgstation/issues/47610

Was warned beforehand. Ignored it. The point is the list goes on and they largely go unchecked and are able to do whatever they want without the expectation of any sort of repercussions. Did you yourself not create the current administration structure to not only alleviate some of the pressure off of yourself but to also to help prevent yourself from becoming a tyrannical dick? (Things that can largely ruin online communities?)

I think there’s a larger picture being overlooked here, by a lot of people. To some this is just a game, but look at the overall larger picture. You’ve built something here that at its core forged a lot of relationships. There’s people here who’ve met other people because of commonalities found in a game. Whether it’s a pair of ears and a silly tail. Or some stupid sprites. Or admemegang. These are relationships forged by /tg/ and I see decisions Oranges is making as pushing a large group out. I’m not diminishing the newfags. But if there’s one thing I remember about board culture it’s that the newfags conformed to the oldfag ways. Not the other way around. >this isn’t a 4chinz related game anymore.
At its core it still is.


It’s obvious his goal is to ruin TG. He doesn’t play the actual game itself. He doesn’t handle criticism very well. I implore you to look into this MSO. So many of us love this community and what you’ve built only to be forced out of it by an asshole with an overinflated ego that largely does things to punish specific people in the player base he doesn’t like. There’s evidence supporting this fact. If you wish the outcome for /tg/ to be a dead one. Ignore this. Otherwise at least give us a poll so that we can see if others feel the same way.


Image
User avatar
wesoda25
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Post by wesoda25 » #523903

hhahaA ha BEE bE E EBING!!!
[this space reserved]
User avatar
wesoda25
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:32 pm
Byond Username: Wesoda25

Re: MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Post by wesoda25 » #523905

Alt account of the guy who made this thread: https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic ... +4dplanner
[this space reserved]
User avatar
actioninja
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 6:40 am
Byond Username: Actioninja
Location: comatose

Re: MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Post by actioninja » #523906

who?
Image
User avatar
oranges
Code Maintainer
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm
Byond Username: Optimumtact
Github Username: optimumtact
Location: #CHATSHITGETBANGED

Re: MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Post by oranges » #523909

Im glad someone around here recognises my genius
User avatar
Hulkamania
In-Game Game Master
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:42 pm
Byond Username: Hulkamania

Re: MSO we want a poll to remove ORANGES as headcoder.

Post by Hulkamania » #523911

A full quotation of the rules for this forum:
Proposing a new policy (rule change)
You have an idea for a new rule/change to an existing rule and want to see it put into action. Users can comment on if they like it or not. Ultimately, the thread ends when some majority of headmins have made a ruling on putting the proposed rule into action or ignoring it.

Good example: Make catpeople valid. The thread is resolved with a unanimous headmin ruling to ignore the proposed rule.
Real life example: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=10837 Proposed rule to make zombies act like zombies. Now enforced by treating zombies as a team antagonist.

Bad example: I hate greytiders. There isn't any proposed rule or policy change, just a statement. The thread is locked.
Real life example: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9238 viewtopic.php?f=33&t=10759 Two threads, both about greytiding, both with endless bickering, both accomplishing nothing policy-wise because a rule change was never actually proposed.

There are exceptions to this. Threads like the bad example may be allowed to roam free for a while if the policy issue is believed to be serious enough to warrant discussion. Players and admins alike can brainstorm on a new rule or a change to existing rules to resolve the policy issue. Generally, however, these threads derail and don't end up with any good proposed new rules, so please avoid making them where you can. An example would be this thread, where an admin reaches out to players asking for help with making a big policy clarification. Another would be this thread, where a major policy issue was brought up but with no proposed solution or definite question, with the purpose of allowing players to express if they thought it was really an issue and how it could be handled. Neither thread brought about a definite meaningful solution, so hopefully this makes it clear why these types of threads should be avoided where possible.

Asking for clarification on existing policy
You saw a bad ban that waded through some grey area rules, or just aren't sure you're fully clear on a rule in the Rules page. Perhaps a rule is just worded too poorly. Your post should clearly state your question: We shouldn't have to figure out what you're asking through vague implications. Ultimately, the thread ends when a headmin clarifies the ruling on the policy in question. More headmins can weigh in or unlock the thread and continue discussion if they feel the ruling is bad, but it's usually easier to just start a new thread for policy proposals than to continue discussion in a policy question.

Good example: Are drones allowed to interact with pAIs? A headmin clarifies that they indeed are, as pAIs are specifically outlined as non-beings, but that drones still shouldn't interact with anyone else.
Real life good example: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=10975 Player asks if nonhumans are valid to kill as Asimov roles. Is told that they follow server rule 1 but still must kill if told to via law 2.

Bad example: Why are greytiders allowed to do this? The OP doesn't have any actual policy questions and spirals into a pseudo-ban request. The thread is locked.
Real life bad example: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=10849 The question is not clear. It cannot be answered.

Literal rules page discussion
Think a rule is poorly worded, in need of clarification, or missing from the Rules page? Let us know. We'll try to either fix it or deem it a non-issue, then resolve the thread.

Server config settings
If a server config is in need of being changed, post about it. It's best to try to make it clear why it should be changed.
Your post is not about literal rules page discussion, server config settings, policy clarification, or a rule change. This thread is locked.
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users