Monthly GM Update Log - October

[Archbishop 1784]

It was really just an example. But yea when staff make shady decsions like that its bound to add to distrust against the staff team in general, regardless if it was addressed or not. Ie: have proper clear rules set out that people, including the staff, know. This is so that people are not banned for unwritten rules.

[Guest]

Just now, A Moongazer said:

It was really just an example. But yea when staff make shady decsions like that its bound to add to distrust against the staff team in general, regardless if it was addressed or not. Ie: have proper clear rules set out that people, including the staff, know. This is so that people are not banned for unwritten rules.

 

They changed my ban to harassment for factors completely out of my control, I never harassed anybody. Gotta love hearsay. 

[Thomas 3014]

8 hours ago, 2samspan said:

I am really glad the GM team is reqlly trying to improve transparency. It's definitely a step toward hopefully fixing a lot of issues and grievances people have with the GMs and LotC as a whole. Do you know if any of the other teams will be taking further steps to improve transparency as well?

I hope so. I can't speak on behalf of the other teams, but I'd hope and like for all teams to be a bit more transparent and take further steps to ensure a better communication with the player-base. With that said, I have no jurisdiction in that area so I cannot give a definitive answer. I believe with the new AT Lead, some things might be going down there, but only time will tell. 

[Trenchist 864]

Mazal tov

[Sky 0]

[Elindor 666]

This may be my distance from what is happening in LotC, but there's a few things in this that I see as childish approaches to management. And to be fair, no one should be expecting brilliant management strategies coming out of what is mostly minors who haven't held a real-world management position before.

 

The main one that rubbed me the wrong way was the public display of modreq numbers. That isn't really a step for creating transparency. You should have such KPIs and goals for staff to be working to and so that individual performances can be monitored in one specifically calculated fashion, but that isn't the full story of someone's work performance. That's why I don't think the general community have any business knowing the numbers. Perhaps a top player list is good to create a rivalry for the mods to be trying to get up there. But quality over quantity! And based on the tendencies for this community to immediately hold someone over coals, displaying who hasn't been performing will simply create a competition culture of hopeful GM Applications attempting to tear down existing GMs to create a new opening. I believe that the modreq numbers are no one's business but those who are on the team.

 

I also think that for the longevity of this news platform you should be looking at ways of efficiently compiling what goes in here as it happens so that it doesn't become a gruelling task for one person to spend hours putting together at the end of the month. The more words have hit a page by the 30th, the more likely this will be to continue on indefinitely.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Elindor said:

This may be my distance from what is happening in LotC, but there's a few things in this that I see as childish approaches to management. And to be fair, no one should be expecting brilliant management strategies coming out of what is mostly minors who haven't held a real-world management position before.

 

The main one that rubbed me the wrong way was the public display of modreq numbers. That isn't really a step for creating transparency. You should have such KPIs and goals for staff to be working to and so that individual performances can be monitored in one specifically calculated fashion, but that isn't the full story of someone's work performance. That's why I don't think the general community have any business knowing the numbers. Perhaps a top player list is good to create a rivalry for the mods to be trying to get up there. But quality over quantity! And based on the tendencies for this community to immediately hold someone over coals, displaying who hasn't been performing will simply create a competition culture of hopeful GM Applications attempting to tear down existing GMs to create a new opening. I believe that the modreq numbers are no one's business but those who are on the team.

 

I also think that for the longevity of this news platform you should be looking at ways of efficiently compiling what goes in here as it happens so that it doesn't become a gruelling task for one person to spend hours putting together at the end of the month. The more words have hit a page by the 30th, the more likely this will be to continue on indefinitely.

 

listen to this guy. he knows what he's saying.

[Suika 111]

Is there a way a builder and beautifier like me could help with the Make Axios Pretty Again without applying to the event team?

 

Doesn't the GM team and ET have better things to do?

[Sky 0]

37 minutes ago, Suika said:

Is there a way a builder and beautifier like me could help with the Make Axios Pretty Again without applying to the event team?

 

Doesn't the GM team and ET have better things to do?

If you want to help make Axios pretty again, with the perks of event team builder, then please apply for the event team as a builder. I acknowledge that you are asking without needing to, but I totally encourage people who want to help make the server pretty through builds to do so, the main job of the event team builders is to create marvelous works that are integrated into the server through multiple means (ie, events, locations, etc). So please, go for it.

[6xdestroyer 1610]

Is this where I file a report on @Tahmas for trying to steal my pixels on a different minecraft roleplay factions server by not abusing his moderator pex?

[Gridlock 1033]

On 1-11-2016 at 9:57 PM, Tahmas said:

Admins and the GM Lead all have access to a command called /pugsy. When this command is executed, it bans the player as well as removes any staff pex they may have. Making it the simplest way to remove the pex when banning someone. Aerial’s ban message has since been changed, but the original ban message, “You having a giggle mate” was not one written by the Admins of anyone on the team at the time of the ban.

A very poort argument. I highly doubt this being true, lying to players is a bad thing. People make mistakes, just admit your banning mod did not act accordingly. I dislike the way you're going about this, pretending like this is some sort of standard command which is very likely a weak coverup. Just be honest.

[Thomas 3014]

1 hour ago, Gridlock said:

A very poort argument. I highly doubt this being true, lying to players is a bad thing. People make mistakes, just admit your banning mod did not act accordingly. I dislike the way you're going about this, pretending like this is some sort of standard command which is very likely a weak coverup. Just be honest.

This is genuinely a command lmao, I can record me using it on a GM if you'd very much like. Developers  can confirm, too. 

Edited November 6, 2016 by Tahmas

[Gridlock 1033]

3 hours ago, Tahmas said:

This is genuinely a command lmao, I can record me using it on a GM if you'd very much like. Developers  can confirm, too. 

 

If that is so, it is a very strange and unprofessional protocol to use. If I were to get banned I'd want to know what rules I broke and who banned me. 

 

If I were among the responsible group I'd change it. If a person commits a serious offense that sees him banned and stripped from all ranks, the staff should take it serious. If the staff can't take the offense serious, it can't be that serious of an offense.

[Thomas 3014]

Just now, Gridlock said:

 

If that is so, it is a very strange and unprofessional protocol to use. If I were to get banned I'd want to know what rules I broke and who banned me. 

 

If I were among the responsible group I'd change it. If a person commits a serious offense that sees him banned and stripped from all ranks, the staff should take it serious. If the staff can't take the offense serious, it can't be that serious of an offense.

I do not believe the command was originally intended to be one of serious nature, hence the fact it's called '/pugsy'. The command IP Bans you, strips away your pex and gives a jokey ban reason. I'm not sure why it does that, this has been a command for a very very long while now. The banned party was informed as to why they were banned and their ban reason was changed immediately after to reflect the nature of the situation, it just seemed that the banning party, for some reason, believed typing /pugsy was much faster than typing /pex modify and then /ban. But hey, it shouldn't be used, not sure why it was, but we wanted to address the reasoning behind the message.