Your View: Freedom of Information

[Shalashask 1112]

Hi, so for my trial I am working on getting my project implemented, which I call "Freedom of Information." I've written down the basics of it below so hopefully you guys get a good idea of what I want to implement. The aim of this post is to gauge public opinion and see if people want this as well as any new limitations that may be brought forward. Also, do bear in mind this is just an initial idea that so far does not have any other staff backing at this moment in time. It is just an idea.
Please do take the time to read through this post before voting.

What is it?
My idea is, where there is a public demand, to make staff discord/skype and server logs available to them. This could be for a number of things, such as when a new controversial rule change is implemented, and the players want to know who wanted it and why. It could also be when players want to know why certain people have been given magics/artefacts out.

Why?
I feel players will become far more confident in their staff if we are more transparent with you. By letting you guys see why we have come to decisions, and who were behind them you will feel far more happy that we are actually listening to you guys, and that there is no bias amongst the team. With you being able to see this, I feel players will feel far more happy in general with our performance, and improve the relationship and communications between you and us.

I'm also a strong believer that anyone who takes a staff position should be accountable for their actions, and if they are not prepared to defend their actions to the public then they should not be staff. As a real life example, Members of Parliament in the UK are voted in by their constituencies. Their voting record in the house of commons is made public, so that the people who voted them in can see if they are actually representing their views. Now, I know this is somewhat of a false equivalence as a minecraft server isn't a country, and GMs aren't voted in by the players, but if an MP consistently goes against the will of their constituency, then they will be called to resign for not representing their constituencies views which they agreed to do when they stood for parliament. 

Who will it affect?
All staff teams. Any team that makes decisions or big changes in how they operate, and the public wants to know why will provide logs to the public about it. Obviously I see the GM team having a greater demand put on them for logs, and at the lower end the application team will probably rarely be bothered due to the nature of their work.

Examples?
GM team-
As I stated before, I can see the GM team being called upon to provide logs pertaining to new rule implementation, or economy changes. Also when there have been major role play occurrences such as coupe rulings. I've been in plenty of teamspeaks after these have occurred with angry players shouting about bias. By showing you guys the logs of these we can put your mind at ease that there was no bias made in these decisions. Not only coupe rulings, but also when there have been large controversial group bans that have left many players shouting bias.

LT team-
I'm a firm believer that the LT behave professionally and with the servers best interests at heart, but from my years on this server it has become apparent that there are quite a number people who believe the LT is a clique and only distributes magics to their friends. By allowing the public to see logs of when they decide who should get what magic and why, you will be able to see that the LT is not a clique and there is a firm basis behind their decisions when they distribute magic and magical artifacts. 


Limitations?
So here are some of the current limitations that I have come up with, as well as the input from other staff members

-Staff can be harassed or intimidated for their decisions. My plan to counter this would be to severely punish anyone caught trying to coerce a staff member to do their bidding. For example, threats of DDOS, pugsy etc. This is especially true for ban rulings. I have not been on the team for long but another staff member has pointed out that when some very popular players are banned, some of the involved GMs have been relentlessly DDOS'd. Therefore, logs pertaining to banning decisions should be heavily moderated, perhaps blacking out names so just the reasoning is displayed.

-Also on the matter of bans, when there is personal information involved such as from harrassment, sharing the logs of decisions made for banning the perpetrator can result in massive embarrassment for the victim, and should be kept private.

-LT/ET future world events. A lot of these are best kept secret just because it's not really fun for the players if they know what is going to happen at the next end of map event, as well as people metagaming where events may occur.

-Not all decisions are made purely on discord or programmes where it is easy to copy and paste logs. Some meetings can occur in discord voice channels, skype calls and teamspeak.

-When regarding controversial topics such as villain blacklists, some staff may not feel comfortable expressing their opinions that go against the general consensus. Staff members may also start tip toeing with language to avoid upsetting certain groups. 


TL:DR?
On reasonable request, give access of discord/skype/server logs to the players of staff discussion when a major server decision has been made.


I have created a poll to gauge feedback on what I consider to be the main points of this idea. I welcome all and any feedback. 



 

[Vetren54 368]

I think this is a good idea to create more accountability for the GM and Admin teams. +1

[Ford 1996]

who watches the watchmen?

 

WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!

[_pr0fit 3084]

Well, this would either make the server more at ease, or make us even angrier, one or the other, it depends on how competent and professional the staff is in a private environment.

[Novastral 582]

+1 shekel has been added to your goodgoyim bank account

[Chorale__ 2147]

I think that non-staff players have absolutely no business snooping their noses around in staff affairs. Period. That's all that i'm saying on the matter, don't try and counter it just to argue with me, please and thank you.

 

-1

[Shalashask 1112]

5 minutes ago, Chorale_ said:

I think that non-staff players have absolutely no business snooping their noses around in staff affairs. Period. That's all that i'm saying on the matter, don't try and counter it just to argue with me, please and thank you.

I don't want to argue, I'd just like to hear your reasoning a little more. Do you think this kind of attitude may contribute to people wanting to see more staff transparency? 

[kingnothing 571]

10 minutes ago, Chorale_ said:

I think that non-staff players have absolutely no business snooping their noses around in staff affairs. Period. That's all that i'm saying on the matter, don't try and counter it just to argue with me, please and thank you.

 

-1

0

 

But what value is there in keeping things hidden, realistically. With the exception of "surprises" which get leaked by loose lipped staff without fail anyways, I cannot think of a "staff affair" that is not in at least indirect relation also a player affair and something players deserve to know.

[zaezae 1098]

I think the main effect of this policy would make staff not share unpopular opinions or perspectives, tip-toe with their word choice instead of worrying about the contents of their ideas.

 

I really don't believe this would do much more than make certain players unhappy with a decision become extremely pedantic. 

 

I think statements or hearings are better options. 

[Vaynth 3005]

Awesome idea. It's fitting for players to be involved in large changes to the server and to see the reasoning behind staff decisions, rather than solely the outcome of their discussions. This is definitely something the community would appreciate.

I answered yes to the first two. Though I fully agree with Esry's comment about ban and artifact discussions being made available only by request, as they typically only affect specific individuals. It's not necessary to have the logs public if someone directly involved in a ban discussion doesn't want them to be.

[Harri 4815]

I don't think full access to information is necessary because I agree with what Zaebos said. Partial access to useful info is good though.

[ski_king3 0]

This just straight up shouldn't be a thing. It will serve no benefit except to give players who will be angry regardless the tools to target staff members doing things they dislike. A huge -1.

[Sky 0]

Lets for argument sake say that 'Villain Applications' were being discussed, the team had to give their opinions on such and it came to a vote, with this in-place and if the logs were to go public, I personally cannot trust that all the genuine opinions of the staff members will become vocal. Why? It's a topic that is very contreversial around here, anyone who seems to be on one side or the other tend to get belittled for their opinion, and even more so when they are a member of staff, so I highly doubt all opinions from the staff will be completely genuine and if they are, this will just put a layer of doubt in many people's minds. The wording used will be changed, everything will be altered due to the thought of public image being everpresent at the back of their head. Some people are steadfast in their ways, I myself will give you my honest opinion on things one way or another, but we cannot sit here and pretend that all people are like this. It will only be used as a tool to prod and poke at staff members who hold opinions that go against those holding the sticks.

[Vaynth 3005]

2 minutes ago, ski_king3 said:

 

This just straight up shouldn't be a thing. It will serve no benefit except to give players who will be angry regardless the tools to target staff members doing things they dislike. A huge -1.

 

This idea allows players the opportunity to become part of discussions about changes to the server rather than only observe the outcomes. Targeting and harassing staff members or anyone for that matter, would result in punishment. Anger would only be present if the staff outright ignore the opinions of the player-base.

[ski_king3 0]

2 minutes ago, Sky said:

Lets for argument sake say that 'Villain Applications' were being discussed, the team had to give their opinions on such and it came to a vote, with this in-place and if the logs were to go public, I personally cannot trust that all the genuine opinions of the staff members will become vocal. Why? It's a topic that is very contreversial around here, anyone who seems to be on one side or the other tend to get belittled for their opinion, and even more so when they are a member of staff, so I highly doubt all opinions from the staff will be completely genuine and if they are, this will just put a layer of doubt in many people's minds. The wording used will be changed, everything will be altered due to the thought of public image being everpresent at the back of their head. Some people are steadfast in their ways, I myself will give you my honest opinion on things one way or another, but we cannot sit here and pretend that all people are like this. It will only be used as a tool to prod and poke at staff members who hold opinions that go against those holding the sticks.

0

 

 

Sky's point is a pretty good example of why this is a horrible idea.

 

Just now, Vaynth said:

This idea allows players the opportunity to become part of discussions about changes to the server rather than only observe the outcomes. Targeting and harassing staff members or anyone for that matter, would result in punishment. Anger would only be present if the staff outright ignore the opinions of the player-base.

0

 

 

It will force staff members to temper their opinions to those that will be agreeable to vocal aspects of the community that will harp on them if they make unpopular decisions or are justly harsh. The playerbase isn't ignored to begin with, and likewise, the vast majority of harassment goes unpunished. If harassment were punished, we'd see a ton more banned players.