Page 4 of 4

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:05 am
by High Impact Dolphin
You would think that the headmin confident in this ruling would be fine with a vote. After all, why would anyone disagree with the right choice? :|

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:32 am
by D&B
>Stalemate with 3 headmins

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:39 am
by tinodrima7020
This is like Bernie Sanders' election campaign.....

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:02 am
by Nervere
>headmins voting on whether or not to have the poll after the pre-requisite they laid out for it has been achieved
:lol:

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:06 am
by terranaut
Grazyn wrote:
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

Because otherwise OOC turns into flameshit general and they have to mute it anyway?

You don't trust people to have some bants for a few minutes and then continue with their game or whatever they were doing?

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:15 am
by High Impact Dolphin
So we have a stalemate with three headmins... obviously Morto is in support (it's their prerequisite after all!) and another mystery headmin is against, so what's stopping the third from weighing in? It's far too convenient for this to just fall into stalemate deadlock forever (not like there should even be resistance to POLLING THEIR OWN PLAYERS).

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:34 am
by Nervere
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

Because otherwise OOC turns into flameshit general and they have to mute it anyway?

You don't trust people to have some bants for a few minutes and then continue with their game or whatever they were doing?

Grazyn doesn't understand what being an admin actually entails.
His authoritarian stance towards OOC speech would never work out in-game. If he actually tried to enforce it, he'd get demoted.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:47 am
by oranges
Nervere wrote:>headmins voting on whether or not to have the poll after the pre-requisite they laid out for it has been achieved
:lol:

there's no indication that morto was speaking for the other two headadmins when they made the comment about number of people needing to weigh in.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:02 am
by High Impact Dolphin
oranges wrote:
Nervere wrote:>headmins voting on whether or not to have the poll after the pre-requisite they laid out for it has been achieved
:lol:

there's no indication that morto was speaking for the other two headadmins when they made the comment about number of people needing to weigh in.


MortoSasye wrote:
High Impact Dolphin wrote:Awesome news! When can we expect a poll to be up?

When enough players (around 10-15) express a desire for a poll to me.


I'd say it's in no unclear terms that we would get a poll if there was a "desire," this poll is just going through as many barriers as it can because those for the change know that the playerbase would vote against them.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:24 am
by Sandshark808
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

Because otherwise OOC turns into flameshit general and they have to mute it anyway?

You don't trust people to have some bants for a few minutes and then continue with their game or whatever they were doing?

Something curious to note is that the incident that resulted in this rule change didn't result in any disruption to the round. In fact, it's in the background of a Hippie video and he didn't even notice.

Blink and you'll miss it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfpSbluR4UA

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:58 am
by Grazyn
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

Because otherwise OOC turns into flameshit general and they have to mute it anyway?

You don't trust people to have some bants for a few minutes and then continue with their game or whatever they were doing?

I always enjoy a good banter in OOC, sometime I even enjoy it more than the game itself, my post stemmed from the spanish post which stated, I quote

In a few months, when everything is worse, you will regret not having removed this rotten apple, this toxic being that with its presence alone, and with its actions, has caused so much drama and discomfort in such a short time.


So we're not talking banter here, the issue is flame and shit stirring which disrupt OOC and cause drama. We're all familiar with the concept of trolls trolling trolls, I'm saying that I trust admins to be able to tell the difference between honest OOC discussion and drama queens/kings and the trolls who pretend to fall for the bait to feed the drama. If they're able to tell it but they can't act because of a grey area in the rules, then the rules need to be updated or clarified.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:18 am
by MortoSasye
To clarify: The reason why there's currently a stalemate is because one of the head admins have not gave their definitive choice regarding this.

I'm still waiting for their vote since a week ago.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:50 am
by Grazyn
MortoSasye wrote:To clarify: The reason why there's currently a stalemate is because one of the head admins have not gave their definitive choice regarding this.

I'm still waiting for their vote since a week ago.

Is there a reason why you're not going with simple majority since you're 2 vs 1? What if the headmin says his vote will be decided by a server poll?

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 9:58 am
by TheMythicGhost
MortoSasye wrote:
deedubya wrote:15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.


We're currently on a stalemate with one headmin being against it and another being ok with it. This is the reason for the delay, and I apologize for it.


Normally, I'm on your side with things, but here's a very stupid line of reasoning from you.
You yourself mentioned that if (x) amount of people wanted a poll, you would do it.
Now, you're saying there is a stalemate of one headmin being against it, but that shouldn't matter as you have 2/3rds voting power as you yourself said you would do a poll given a condition, and another headmin is for it as well.
This seems less like,
"Oh, we have to wait for this 1/3rds voting power headmin to agree"

and more
"I'm shifting the goal post because I don't want this to actually happen."

which is backed up by the following image regarding this rule change:
Image


EDIT: Additional clarity.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:05 am
by Iatots
Spoiler alert:
3rd headmin: i vote for whatever the community decides on
Morto: uhoh

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:55 pm
by deedubya
High Impact Dolphin wrote:So we have a stalemate with three headmins... obviously Morto is in support (it's their prerequisite after all!) and another mystery headmin is against, so what's stopping the third from weighing in? It's far too convenient for this to just fall into stalemate deadlock forever (not like there should even be resistance to POLLING THEIR OWN PLAYERS).

Bold of you to assume who is and isn't in support. Morto very specifically didn't mention names when revealing the information, and I suspect that was done for good reason.

For what it's worth though, I appreciate the transparency on why this seems to be deadlocked. Even though I think it's just more smokescreen and deflection in an attempt to let the issue blow over and have the rule change stick by default.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:24 pm
by Grazyn
Iatots wrote:Spoiler alert:
3rd headmin: i vote for whatever the community decides on
Morto: uhoh

Spoiler: Morto is the headmin against it

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:50 pm
by IkeTG
Darkgenerallord wrote:We could in fact always ban you for being a shit in OOC.

If this is the case, it doesn't make sense why people are deliberating over this like it's a big change to how rules are enforced. If a community vote is held and the clarification is struck from the rules page, people are still going to get banned for OOC conduct. The only difference is that the few who didn't know better wouldn't have been informed by the rules ahead of time.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:38 pm
by Lazengann
IkeTG wrote:
Darkgenerallord wrote:We could in fact always ban you for being a shit in OOC.

If this is the case, it doesn't make sense why people are deliberating over this like it's a big change to how rules are enforced. If a community vote is held and the clarification is struck from the rules page, people are still going to get banned for OOC conduct. The only difference is that the few who didn't know better wouldn't have been informed by the rules ahead of time.

Yeah

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:57 pm
by Iatots
IkeTG wrote:
Darkgenerallord wrote:We could in fact always ban you for being a shit in OOC.

If this is the case, it doesn't make sense why people are deliberating over this like it's a big change to how rules are enforced. If a community vote is held and the clarification is struck from the rules page, people are still going to get banned for OOC conduct. The only difference is that the few who didn't know better wouldn't have been informed by the rules ahead of time.


"Don't be a dick" is as concise as it gets. If someone reads that and go "hmm it doesn't technically say I can't do this specific thing to person" it's not someone I want on the server. And also wrapped in your reply is a big assumption, that people that will be banned for OOC conduct could have not reached critical dick mass had the rule been there. No, that is the job of the admin. Unless the offender went nuclear and doxed players or somesuch, there is a window of time where an admin can step in and explain why critical ass was achieved and try to defuse the situation.

But the other important detail that everyone ignored apparently is that the new rule broadens the scope from IC to OOC. The old version clearly limited its scope to what happens ingame, while the new version extends the reach outside the round. The administration always moderated OOC like any other chatroom I saw: no spam, don't be annoying. If people ever started salting at eachother profusely it tended to get muted until round end, and by next round things would mostly be normal again. The forums, IRC, and I assume discord all have their dedicated moderating group. Moderating IC and OOC has always been separate, with bans to one not necessarily applying to the other.

I, personally, am deliberating on this shit a lot Ike because this is an incredibly poor start from the new admininstration. They changed this because it was a campaign promise, so SOMEONE had to care beforehand. They ALSO admitted it was controversial, yet when someone suggested a poll they acted amused and joked about finding 10 individuals that cared. Turns out people cared, but turns out it doesn't matter because there was no headmin majority for this change to begin with. And if this was such a minor thing, why the resistance?

This is important. This is new blood coming in, making their own cliques (because making circlejerks is all /tg/ players are fucking good at apparently), and then when this clique starts shit with other players they start changing the server. Who are all these people going to morto complaining of harassment? Who are all these people that want harassment codified into the ruleset? Who are they being harassed by and why?

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:07 pm
by IkeTG
Wanna tell me what your plan of action is when the poll results in the clarification being stricken, but people continue to get banned for OOC behavior? My entire point is that you're arguing against the clarification of how things are being enforced, not directly against how things are enforced. This will only serve to make things more confusing for everyone.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:10 pm
by tinodrima7020
What if we stopped catering to people with mental illnesses and victim complexes. :thinking:

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:14 pm
by High Impact Dolphin
deedubya wrote:
High Impact Dolphin wrote:So we have a stalemate with three headmins... obviously Morto is in support (it's their prerequisite after all!) and another mystery headmin is against, so what's stopping the third from weighing in? It's far too convenient for this to just fall into stalemate deadlock forever (not like there should even be resistance to POLLING THEIR OWN PLAYERS).

Bold of you to assume who is and isn't in support. Morto very specifically didn't mention names when revealing the information, and I suspect that was done for good reason.

I'm being sarcastic, doesn't translate well over text. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Morto was the one resisting the poll, considering that discord snip that keeps getting posted.

tinodrima7020 wrote:What if we stopped catering to people with mental illnesses and victim complexes. :thinking:

Watch out, you're starting a fight with that one! Sticky calling everyone against him a dreg was fine, but you've taken it too far now mister :x

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:01 pm
by MortoSasye
TheMythicGhost wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:
deedubya wrote:15 people later, we still don't have a community poll over this rule change. We had the minimum 10 that Morto asked for days ago, too.


We're currently on a stalemate with one headmin being against it and another being ok with it. This is the reason for the delay, and I apologize for it.


Normally, I'm on your side with things, but here's a very stupid line of reasoning from you.
You yourself mentioned that if (x) amount of people wanted a poll, you would do it.
Now, you're saying there is a stalemate of one headmin being against it, but that shouldn't matter as you have 2/3rds voting power as you yourself said you would do a poll given a condition, and another headmin is for it as well.
This seems less like,
"Oh, we have to wait for this 1/3rds voting power headmin to agree"

and more
"I'm shifting the goal post because I don't want this to actually happen."

which is backed up by the following image regarding this rule change:
Image


EDIT: Additional clarity.


What do you mean by 2 against 3?

I'm the headmin voting for yes, one voted no and one is MIA again and not replying to this. Don't blame me for someone being absent and refusing to reply to me regarding their vote for this and leaving us in a stalemate.

There is something also that is very important: I can't proceed with an action even if I suggested it if one of the head admins is against it. We're a team.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:25 pm
by CreationPro
Did you get a unanimous agreement on changing rule 1 in the first place?

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:29 pm
by MortoSasye
CreationPro wrote:Did you get a unanimous agreement on changing rule 1 in the first place?


Yes, we don't do things like this without the other's agreement.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:31 pm
by CreationPro
Good thinking

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:46 pm
by Darkgenerallord
Nervere wrote:
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:
terranaut wrote:
Grazyn wrote:OOC has discussions about stuff not pertinent to the game all the time. If someone is obviously trolling, fishing for reactions, ban him. If someone is feeding the troll by taking the bait and flaming, ban him.

Why?

Because otherwise OOC turns into flameshit general and they have to mute it anyway?

You don't trust people to have some bants for a few minutes and then continue with their game or whatever they were doing?

Grazyn doesn't understand what being an admin actually entails.
His authoritarian stance towards OOC speech would never work out in-game. If he actually tried to enforce it, he'd get demoted.


I've literally been doing this for years, including while you were headmin, and was never demoted.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:06 am
by MortoSasye
We will make the poll now that the last head admin has voted with yes.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:41 am
by Sandshark808
MortoSasye wrote:We will make the poll now that the last head admin has voted with yes.

Awesome. Will the rule be repealed if Nays are higher than Yeas, or do you plan on counting "don't care" as approval of the rule?

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:53 am
by Shadowflame909
wrong type of poll sandshark808

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:53 pm
by Blurbo
Someone is going to harass a person that wont complain and when they get harassed back they will take a screenie of that and turn it into a one sided ADMEEN BAN HEE complaint,this is how those sort of people will get rid of others they dont like and the admins will eat their shit up because they are special in whateverthefuck and are hypothetically more likely to get harassed

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:10 pm
by Super Aggro Crag
Stupid rule change

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:56 pm
by High Impact Dolphin
Thank you, Morto

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:29 pm
by PKPenguin321
MortoSasye wrote:We will make the poll now that the last head admin has voted with yes.

you dont need to do that!!!!!!!!!
if you get 2/3 headmins on board with something you can go ahead and do it. likewise, if you want to do something but the other 2/3 dont want to, you cannot do it.
memorize this before one of your headmins go AWOL

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:31 pm
by Gratian
PKPenguin321 wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:We will make the poll now that the last head admin has voted with yes.

you dont need to do that!!!!!!!!!
if you get 2/3 headmins on board with something you can go ahead and do it. likewise, if you want to do something but the other 2/3 dont want to, you cannot do it.
memorize this before one of your headmins go AWOL


He was speaking in reference to getting 2/3 majority.

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:36 pm
by PKPenguin321
oh my bad

Re: Update to rule 1.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:51 pm
by MortoSasye
Sandshark808 wrote:
MortoSasye wrote:We will make the poll now that the last head admin has voted with yes.

Awesome. Will the rule be repealed if Nays are higher than Yeas, or do you plan on counting "don't care" as approval of the rule?


Don't care means I don't care. It isn't a yes, it's meant to showcase the people that don't care about the changes in general.

If the rule has more no's than yes then we will probably work on rewording it in a more fitting way.