Department Initiative & Recent Events Explained

[Aesopian 1639]

Internal channels are non-public and thus non-transparent.

 

You people are idiots.

 

If you want a system transparent to the community, you need to make your staff chats publicly visible or logged. 

[Telanir 6975]

1 minute ago, iMattyz said:

 

Prove it instead of talking about it then.

 

Do you expect us not to prepare a response to feedback? When we do work, you demand communication! When we communicate, you demand work dammit work! We are humans, let I remind you, and we both know how work gets done Matt. Raw hours. I've got plenty.

 

Just now, AGiantPie said:

I'll believe it when I see it. From my point of view, the primary issue with the way that lotc's staff is structured is that administrators are basically untouchable and complaints about them will never go anywhere as there is no oversight over the administration, except, I suppose, the rest of the administration? How do we deal with a failing administrator? If you don't have any faith in the administration and their "moderation" then your faith in the entire system breaks down and it's safe to say I'm an atheist at this current point in time.

 

Administrators burn out, phase out, or w/e, and have always operated on a system where generally none are forcefully removed. You've seen the document I linked, there are procedures outlined for the removal of administration. Real change has happened, just no admins have been removed in such a way because it hasn't been necessary.

 

There is no process to remove Admins you `don't like`, there is only a process to remove Administrators who breach protocol and cause the server damage.

[Geo 1415]

Just now, Aesopian said:

Internal channels are non-public and thus non-transparent.

 

You people are idiots.

 

If you want a system transparent to the community, you need to make your staff chats publicly visible or logged. 

I think that would be very chaotic and hard to execute properly.  A nice idea though.

[AGP 3169]

2 minutes ago, Telanir said:

Administrators burn out, phase out, or w/e, and have always operated on a system where generally none are forcefully removed. You've seen the document I linked, there are procedures outlined for the removal of administration. Real change has happened, just no admins have been removed in such a way because it hasn't been necessary.

 

There is no process to remove Admins you `don't like`, there is only a process to remove Administrators who breach protocol and cause the server damage.

Yet it's the administrators who decide if the server has been "damaged," not the people who actually roleplay on the server. That is the problem. 

[Aesopian 1639]

 

1 minute ago, Geo said:

I think that would be very chaotic and hard to execute properly.  A nice idea though.

 

No, it's not.

 

For virtually ANY chat platform which is widespread, all you need to google is '[chat platform] + logging bot' and you will be given hordes of bots you can download which will automatically log conversations. Then, you need only pastebin those conversations and link them from a thread on the forums once every two weeks or on a monthly basis.

 

This is literally a ten-minute job, and for some reason the vast majority of staff are incapable of realizing how simple and easy it is. 

[argonian 14254]

2 minutes ago, Telanir said:

Administrators burn out, phase out, or w/e, and have always operated on a system where generally none are forcefully removed. You've seen the document I linked, there are procedures outlined for the removal of administration. Real change has happened, just no admins have been removed in such a way because it hasn't been necessary.

 

There is no process to remove Admins you `don't like`, there is only a process to remove Administrators who breach protocol and cause the server damage.

It was taking the piss though when Neko_Danie and Urasept had been admins for years without doing anything(well Urasept did spawn in iron for the Elves but that doesn't really count as work).

[Telanir 6975]

1 minute ago, AGiantPie said:

Yet it's the administrators who decide if the server has been "damaged," not the people who actually roleplay on the server. That is the problem. 

 

Yes, the admins decide if the server has been damaged. We use a vast resource in order to assess the damage, which is the community.

 

Just now, James2k said:

It was taking the piss though when Neko_Danie and Urasept had been admins for years without doing anything(well Urasept did spawn in iron for the Elves but that doesn't really count as work).

You are entirely correct, that was a massive problem, and when protocol was introduced dealing with inactivity (such with Urasept) became leagues easier.

[Salvo 1852]

telanir nobody cares if you waste hours of your life over a job you literally volunteered for stop using it as an excuse

[Aesopian 1639]

oof salvo slinging fire

 

Don't piss off Telanir, we need coders far more than we need admins. 

[AGP 3169]

Just now, Telanir said:

 

Yes, the admins decide if the server has been damaged. We use a vast resource in order to assess the damage, which is the community.

 

This resource doesn't feel utilized.

[Treshure 5817]

Don't even kid with us about response to feedback. Nexus has been complained about for months upon months and yet a blind eye is turned to us. You cherry pick what you want to appear as and it's getting disgusting. If you want people to buy that you're responsive, actually do something about the issues at hand than flaunt "new change".

[big narstie 1701]

7 minutes ago, Geo said:

I think that would be very chaotic and hard to execute properly.  A nice idea though.

 

I agree with George Boy 66

[mmat 7460]

The entire playerbase can see through this fluff like a pane of glass dude. Try to do better with the staff yeah, but don't put together all this fluff about communucation and etc etc.

 

We all just want a server we enjoy being on.

[Telanir 6975]

5 minutes ago, Salvo said:

telanir nobody cares if you waste hours of your life over a job you literally volunteered for stop using it as an excuse

 

It is quite relevant, it wasn't about activity, it was about lack of inactivity that meant certain tasks were not possible. Now they are. (please read more carefully)

 

Just now, Treshure said:

Don't even kid with us about response to feedback. Nexus has been complained about for months upon months and yet a blind eye is turned to us. You cherry pick what you want to appear as and it's getting disgusting. If you want people to buy that you're responsive, actually do something about the issues at hand than flaunt "new change".

 

Nexus is a very broad term which makes it difficult to fix what exactly you appear to be pointing out here. What you must realize is responsive doesn't mean something gets done today, it means it gets done. Take a class in programming and try out some Bukkit development, soon you'll realize what it truly means to run a server as massive as LotC. We're doing what we can.

[TeaLulu 1783]

12 minutes ago, AGiantPie said:

Yet it's the administrators who decide if the server has been "damaged," not the people who actually roleplay on the server.

What happens then when some of the people who actually play on the server make a call about damage that you or others disagree with? What happens when two groups have contrary opinions on a matter? Who mediates? Who gets to make the final decision?

 

And why should the players who play on the server get to make that decision? In the end, what keeps it from becoming a popularity contest? The players who roleplay on the server give it life, yes, but they're not responsible for keeping it running nor any other responsibility concerning decisions or administration. If given the choice, people would just make the decision that benefits them the most, except every single decision would end in a **** fit on the forums (which I suppose it does now anyways) and possibly if we use democracy, a "biggest headcount wins" resolution.

 

As a donator, should I have more of a right to make that decision than normal, non-donator players? I mean, I've done more to keep the server running than players who have never donated have done. If we're going to decide who has a right to decide if the server has been damaged based on contribution to it's continuity (your average player honestly does not have any tangible contribution to it's continuity), then donators would get to make that decision above normal players. That's not acceptable to anyone.

 

So then you come to staff, who are players who keep the server running in a tangible and actually accountable manner (at least, the active ones, unlike certain ex-somethings). Administrators are, well, what it says in their name. They have always been at the top of the rung in management, that's nothing new. And the shitty ones? Their reigns have, in the past, lasted unfortunately long, but they all get forced out eventually, usually by players (and occasionally player harrassment). 

 

So I'm confused as to how you want that call to be made in a feasible and logical manner that takes into account the standings of individuals and their contributions to LoTC? You can't just hold a server-wide vote: "Was this damaging?!?!", because then it just goes based off popularity or is otherwise rigged.

 

We have feedback threads, and if the Forum dept could be completely and utterly redone to be less horrendously overly-defensive of their friendos (though ironically not of upper staff, whom, it is apparent, don't give them as many direct benees), to the point people felt comfortable posting feedback, discussing feedback, and gathering feedback, and if the administration made a point of listening to this feedback in a balanced way (Which, I think, in the past, they have shown the ability to listen to the vast shitfits we vomit on the forums, to an extent. Moreso than previous teams, anyways[yes everyone hates nexus but from a technical standpoint I can understand how its far too integrated with all other plugins now to be just removed in the blink of an eye. Also coding takes a lot of effort and time contribution that the devs don't get paid for so??]). Then feedback would be a reasonable way to assess these things; But only if players were protected when they made reasonable feedback, instead of being villified- And I do mean players and not just staff being defended by other staff when other other staff delete their posts. 

 

Otherwise what else do you propose that is reasonable?