Coders do not provide interesting or relevant discourse to the future health of the server. They are, at best, off topic or misinformed, and at worst, actively harmful to the discussion. The Player's Club intentionally limits posting (but not viewing) only to those who have played recently, of which what is considered "played" is fairly generous (even oranges got in, har har). I don't see any reason to let people who have removed themselves from the game, or worse--headcoders, try to push against administrative changes.
I would exclude coder-admins from these restrictions, as they are more likely to have their finger on the pulse of what is a good/bad change, especially if they're an active admin. I know a handful of admins who don't meet Player's Club restrictions but are still very active administrators, and would not like to see them lose their voice.
I don't mind if the time considered "player" for policy discussion is increased by a lot, I think Player's Club is already fairly generous, but I wouldn't mind.
On an unrelated question, is plagiarism in policy discussion unethical?
Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
- Tearling
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
- Byond Username: Tearling
Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
- Mothblocks
- Code Maintainer
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:33 am
- Byond Username: Jaredfogle
Re: Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
If the point of this was a jab at me and the thread I made, I play quite often and was the one responsible for implementing the Player's Club in the first place. Not sure what you meant by this
Head Coder of /tg/station, hi!Shaps-cloud wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:59 am May eventually become one of the illusive maintainer-headmins if they choose to pursue that path, having a coder in the senior admin leadership has usually been positive for both sides in the past.
Head Admin of /tg/station Feb 2022.
Mothblocks everywhere, >>> Say nice things about me <<<
- dragomagol
- In-Game Head Admin
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:04 pm
- Byond Username: Dragomagol
Re: Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
Apparently this is a serious thread, carry on.
- Tearling
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:40 pm
- Byond Username: Tearling
Re: Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
It was not. I agree with your initial post, and believed that replacing "banned players" with "coders" would be just as effective.Mothblocks wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:32 am If the point of this was a jab at me and the thread I made, I play quite often and was the one responsible for implementing the Player's Club in the first place. Not sure what you meant by this
Thank you
Timberpoes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:41 am From my perspective, players just want to genuinely be listened to. And I don't mean it condescendingly, but to genuinely have their say and for admins to listen, process it and reply. Even if you don't give two shits about what the player is saying, even if you disagree with every part of what they say, players are less likely to leave an ahelp pissed off if you've listened to them and given a reply that directly addresses what they've told you.
- Timberpoes
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 4:54 pm
- Byond Username: Timberpoes
Re: Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
Very much disagree.
If maintainers were restricted from policy discussions, then naturally admins would be restricted from code discussions too.
Afterall, admins do not provide interesting or relevant discourse for the future health of the codebase. They are, at best, off topic or misinformed, and at worst, actively harmful to the discussion. Might as well disenfranchise them from the GitHub as well and prevent them contributing their views as well. Don't want to taint the purity of the codebase with the ignorant views of a team containing some 80-odd people who have never contributed a single line of code to the codebase.
Obvious hyperbole aside, I think it's pretty obvious how short-sighted and ultimately how incorrect the above is.
I argue the same is true that maintainers do have interesting and relevant discourse seeing as they are responsible for designing, reviewing and merging features and implementations to the very codebase that the policy discussion is so often founded upon.
Were you aware that the admin and maintainer teams have been cooperating on code and policy for as long as I've been a maintainer? I suspect they have for many years before that too. It is a symbiotic relationship, not parasitic. And the benefits flow both ways.
If you cut out the maintainer team from policy, then the maintainer team has very little real incentive to consider policy when designing and merging changes. The relationship becomes antagonistic instead of symbiotic.
Some policy concerns can be more effectively addressed via code solutions. Some code solutions can be better implemented with support from policy. Both are improved when we all work together.
If maintainers were restricted from policy discussions, then naturally admins would be restricted from code discussions too.
Afterall, admins do not provide interesting or relevant discourse for the future health of the codebase. They are, at best, off topic or misinformed, and at worst, actively harmful to the discussion. Might as well disenfranchise them from the GitHub as well and prevent them contributing their views as well. Don't want to taint the purity of the codebase with the ignorant views of a team containing some 80-odd people who have never contributed a single line of code to the codebase.
Obvious hyperbole aside, I think it's pretty obvious how short-sighted and ultimately how incorrect the above is.
I argue the same is true that maintainers do have interesting and relevant discourse seeing as they are responsible for designing, reviewing and merging features and implementations to the very codebase that the policy discussion is so often founded upon.
Were you aware that the admin and maintainer teams have been cooperating on code and policy for as long as I've been a maintainer? I suspect they have for many years before that too. It is a symbiotic relationship, not parasitic. And the benefits flow both ways.
If you cut out the maintainer team from policy, then the maintainer team has very little real incentive to consider policy when designing and merging changes. The relationship becomes antagonistic instead of symbiotic.
Some policy concerns can be more effectively addressed via code solutions. Some code solutions can be better implemented with support from policy. Both are improved when we all work together.
/tg/station Codebase Maintainer
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
/tg/station Game Master/Discord Jannie: Feed me back in my thread.
/tg/station Admin Trainer: Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?
Feb 2022-Sep 2022 Host Vote Headmin
Mar 2023-Sep 2023 Admin Vote Headmin
- RaveRadbury
- In-Game Game Master
- Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:41 am
- Byond Username: RaveRadbury
- Github Username: RaveRadbury
- Location: BK ChatZone
- Contact:
Re: Put Player's Club-like restrictions on Policy Discussion upgraded
I'm not interested in this and I doubt my colleagues are. Alienating the coding team is a great way for everything to become terrible(er).
Gonna dismiss this for incendiary and low-quality
Gonna dismiss this for incendiary and low-quality
How's my administrating? Call 1-800-RADBURY
[First MRP Headmin - Player Vote Fall 2021 + Admin Vote Fall 2022] [Heart Emoji ~ Winter Ball Queen 2019]
[First MRP Headmin - Player Vote Fall 2021 + Admin Vote Fall 2022] [Heart Emoji ~ Winter Ball Queen 2019]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users