The electors team needs easy way to check the voter's maturity. And I believe that checking it through forum is a better option in such case.
Why? you do not explain why, this can be easy to abuse, you can just ask a mature person to write your vote for you, this is how this can be abused.
I don't care about demand in such case.
So you literally don't care about the reality, you don't care about what actually matters, what people do, see you can say "I don't care about offer and demand (one implies the other) and you will simply fail, if you don't care about what people want you cannot compete and this is why things often fail, also ignoring demand is in general like one of the dumbest things people can do, makes sense for you to ignore it, since all of this won't be accepted because, there is no demand for it, people don't want a different system and most people don't have a problem with Tempus, I said this earlier, this discussion is pointless, people have problems with individual staff members, tehswordninja (might be prone to change in the future?), Wasted Time (at the end of the day, he is not that bad really) and well that is pretty much it.
I only care about having activity in the game itself and optionally forum.
You cannot have a truly active game without a community, without having more than the actual game for people to do, see, the big games, the ones that last years and such, they have communities, League of Legends, DOTA 2, CS GO, now you take games without communities, ones that fail to build that, they simply fail long term, people are going to prefer to play another game once they get used to PB2, because maybe they only see the same things, while on a Discord or whatever you can see other things people do, same for maps, of course the forums can work for this but it is just way slower, it is all about efficiency.
Anyway, most people don't care about the forum and care more about Discord than anything, I can just say that I don't care as well.
Removing official chats will boost activity in alternative private chats, but it doesn't matter as its audience won't be as big.
??????????????????????????
This makes no sense, it's audience will be just as big, PEOPLE STILL LIKE THE SAME THINGS, THEY KEEP THEIR DEMAND, the demand for it is higher, actually currently considering the state of PBC and such, people seem to be going towards more private chats and such to an extent, even back then that happened, xat.com and such in the early days of PB2, it matters.
If they don't use PB2 for gaming, they can leave, farewell.
A big amount of people in the past did not use PB2 for gaming, a lot of people used it for it's social aspect, just look at clans and such, which were extremely popular in 2011-2013, like the massive clans and such, they were a lot about communities, and to this day a lot of the game is that, and this is how you kill a game! removing what people like being related to the game (such as Discord and such) won't make them play the game, it will make them forget about the game even, if they get distant from it.
Example: people talk about players in the game being too toxic. I play the game myself and don't see any toxicity in it. So in this case just because I play the game myself I can tell that players who complain too much about toxcity are wrong. Seeing things for myself allowed me to understand it better and now my further judgement will be better. With better knowledge of what is happening in the game I can do a better choice in the election. Due to this reason I think it would be a good idea to require voters to play the game as well.
Straight up false, and I can easily show your mistakes, you believe that you can see everything, the PB2 community is toxic, mostly the approved/ranked community, in general very toxic players and such, these days less because there are less players, but they are still toxic, not to mention PL and such, and you seem to not play approved/ranked since you have 0 kills and 0 deaths and such, not to mention that, by playing you are limited by the time you play, you have to sleep and etc, and during that time, maybe the toxic players are active! but you miss them, this is just so wrong of a judgement.
Let me rephrase: due to not having the requirements details written yet, it's too early to judge what amount of players would match the requirements to become voters.
I asked you to write them out.
It's not hard to check the voters.
It is, the amount of posts made which have to be checked and such, not to mention how it can be abused (as I mentioned earlier).
Of course the electors will need more tools for that such as being able to check the playtime. And I prefer the election system over this idea for a reason I mentioned a couple of times: I want the system to rely on the current community opinion, not on a lifelong person or group of persons.
This system itself does not rely on community opinion (most don't seem to want democracy itself!), AND YOU SYSTEM DOES NOT, ok so, who will elect the elector team? the community, but how? how is it valid? how to know that? this is a big issue, not to mention this is also a big problem if those in the elector team go wrong, who will elect the elector team? Eric? who will check the maturity of voters? the current staff which supposedly are like bad or something? this is also a big problem of democracy, you can write constitutions and have rules and such, what matters is who applies them.
Please express yourself shortly, clearly, with better punctuation and without unnecessary details and names.
"dont be specific, write like i want you to write, without details i think are unnecessary (while i think they are necessary) and without... names? ridiculous
"You actually think" is what you actually think. Your thinking is not a fact, but just a guess.
Just like all of your guesses about this system and such, you make a positive assumption that they might seek more and more, while you don't know that, it is just a guess! while I am saying it is extremely unlikely, and it is, just ask them.
Discussion is not an always working option as I already said. If one person gets 101 votes, he is a winner and it's okay. It's how democracy works. "People leave the game because their candidate didn't win" is a very weird point.
Democracy sucks, this is one of it's flaws, just because it is the way it is written out it does not mean it is good management, you literally make 49% of people unhappy, good management?
Also I'd leave the game if some staff members won an election, I don't think they can, but I'd for real consider it, it is not a weird point, it is true.
For you it's not stealing. For me it's stealing despite of its direct definition.
It is not stealing, them someone looking at someone instead of you is stealing? then stryde-sniper having more plays than any other map is stealing? this is not stealing, YOU ARE NOT TAKING THINGS AWAY, this definition makes no sense and it just reaches an absurd, this is just plain ridiculous, I don't care about your definition because it makes no sense, it is not stealing, THE DEFINITION DOES NOT MATTER, THE CONCEPT I AM REFERING TO MATTERS.
Anyways please unpublish all of your maps and like delete your account because you are stealing your username, you are stealing time people spend on your maps, you are steaing your user ID and a ton of other things, you are also stealing this exact slot on the reply on this forum post, which well, I could've had it! so it is steaing.
Ridiculous.
Sure a more appropriate word would be better, but I'm not aware of what it is. If you don't like how the rule is described you can try to change it, if you don't, then please stop discussing it in the topic.
Just like you cannot change who rules the game, so I guess stop discussing it on the topic!!!
Map makers care.
Who cares if they care? also map makers are also objectively also players, so it kind of balances out if you think ab out it without subjective value as if they beleive their maps are better.
Staff cares. Staff cares about both groups: map makers and map players.
No, I am pretty sure tehswordninja doesn't care about both of them, not all staff cares, the only person who cares is probably Stryde (who might just care about that rule himself because of the stryde-sniper clones).
They try to find the balance between their interests and it's their job.
Why? this is not their job, not a balance, what the deliciously exquisite pizza sauce? their job is applying rules, not caring about the interests of like map makers OVER players, when there are more players, this is not balance, this is just ridiculous, you take your points far to such a level which just makes them completely out of touch with reality, you do this for everything, it's frustrating.
Someone not having creativity or wish is his own problem.
Just like map makers being mad at people who copy their maps, and just like you are at the current staff.
If he is too lazy or unskillful it doesn't mean we should let players steal map layouts from each other.
It is not about laziness and it is often a natural skill, HAHA THE HANDICAPPED DUDE IS UNABLE TO deliciously exquisite pizza sauce RUN HAHA HES SO LAZY AND UNSKILLFUL HAHA
It is not stealing, the other map still exists, it's copying, if I use the same word as you are using, am I stealing it? ridiculous.
What should I have learned from stryde-sniper discussion? Tell me, I'm curious how you see it.
I already explained all of it there, I guess you simply cannot learn anything, I should've gone with the opinions of others who told me arguing with you was a waste of time, they were right.
phsc wrote:What if Tempus or whatever staff member wants to be okay with the way he applies rules because it makes him happy instead of making the entire playerbase happy? is this good management? is this a good way to manage a product? it is literally the same thing, I did not make a forum topic about it because it would change nothing, the rule got accepted super quickly and most people probably would defend it, a few years ago I made one about how some map was a copy of another (I think it was a kubakuba base map) and people generally were in favor of it, nobody cares about logic in this game.
Inappropriate example.
Nope, are people supporting your democracy topic?
Your topic, indeed, would probably change nothing because people support this rule.
Fallacious, Staff did not care about the views of others, just of fellow staff and such.
But you can suggest more objective definitions and details to help staff improve it. So if you really care you should do it. Complaining about it in this topic won't change much.
I did, not on forum topics (because nobody reads the forums), and nothing happened, just like nothing will out of this.
Did it hurt anybody? No.
Yes it did, people made maps for approval with balance based on modified weapons, they spent their time and such with it, also, copying maps hurts people? if you think this is not hurting, then the time and things people get out of their maps should also not be.
Was this used to approve inappropriate maps with bad intentions? No.
Intention does not matter, the result does, but this is fallacious as in, what I am saying is that THE RULE CHANGED AND NOBODY REALIZED THAT FOR OVER A YEAR, it does not matter what rule, yet the method it was changed.
Was this issue solved when found out? Yes.
It was not, people who made such maps that were based on custom weapons never got them approved, I am pretty sure everybody adapted, but I am pretty sure the original balance for such maps was better, and this issue was not solved yet by the way, maps still cannot have modded weapons, but after the full rework of ranked they iwll.
Was this issue a big deal and a proof of how the staff can sneak into the rules to fool the whole community? No.
FALLACIOUS, you are taking two different phrases and answering them in the same way, while it was actually, this was not a big deal, BUT IT IS A PROOF OF HOW STAFF CAN SNEAK INTO THE RULES TO FOOL THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, it was not intentional, BUT IT HAPPENED.
Please remove all unnecessary details and get to the point related to the election system. Keep it short and clear please.
Have you ever read a book in your entire life? people don't take away details, who says they are not necessary? you? I don't care about your view on it, I think they are necessary inherently otherwise I would not have written them out.
phsc wrote:Another thing, you mentioned electing people every year, why not just elect people once people have problems with the system or when there are good candidates? keep the election poll constantly going with a minimum value of time, and just allow people to constantly vote, and remind them from time to time, a big problem of democracy is how short-term ideas give more votes than long-term ones, which ends up making keynesianism and like in general printing money popular, because it boosts the economy short term, but long term it is a disaster and a snowball, but who cares, because the elected person is not there, this in PB2 could maybe be a rework of rules and such near the end of the election, so people see "wow they are doing work! lets vote on him" before the results are shown, this can easily be abused.
It would create too many unnecessary troubles for the elected team, the electors and the community.
This is fallacious, it is not unnecessary trouble, it is necessary, if people change their minds, it is objectively more efficient to change it sooner than later, haha yeah I dislike WINNER OF ELECTION, hmmm I guess I have to wait like one year! what if this person is unable to get power to impeach the dude out because maybe people don't care, but also don't like it? just like in most democracies, take Bolsonaro in Brazil, a lot of people don't like him, he won, not by much, is he going to be impeached? no because people just don't care, but if there was an election, the results would be different (as his approval rate got lower and lower).
Such as constant controlling and checking of the voters by the electors, the elected team not feeling confident about tomorrow
Haha yes, checking a poll daily, must wait one year to gather all votes and such! haha yes yes, FEELING CONFIDENT, you should never feel confident about tomorrow buddy, what if there is an impeachment and such? if you are on the line where you might go out, something is not alright.
the community members who picked one candidate today, but can lose him tomorrow due to unexpected circumstances and election process.
Just like he can the year after! it is literally making the system more effective, showing it's flaws in an easier way, you want to comfort staff instead of make the competent and adaptative to the community, funny, straight up ridiculous.
If you want to continue arguing about your idea, please explain better how would your system work and what are its key elements and people.
There is no argumentation, you showed no real flaws about it, I showed many about your system and you seem to ignore them to an extent.
Please get to the point. What are you trying to tell and why?
You lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying, literally, you cannot understand the tragedy of the commons, holy shit, I give up about this, not everybody can learn chaos theory or whatever, you cannot learn the tragedy of the commons PB2 edition, ok.
Please express yourself shortly and clearly. What are you trying to tell and why? How is this point related to the election system and what is your goal?
Do you have some problem? it is relevant because maybe all of this system is irrelevant because a new one will be applied, all of this discussion, or maybe people can use their knowledge about the future to shape things in ways we cannot check for their own gain, and infinite other possibilities, holy shit it is extremely frustrating to talk to you, you literally don't understand anything, this is why people probably don't discuss with you, I actually went out and explained some of these concepts to some people and they get it, yet you don't, it's amazing.
The division of labor in short is when a guy does a job he is capable of and does not do the other job he is not capable of in order to make the work over a product be more efficient. Correct? If so, what is your suggestion again?
IN YOUR SYSTEM THEY ALL DO THE SAME THING AND THEY HAVE NO REASON TO GO TO WORK ON WHAT THEY ARE BEST AT, INSTEAD THEY CAN PICK WHATEVER THEY WANT, EVEN IF IT IS BETTER FOR THE INDIVIDUAL STAFF MEMBERS IS IT BETTER FOR THE GAME? I'm starting to think this is some argumentation strategy where you act like you don't understand things and just keep... doing this, while you did understand it but don't see how obvious it's PB2 application is and how IT ALREADY HAPPENS.
If someone is only capable of gathering feedback but he is absolutely unskillful about everything else, I don't see a reason to have him on the team.
And this is why the staff-community interaction sucks, this was just an example tho, he can be good at other things, but there are quite a few people who I think don't pass the criteria for anything else and are currently in staff, and they are not useless, they are just not useful for their current function, I don't care about what you think about if they should be on the team or not tho.
Those who write rules and apply them can do this job themselves during their staff duty or in other free time, without having an extra guy for that need.
??????
YES THEY NEED TO HAVE BOTH SKILLS, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WRITE VERY BAD RULES AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY BAD AT APPLYING RULES, THESE PEOPLE GET IGNORED
First of all, please stay calm while talking, otherwise people will not listen to you and moreover they may consider you an immature opponent.
It's better not to listen than to listen and not understand anything, just like happens with you, maturity or not is irrelevant, it is just an ad hominem not to argue.
No need for caps, no need for swearing. Be polite and nice or just don't argue at all. I spent this week on you not to listen to your offesnive speech. Maybe if you expressed yourself better there wouldn't be any misunderstanding.
Just filter everything out and look for the arguments, the rest is irrelevant, I don't want to be polite with you because it is frustrating to argue with you, it makes me angry, literally, but you keep on going with this dumb ideas and your dumb views of the game, I did express myself better earlier, and you literally did not learn anything, I actuall changed my approach and it did not work, so I guess I will go back to what I naturally prefer.
Now I repeat the question: why is it needed to have a strict written in some code division of labor (if that's what you suggest) if the current way of how the staff team operates where all staff members do all the tasks together in rotation can cover the whole site and ensure the needed level of work quality?
I explained this multiple times already, because some people would rather do some things instead of others, it is more fun to moderate the Discord chat than ingame, so that happens, the current way things work does not operate everything in an efficient way, this is why there is toxicity in PB2 and even on the Discord, there is much more to this, inclduing timezones and such, efficiency is hard to achieve, making sure 5 people are not doing the same thing and instead they are doing other also important things is objectively more efficient.
Of course with the condition if admin told the team to cover the whole site despite of the amount of active online moderators. In such case they would rather think this way "Will some of you guys do it? No, ok. I'll do it then. Because I don't want to get punished by the administrator." In other words: why is it important to have it if it already works?
Why is it important to have democracy when the current system works?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT EFFICIENT OR OPTIMAL, for deliciously exquisite pizza sauce sake do you even realize your argumetns and how they apply to the same things you say? is this you just adapting your points to keep this going or what? apply the same exact argumetns in other things and you refute yourself, holy shit, this is so annoying, the system does not work otherwise this discussion would not be going on, a good example is, MAYBE some people are not very good at judging who should join the team or not, and those who are do not deal with this aspect of the game, which is important as deliciously exquisite pizza sauce, another example is the lack of moderation on ranked matches for things as basic as farming which allowed a ton of YrN members to farm and then only when Stryde joined the team he was able to end that, mostly because - as far as I know - some dude told staff about what was going on, is this not a problem?
The fact that the current team cannot/does not want to cover the whole site only shows the incompetence of the administrator who is not strict enough toward his team.
????????????
This is literally what I am asking for to an extent????????????????
I really don't understand this anymore.
If I misunderstood you again, please explain what you are trying to say in a short and polite manner.
Polite or not is irrelevant.
I wouldn't hire people who are only capable of writing texts, but not capable of communication or doing very basic and easy staff tasks like warning and banning people.
Why? if that is their only service... what next, you won't hire a mathematician who can't cook? one is not related to the other.
Such people who are not sociable enough could cause troubles for the elected (or not elected) team's and administrator's reputation. They may argue a lot and be disrespectful, which would cause harm to staff-community interaction.
And this is why they stay far from the others!
As for the rules changes I was talking about slow changing over time overall, but not in specific period of time like now. Also I myself don't consider rules writing a hard task that can only be carried out by the most competent people.
And this is why most rules suck and there are discussions about them!
Sure it takes a bit more knowledge about the game, but not a lot. Either way it's up to the staff administrator to decide to have a specific guy who writes rules on the team or not.
Making good rules requires actual knowledge of real life legislation and also decent knowledge about logic, something I am pretty sure nobody on the staff team knows, and even then, with this knowledge and such, RULES OFTEN STILL FAIL, the quality of the rules you want is very low really.
phsc wrote:This straight up makes no sense, he would get the knowledge if told, simple as that? lets say there is a rule that is "people cannot have [DARK CLAN] in their name", and people instead add "[DC]" do their name, create a rule "people cannot have anything related to DARK CLAN in their name", and well, the tags are gone (this is like an extremely dumb rule, don't take it seriosuly, it is an example), the writer of the rules might not get to know that, but if it happens... the moderator would tell him, this point is so... strange? if the dude who writes the rule thinks its not a problem, well, maybe it is not? discussion and logic would solve this, and my bet is on the person with most knowledge, who should be the one who writes the rule (also who writes the rule probably could also be a moderator! who knows?).
You missed the point. I was saying that if some staff member does not get enough experience in some certain activity himself, his judgement may be flawed which could cause unwanted problems and unwanted disputes between staff members.
I think this is not what you said at all and this might be you kinda moving the goalpost but ok ok.
Example (a bad one): The rules writer, who doesn't spend enough time in multiplayer, writes a rule "no glitching through walls on purpose" because he thinks that abusing game flaws may harm game's reputation. The rules applier, who spends a lot of time in multiplayer, thinks this rule is bad because glitching makes the game more fun and enjoyable for players. The rules applier tries to explain to the rules writer that this rule was a bad idea, but rules writer disagrees with him because he didn't see or tried such activity himself to understand how important it is. This would lead to a pointless and time consuming despute, which could have been avoided if the rules writer spent enough time in multiplayer himself to gather the needed experience to make his judgement more correct.
And this is where the rules actually define things, fun or not should not be relevant, what if farming is fun? should it be allowed? HEY DUDE GO TRY OUT FARMING, is this good?
Of course completely arbitrary rules fall into this, also isn't it kind of obvious that someone who applies for PB2 staff will have EXPERIENCE IN GAME, I'm talking about other things, like experience with talking to people, or experience with map approval, actually playing the game is quite a basic requirement, or at least having knowledge on that.
Even then, it is not relevant, glitching for approval maps is a thing that is constantly checked for and considered negative by literally everyone on the approval team as far as I know because it is an exploit which is unfair because it depends on a ton of things which are absurdly hardly to control, like running the game at low FPS, high ping and poor syncing.
This is why the staff member, especially the one who writes rules, should be experienced in all possible game activities, do different tasks in rotation, but not just one or few. Simply telling the rules writer something via discussion and logic may not change his mind because the person lacks personal experience which is more important when it comes to changing opinion about something.
Ok, but here is the thing, it being fun and such is not relevant, your example is very, very bad, and I did not get the point.
Same goes to any other activity: chat moderation, forum moderation, map approval, etc. This is why having all staff members doing many tasks in rotation (like how it happens now, with the exception for rules writing and map approval) is better than having strictly written division of labor - each individual staff member would be more experienced overall and would be able to do his job better.
This is fallacious, division of labor can still be applied even when all members have high skill, you are taking a thing that is allowed under division of labor and saying it is intrinsic to division of labor, while it is not, objectively division of labor would still be more efficient even if all members have all skills, and even then, whoever writes the rules does not to have experience socially, and whoever applies them does not to really have any experience with... anything really, just apply them, not that hard, of course there is a minimum line, like actually having played the game, this is obvious and under the current criteria, also if your criteria are so high and such, you literally won't be able to find enough people to make a decent team, literally, mostly if you take people to waste with the ridiculous elector team idea.
It doesn't take to be a great map maker or great professional to be the one who approves maps. It doesn't take a lot time to understand how map approval works and what maps are suitable for approval.
It actually does, very few people are good at this, just go check the approval requests and see the maps submitted, most maps look like people did not even read the criteria, and they say that they did on the map request post template.
I think any staff member is capable to do it if he spends some time learning the approval requirements and checking previously approved maps. So this job can be done in rotation as well.
Yes, time, and infinite resource, also competence, do you really think that someone like tehswordninja or mr jaks nes will magically be able to do good judgements if they spend time learning a thing? there is a line for this all, maybe for approval, but not for other things such as writing rules, and this does not mean this can be done in rotation, you literally did not get my point about how some services can be more appealing than others and how 5 people doing the same thing is not efficient while other aspects of the game lack moderation, just like happens currently.
As for the rules writing - they are usually changed after discussion with all staff members, so each staff member indirectly writes rules.
No, literally, no, you seem to lack experience with staff.
For chat moderation, forum moderation and game moderation - these tasks are pretty much the same and if you are capable of doing one of these you are usually capable of doing the other one.
They are not the same, forums are way, way more boring and this is why a lot of people don't check this, Discord is more flashy and real time, and ingame can be quite boring as well, this is why staff is generally way, WAY more active on Discord, it is not about capacity, it is just that, people will go towards what they think is best, and not what is more effective externally.
Time is limited, so what? You are not forced to spend more time on PB2 than what you want to.
Your criteria for staff are so ridiculous, you literally ignore if things are possible/viable or not, this makes sense, after all you did write this post.
If someone is obviously bad at something - he does not do this something in rotation unless if he learns how to do it. But this again comes to what is your proposal about division of labor and why all (or most) tasks cannot be done in rotation by all staff members who want to, like how it happens now.
You really did not understand it, you could pick multiple tasks even if you want, but it is better to have someone above you to choose that in an objective way, like, Ditzy is good at applying rules and such, both ingame and on the forums, ok, now Wasted is good at doing that on the Discord, and he should be good at doing that ingame as well, but as far as I know he does not, this is a waste of opportunity, because often users who did get banned from Discord who are extremely toxic still are able to play PB2.
The thing is: with the election system it would be easier to kick the incompetent person out, while in your system we need to beg Eric for changes every time we are not happy with the previous staff (administrator).
Who will kick the incompetent elector? or the corrupt elector? uuuh... other electors? what if all of them are incompetent? and what if there are like, only two or one? it will not be easier to kick the incompetent person, it will be harder, it would be exactly like kicking Tempus out, the admins maybe yeah, but if Doom or Kiriakos start doing an absurdly poor job, they could go out just like an admin could, this is literally redundant.
And this also comes to what definition of competence each of us uses. For me a competent staff is a guy who is nice to people
You don't have to be nice to apply rules to someone, do you also want to give care and love to a rapist?
but who knows the rules and can apply them. The election itself would ensure that the candidate is liked (which means he is nice to people), and the electors will ensure that he knows the rules and can apply them. So the election system can solve the incompetence problem.
Is being liked by 51% and disliked by 49% being liked? because I am pretty sure some of the people I think you have a problem with could pass under the election system, maybe not be considered mature and such, and it does not solve the incompetence problem, if people are incompetent, they... still are incompetent, if someoe pulls out a sks move and leaks all staff communication and such, they will be kicked under the current system and well probably also under yours (really hard to know?), just like someone who breaks some very obvious rules would be as well, but here is the thing, just like how nazism got to power and how fascism works, get the 51% to love you and the 49% to hate you, democracy, is this competency? good management?
No, in election system case all known mature community members can gather together in chat and after discussion pick 3 persons out of them, then talk to Eric to make them the electors.
Once again, it requires a central person to say, WHO IS MATURE? who picks that? the electors don't exist, the community is not mature to pick them, Eric is too detached, the current staff would probably pick the current staff, nice system bro.
So we have people who reorganize things in this system and Eric only has to do two operations: give the selected electors needed tag and after the election is over replace the old team with the new team.
Just like now, actually Tempus can give people their ranks, so it is even more efficient.
But what about your system? In your system suggestion you want someone who has to make everybody reapply. Who is that someone and what procedure should he follow to make everybody reapply?
Eric? whoever Eric thinks should run the team? who will select the mature members in your system?
What are the requirements for the reapplied members? Who will reorganize "who does what"? What will happen if the team becomes incompetent, but Eric is okay with it like how it happens now? These are the questions that need answers in your system.
Who defines who is mature in your system? this is an inherent aspect of all systems, it requires a central person, you jsut keep pushing it to other people and other people, so we have the people who vote, but these are dumb, so we have the admins who are elected, but people select them so that is dumb, so we have the elector team, who are selected by the mature members, who selects the mature members? the only answer is Eric or someone he trusts.
In election system if some moderator receives bad feedbacks, the elected administrator would take care of him, otherwise he may lose reputation and not win the next election. In case if elected administrator becomes obviously bad at his job, the voters may initiate the process of impeachment which would work by similar to the election rules where verified voters would vote for or against impeachment.
What if the elector team is bad? this is what I've been asking for multiple posts.
Also, this is an extremely weak point of your system, there are limited people to join teams and people who can try to go for administrator, what if a part of someone's team is bad another isn't? this is inneficient, not to mention how one single administrator is also inefficient if multiple people agree with the same things, discussion would be healthy, I mentioned all of this multiple times.
In the current system or the system you propose there are no real tools for the simple users to actually affect staff team's behaviour.
There is Eric for everybody under him, Tempus for everybody under him, the other admins for everybody under them, and that is it.
Just like in your system, Eric (whoever picks who is mature or not) and hwoever is under him, mature people who select the elector team, the electors who control the admin, the admin who controls the moderators, the big thing is that this is inherently inefficient because if someone has control over someone udner them but not all, this is straight up nonsense, since they do have the control? but it is just indirect.
If one of the electors becomes bad, other electors will ask Eric to replace him after they gathered enough proof of him misbehaving and support of the voters, and after picking the new person as the replacement.
Ok, if one of the admins become bad, other admins will ask Eric to replace him... literally the same thing, but under your system the electors are pretty much useless, the mature members are picked magically (also why have the mature members not all be the elector team? and who will select them? isn't the criteria for the elector team being mature anyway? super inconsistent).
The election system is sure not perfect, but it seems to be better than what you propose. Also there aren't many perfect system, if any, but there are ones which are better and ones which are worse.
I already explained, it is overly complicated, arbitrary, ineficient, and it literally changes basically nothing.
In your system it will require Eric to dig into things to find out what is going on each time we want a new staff. It will require him to talk to a lot of people. It will require a lot of people to talk to him.
Not really, if an admin deliciously exquisite pizza sauce up, Tempus or Eric take care of him, it does not require it to be Eric, I said ERIC AND WHOEVER HE PICKS/TRUSTS for this reason, currently it is Tempus, and it will very likely be Tempus forever.
And it all will most likely end up setting someone like Tempus as administrator. It would be time consuming and confusing with questionable results.
Your system ends up with... a ton of people who literally do nothing and... uh... Tempus/Eric who are detached from the community to an extent who have to pick... the mature members? who can just apply things I said before?
In my system it only requires him to change the tag of one guy to "administrator" once per year. Sure there may be cases when he needs to interfere in my system as well, but these cases would be rare. Besides he would be in touch with the electors and key community members who will be his main source of news, so even interfering won't be too complicated and confusing as there are always key people to communicate with.
That is not all, first that administrator gets a ton of power, because he would have to make people moderators and such, and that power can easily be abused (it can see account IPs, it can see a ton of other information as well), which is actually dangerous, maybe even passwords, admins can also reset passwords and such, what if a mass attack for that happened? what if that happened exactly when people got mad at the admin and he thinks he will lose power? just like... when the democratic leader and the army join forces and now we have Venezuela!
You cannot know the true intent of people as well, and how they react to some things, not to mention how power changes, your system is slow and not efficient, mine completely depends on people, not to mention I mentioned 3 systems, 1-2 is not what I truly want but it is the closest I can get for what I truly want to be practical, you literally ignore the 3rd.
Your system basically is moving the goalposts to more and more mature people while it is just a circlejerk of a democracy which still, at the end, is the same as my or the current system.
The electors don't have direct power over community, so they do not determine the future of staff-community interaction. They only make the election system run smoothly, while the staff team are always in rotation each year, unlike how it happens now with Tempus always being in charge and how it would happen in your system with the other or same administrator.
Hey admin, we all will vote for you if you give us all the IPs of all PB2s users and such, ok?
See the corruption and how it can be easy? and if they make the election not run smoothly, well, is there really an election? what will save things? Eric, see, any flaw in your system is a ton of work, under the current the only problem are those at the top, and even if there is a big problem it is pretty small.
I explained my point above. Now can you answer how does "public support" would work in your system? You didn't answer that.
People request, vote and whatever, this can be ignored or not, simple as that, I actually explained this, the feedback team and such, it is like yours, people might want paulstin to rule the game but that will be ignored, just like dumb requests will be, the staff team deals with that, pretty simple, this would greatly help people see the approval rates of staff, how some like tehswordninja are very disliked in numbers could help.
It's not lottery. The verified voters who are mature enough would pick the cadidate who is not a 10 years old immature kid and the electors would check if the candidate knows all the rules and capable of applying them. It's not even close to being lottery. Do you know the definition of that word?
You did not understand what I said, there is always the case nobody mature goes for admin, I don't doubt this happens because your criteria are ridiculous and pretty much everybody would end up on the elector team, the simple way you seem to define maturity, and being able to be logical and nice and all of that, it is just out of touch with the reality of a flash game, not to mention that the elector team has limited knowledge and such and well, if the 13th dude on the election is the one selected, don't you think people would get mad at that?
For real, think about this, write out a list of people who fit your criteria, write your criteria out, I won't discuss unless you do both, because you can just move goalposts around and around.
People applying or not is pretty damn random because there is a lot that goes on their lifes, admin is a very high position, it requires time and such, something even some of those you think are the best probably don't have, Nyove will have to join the army soon as far as I know and he did not even want to join staff, the OFFER of good people is very low, extremely low, you seem to really have trouble with OFFER and DEMAND, which gets to my next point...
I do think this discussion is going nowhere too. Maybe we stop it? How is stryde-sniper related to this topic and what points did I admit exactly? Tell me.
The general lack of understanding how offer and demand work, also understanding the concepts I write out which can be quite relevant to the discussion, also keeping the same points and such even tho I have pretty much made the same argumetn like 3 times and you kinda ignore them to an extent, also how you have this view that is completely detached from the community or reality and such, you are suggesting a democratic system which is not even accepted by... anyone, I've not seen a single person come to me and say "yes this is a good system", none which I've read said that (their points are very obviously weak) and all, kinda similar to the stryde-sniper one to an extent.
phsc wrote:Also a thing I forgot, for the admins to go wrong, pretty much the elector team has to be incompetent, or those voting also must be, so it is likely that a full system failure happens or everything has to change, that also includes the arbitrary rules that set up the democracy, just like constantly happens in real life at times.
If the electors team is bad, it gets replaced. If all voters are bad, then we go back to the default Eric-Tempus system. But this all is highly unlikely to happen. Chance of it is too small.
I don't think this is that low, I think your system is just too utopic and assumes many variables which really do not exist, the big issue is efficiency and numbers, for PB2.5 maybe this could MAYBE work but as far as I know there will be big staff changes and such, so it kind of might not work compared to that.
But here is the thing, think about it, what game has a staff team that is democratic? it kind of makes no sense because inherently the system is centralized and such, because it is a game, not to mention how offer and demand works as democracy, and you can see this as numbers, profit, amount of players and such, the free markets and such show that things work and do not, and if things fail, the game fails, to an extent PB2 fell for that I'd say, but I don't think democracy would solve anything, at the end of the day, as much as I dislike to say this, the issue is Eric.